Gay recruitment drive by RAF

[threepointonefour]

Originally Posted by Melchett01

I seem to recall that there are some species of frogs & fish that can change sex if the ratios of M-F changes - prevents the species dying out.

And without sounding like a Gyppo lizard lover, wasn't there recently a female Komodo Dragon in Chester Zoo that 'fertilsed' her own egg which actually hatched (or will do?)? I believe the phenomenon has a scientific/biological name?

Originally Posted by Melchett01

But I do object to having this sort of object rammed down my throat when it is something that works only in one direction

edited for comic effect ...


Sorry, cheap shot. (Not cheap as in 'money' shot, just ... oh, I'll get my coat)

[Billy Whiz]

Eiggy

Thank you for your attempted dissection of my post. In answer to your first question/statement, “Didn't you ever hear of the one in ten,....obviously not”, I am fully aware of the origins of that statement. It came from a report called “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” first published in 1948 by the American researcher, Alfred Kinsey. His subject group was 5300 white males and based on detailed interviews with them all he concluded that it was impossible to determine the number of persons who are "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It was only possible to determine behaviour at any given time and he believed that at any one time 10% were homosexuals. That figure was based on a very small sample for such a strong conclusion and in addition suffered from the limitations of socio-economic, geographical and racial exclusions. Almost all subsequent research has put the figure as lower than that and 3% would probably be nearer the mark, but unsurprisingly the 10% figure is widely disseminated from LGB circles.

You are entitled to call me whatever you want but it would help your case to have some knowledge about the subject matter of the thread. You are clearly well-versed in all matters homosexual, but when it comes to the RAF you should maybe read up a little more on the subject before posting. Your statements, “I don't claim to know what fast jet squadron is” and “What the hell is intamate about war/fighting?” are frankly so crass as to be embarrassing. When attempting to have credible discussion on RAF matters it would be reasonable to expect the participants have a basic grasp of their subject matter - you clearly do not.

Tim McLelland

Thank you for your views which are extremely well presented. Nonetheless, I would be surprised if you have ever been in the RAF. If you had you would know that my statements are absolutely correct about the unacceptable nature of homosexual practice among RAF personnel. You would also know that I am completely correct in saying I virtually never came across it in any shape or form. You might not like it but that was the way it was at the time I left in the mid-1990s. I have no reason to believe it has significantly changed now but others may tell me differently.

Although you write eloquently you are completely wrong on many issues. You suggested there was no point in discussing this with me as being a bigot I would never change my mind. Stereotyping is always the last resort of the zealot. I would suggest it is you that is the bigot as your rants about the church, religion and everyone who may ever disagree with you show. You have simply not accepted that many men (not some – many!) simply do not want to be around homosexuality in any form. These men are not just a few ‘religious nutters’ or poor souls in need of re-education but come from all sections of the community. Incidentally, I do not know which Bible you think is ambivalent about homosexuality, but any one I have seen is overtly opposed to it. You will also no doubt be aware that not only are the Christian and Jewish ‘holy writings’ opposed to it, so is the Koran and other religious documents from the world’s major religions. You can argue they are wrong, but it is incorrect to state they have no view on the subject. Sir Ian McKellen, the great hero of the homosexual world, was not so long ago to be found on stage ripping pages of the Bible which opposed homosexuality. You would imagine the reason he was doing so was related to the fact that some aspects of the contents were not too ambivalent! The problem he faces is that when he buys another one then the same pages need ripping out again!

In your various posts you have made several references to the fact that somehow the modern world has increasingly come round to your point of view and the old guard like myself are mercifully few in number. Bad news for you mate – there are a whole lot of people out there who disagree with you but are not spending their waking hours trying to make black look white. The fact you desire to do something and indeed that there may be some other creatures out there doing it somewhere on the planet does not make it right. There are people out there who want to have sex with animals, close relatives or dead bodies. Presumably you would regard these practices as not befitting RAF personnel. Sadly for the pro-gay lobby, they have yet to grasp the terrible truth that large gatherings of adult males generally speaking do not want homosexual practice in their midst and will go to great lengths to avoid it.

I will not be posting any further on the subject as clearly it causes upset to a lot of people when they hear the truth. The defence of our country has ultimately always boiled down to a few brave men and women willing to make extraordinary sacrifices for their buddies. Time will tell if that indefinable yet vital cohesion on which battles are won and lost can exist in the future the way it has in the past. Perhaps more worrying is the question of whether there will be a country worth defending.

[Mmmmnice]

As I watching this thread develop I'm not sure which group I'd like least to work with - the outright bigots - the terminally confused - the hopelessly illiterate? Either way I don't worry at all about the well turned out, gay flight commanders who gobble (whoops) up staff work...........can I go to hell for that one please?

[Bronx]

Billy

You suggested there was no point in discussing this with me as being a bigot I would never change my mind.

I guess Tim was using the Proon definition of bigot. 'A person who disagrees strongly with one's own strongly held views' or 'A person who doesn't accept that all changes in society are necessarily for the better'.
It would be interesting to know how many posters here are or have been in the military.
B.

[An Teallach]

Billy
I hate to tell you this but the great majority of heterosexual men do not spend their time thinking that

homosexuality is perverse, immoral, unattractive and just plain wrong.

What time they do spend thinking about sex, they spend thinking about women. Most well-adjusted heterosexual men's views of homosexuality amount to not much more than "It's not my bag!" or "more rampant totty for me!"

For someone with such a visceral loathing for homosexuality, you seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time studying the subject. It is usually the self-loathing closet homosexual who has to bolster the control of his own desires with a scaffold of quasi-moral (usually inspired by some type of God-bothering) thoughts.

Incidentally, I was in in the mid-90s and certainly don't recognise the picture of the RAF that you paint.

[The Masked Geek]

Freedom of thought I believe it's called, one of those basic rights and labeling somebody a bigot or even trying the "Thou protesteth too much methinks" argument presented by Al Teallach won't change a person's opinion.

Personally, I find the thought of homosexual sex abhorrent but I don't waste too much time worrying about it.

Some of us think it's right, some of us think it's wrong. Others couldn't give a damn. Why not just leave it like that.

As for homosexuals in the RAF, I can only think of one that I know of and one that I've heard of and both have been considered decent enough guys.

[polomint]

Billy..

Hi Billy, was just reading your reply to Tim.

[QUOTE][Thank you for your views which are extremely well presented. Nonetheless, I would be surprised if you have ever been in the RAF. If you had you would know that my statements are absolutely correct about the unacceptable nature of homosexual practice among RAF personnel/QUOTE]

I am a lesbian who has been in the RAF for near on 7 years, and I have worked with many gay personnel it and, perhaps shockingly to you, I have never seen anyone have issues with it. I am also aware of many more gay ppl in the services, and most of 'them' can give banter as good as they get it. You seem to think way too deep into what people get up to behind closed doors and yeah, if you ask some people about gay practices, generally men, it makes them feel uncomfortable. But who the hell does? I dont go around asking straight people what they get up to behind closed doors!

So I'm gay, deal with it. I dont walk around with a big sign saying it, but I am. I enjoy my job and believe I do it well and respect the people I work with. Being gay has no bearing on anything work related at all.


Perhaps times have changed massively since you left Billy. All I know is since Ive been in, Ive never seen a problem with it.


Polo

[Bronx]

Originally Posted by The Masked Geek

labeling somebody a bigot or even trying the "Thou protesteth too much methinks" argument presented by Al Teallach won't change a person's opinion.

The objective of that old chestnut aint to change anyone's opinion. It's to stifle free expression of opinions by suggesting anybody who says anything critical must be a closet homosexual.
You often get the same tactic in discussions about immigration for example. People who call for stricter controls get accused of being racist so the issue don't get discussed freely.
Same goes for comments like "For someone with such a visceral loathing for homosexuality, you seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time studying the subject."
If you ain't read up about the subject you get accused of not knowing what you're talking about. If you have, it's suspicious.


B.

[talktothehand]

IMHO the facts are this - I joined a Service over 23 years ago that told us all that homosexuality was incompatible with service life. In one of my previous jobs I helped Court Martial Homosexuals and dismiss them from the Service. Air Marshalls and Knights of the Realm appeard on National TV saying things like 'Men don't like taking showers, with Men who like taking showers with Men' and we all healthy agreed amongst ourselves that allowing gay people into the military would destroy our ethos and ruin our operational effectiveness. Then came the decision to change (yes following a court case) and I along with many others predicted the worst. Well, along with these countless others, I couldn't have been more wrong! I cannot think of one incident which has resulted in any of the predicted doom and as far as the younger Servicemen and Women (our future) our concerned, this simply is not an issue. It's about time we all just moved on from this issue and concentrated on getting the best people for the job, regardless of their sexuality, colour or inside leg measurements.

[Tim McLelland]

Billy, I note your reply with interest and amusement. You're so wrong on so many levels it barely warrants the effort of even trying to correct you! However I should take this opportunity to mention the much-discussed question of what proportion of our society actually are gay. You described the origin of the "one in ten" slogan which is often accepted and while you're probably right that it was merely the fruits of just one piece of research, you fail to point-out that the subsequent "studies" which conviently produced a much lower figure, were all sponsored by political bodies which had direct connections with the Church. Quelle surprise. Even to this day, the poisonous Christian Institute peddles these figures plus new ones of their own, and even the most cursory investigation reveals that they are patently nonsense. That's not just my view - you can go and check-out the facts if you like.

In fact, for a homophobe, bigot, call yourself what you will, you'd probably be advised to stick with the one-in-ten figure, as every attempt to establish a truly representative figure suggests that it would probably be significantly higher, as the original research spectacularly failed to address the huge numbers of men who engaged in occasional encounters with other men but chose not to mention this, or to describe this as homosexuality.

But regardless of what figure you might care to choose, even the most blinkered individual knows that homosexuality isn't some passing fashion or a "lifestyle choice" as some particularly stupid religious leaders try to suggest. The inescapable fact of life is that a proportion of us are born gay, like it or hate it, and our only true choice is whether to accept who we are and get on with out lives, or hide the fact from ourselves and everybody else. Thankfully, we've reached a stage where growing numbers of gay men and women in the RAF no longer feel obliged to hide a fundamental part of their character because Billy - like it or not - your views are now shared only by an ever-decreasing minority of people. The vast majority of people in this country (regardless of the claptrap which is spewed-out by the Church to suggest otherwise) really don't think being gay is right or wrong - they simply accept that some people are and some people aren't. Surely, that's the way it should be, don't you think? I don't have a view on whether you're "right" to be straight so I really don't see why you should have a view on whether I'm "wrong" to be gay.

As for whether I'm in the RAF, I think you'll find I clarified this matter previously. I'm not in the RAF and never have been, but I've worked on countless book, magazine and other projects for over twenty-five years and I've always enjoyed the support of the RAF which has given me lots (and I do mean lots!) of access to RAF units and RAF people. I would venture to suggest that my position as an "outsider" has enabled me to meet a much wider variety of RAF people than you ever did. Likewise, as a gay man I also speak to other gay men and women who are in the RAF and as you might expect, their outlook is remarkably different to yours.

Do please offer us all some kind of concrete evidence that the widespread discomfort with gay issues that you describe does exist, as I would certainly be fascinated to know exactly where! I'm sure that despite the raher ill-advised MoD attempts to enforce political correctness on the RAF, the vast majority of serving men and women will make their own judgements on such issues whilst continuing to defend this country, and our right to have discussions such as these.

[jindabyne]

talkto,

At age 34, you joined how many years ago??

[brickhistory]

Originally Posted by Tim McLelland

As for whether I'm in the RAF, I think you'll find I clarified this matter previously. I'm not in the RAF and never have been,

So this wouldn't apply then.....
Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.

Originally Posted by Tim McLelland

but I've worked on countless book, magazine and other projects for over twenty-five years and I've always enjoyed the support of the RAF which has given me lots (and I do mean lots!) of access to RAF units and RAF people.

Ohh sir..............................

[Vage Rot]

Originally Posted by Billy Whiz

Eiggy

Perhaps more worrying is the question of whether there will be a country worth defending.

The most sensible comment I've seen on here in ages!!

[Tim McLelland]

Originally Posted by brickhistory

So this wouldn't apply then.....
Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Ohh sir..............................

Hmm, you've thrown that line at me before. Do you have some sort of problem with any half-articulate bloke actually saying anything of any interest on here, or do you just resent me in particular? Given my background and yours, I would have thought that my input/contrubutions would be rather more relevant than yours in any case, n'est ce pas?

[brickhistory]

Originally Posted by Tim McLelland

Hmm, you've thrown that line at me before. Do you have some sort of problem with any half-articulate bloke actually saying anything of any interest on here, or do you just resent me in particular? Given my background and yours, I would have thought that my input/contrubutions would be rather more relevant than yours in any case, n'est ce pas?

'Tis not my line.
And no, I've no problem with any half-articulate 'bloke.' Just thought the bit in your earlier post was a great straight line.........

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

The problem for the likes of Billy, as Bronx alludes to, is that after years of being backed into a corner the silent majority are now fearful of ever voicing an opinion. To have any thought with regards to any minority grouping, which does not fit with said grouping mindset has one immediately labelled as closet/bigot/racist/sexist etc etc

The mere suggestion that in the light of the July 7th bombing the police policy of increased scrutiny with regards to the Muslim community was right and proper and you would be shouted down and branded a racist.

You don't need to be rocket scientist to understand that the bombers that day were of Muslim persuasion and that, in light of our actions in the Gulf, the greatest threat to our shores at this time is from Muslim fundamentalism but it would make not a jot of difference to a huge swathe of this ethnic grouping who would simply denounce you as racist and in some quarters demand your death God help you if you drew a couple of harmless cartoons!

Unlike Billy I do not find the concept of same sex relationships as either unnatural or immoral but am slightly uncomfortable when presented with it in public, however I do find the mental picture the physical act paints extremely unappealing but probably in the same way the hetro sex act is perceived by some in the gay community.

Where I do take sides with him though is in with the thought that sharing accommodation and ablutions is an issue and is something I for one I would not wish to do, but for what I feel are justifiable and explainable ( is that a word?) reasons as opposed to religious or moral standing.

I am a normal heterosexual guy with normal heterosexual urges for want of a better descriptor, and as such presume, probably incorrectly that normal homosexual guys have the same normal homosexual urges. It is scientific fact that the average guy spends a good portion of his waking and sleeping day thinking about sex, as my wife will unhappily testify to

For me blonde hair or boobs works, the sight of which will normally have me acting in a normal professional manner but mentally meandering, and all of us have that "button" that those that attract us push, however if I were to share accommodation or ablutions with a gay guy how would I ever know, without referring to button presses and the inevitable sniggers, that maybe he could be having sexual feelings towards me, and this is what I would find most uncomfortable.

I am sorry if it makes me sound homophobic and I suspect someone will point out in a rather puerile way that I shouldn’t flatter my self, but using my own urges as my yardstick how would I ever know that the older, smaller chubby guy is exactly the button that floats my shower/dorm partners boat.

With the above in mind how would you suggest I rationalise my feelings should I be presented with the above scenario. Should I just grin and bear it, not something we expect our female colleagues to have to do or would it be right on my part to expect segregation which in turn would not further the solid working reliance that life in the military requires. I am not sure what the answer is and would appreciate any well intentioned guidance on this matter.

[An Teallach]

Bronx
Actually, in all the megs of bandwidth that have been expended on ‘gay’ topics on Pprune, Mr Whizz is only the third person I’ve suspected of being a lady who doth protest too much, despite many posters expressing ‘anti’ points of view. That is two less of the miserable species than I met in real life in the Service, including the then Queerhunter-General for the RAF (a P&SS Wg Cdr) and one of Talktothehand’s ‘Air Marshalls and Knights of the Realm’ popular (not) on another thread in this forum.

The self-loathing closet queen is not difficult to spot. Firstly, there is the general tenor of the shamefulness of homosexuality coupled with a pervasive concern about how the homosexual will be shunned by his peers if exposed. The closet queen holds a special hatred for the openly gay person, as we break the omerta.

The killer, though, tends to be the notion of what homosexuality is and the fixation on ‘unspeakable’ sexual acts. The notion of a loving relationship of which the physical side is merely a part is totally alien to these people. For them it’s all about gratification of sexual desires. Hence, openly gay people tend not to be the ones having a quickie in the Gents or the bushes; if we ‘get lucky’ or are in a relationship, we tend to go to bed with each other!

How many couples do you meet at a mess do where your immediate concern is

two of my squadron mates doing unspeakable things with each other - whether publicly or in private.

I’d suggest it’s a very strange character who, on meeting a couple (gay or straight), immediately concerns himself with thoughts of them going at it hammer and tongs – particularly in public!

The other common factor of these posters tends to be their total lack of wit or humour. This is a subject worthy of deep guilt and shame, not a subject for laughs.

Now, the actual subject under discussion was not the relative moral merits of being gay, or what forms of boudoir gymnastics gay people may or may not get up to. It was the laughable and patronizing discrimination in favour of gay people by the RAF, a matter I find a retrograde step and as objectionable as discrimination against gay people.

Personally, I wish the service would reduce sexuality to where it belongs: An exquisite irrelevance in a professional setting.

[Tim McLelland]

Always:-
I take your point and it's one that I've heard many times before. In essence, there is only one way to regard homosexuality and that is to adhere to the dictionary definition, without adding any further preconceptions.
Homosexuality merely identifies a person who is sexually attracted to a person of the same sex, in much the same way as "heterosexual" merely describes someone who is attracted to a person of the opposite sex. If you look at how much (or how little) that term might describe you, perhaps you'll see what I'm getting-at? What I'm saying is that the best approach is to turn the situation around on yourself and ask yourself what your relationship to females is like. I imagine that you don't lust after every woman you see, likewise I assume that you don't indulge in every possible type of perverse sexual athletics with your wife. I'm sure you're quite capable of being in a woman's company without having any sexual interest in her, or if you do, I imagine you're quite capable of keeping your thoughts to yourself.
So maybe you can see what I'm getting-at? The term "gay" is loaded with all manner of media-fed expectations which have no foundation in mundane reality. The horrible truth is that most gay men (and women) are just as dull as everyone else in or out of bed, and are no more likely to be sexual predators than you are.
I know what you're saying about the ultimate "straight guy's horror story" of finding himself in a shower with a gay guy (or something equally horrifying) but it's a myth; a gay bloke is no more likely to be eyeing-up your body than anyone else would and let's be er, straight about this, would it matter if he did? That would be like assuming that any girl that looks twice at you wants to get you into bed. The other point you really do have to consider is that you're making the sweeping assumption that unless you're informed to the contrary, all those guys you might already share a shower cubicle are all straight...
There is only one practical way to relate to a gay man and that's to regard him as a man who likes guys just as you like girls. It's that simple. The rest is merely an endless range of misconceptions, assumptions and fears which are fed by the media, the Church, bigots and idiots!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Tim,

We are definately singing off a different song sheet fella,

"I imagine that you don't lust after every woman you see".....not every women but most of them

"likewise I assume that you don't indulge in every possible type of perverse sexual athletics with your wife." ...........Never assume but out of interest define perverse for me because so long as it does not involve stuff that belongs in the toilet or is toooo painful there is a better than average chance we do it

"I'm sure you're quite capable of being in a woman's company without having any sexual interest in her....................if she is blonde or attractive or a good figure or dressed in an eye pleasing manner then too bloody right I will be sexually interested

"or if you do, I imagine you're quite capable of keeping your thoughts to yourself.........I am a true gentleman so keep all thoughts to my self pretty much all the time

"There is only one practical way to relate to a gay man and that's to regard him as a man who likes guys just as you like girls."

There is not one answer I given here that is tongue in cheek or in jest.........now do you see my, and certainly in my experiance most other guys dilemma

[Polikarpov]

Tim, I'd not take issue with much that you say but with "it's a myth; a gay bloke is no more likely to be eyeing-up your body than anyone else would", you would perhaps indicate that gay fellas are capable of displaying remarkable feats of mental self-restraint uncommon amongst the rest of us!

Most heterosexual women, I respectfully suggest, would not enjoy having to share facilities and reveal themselves to heterosexual blokes on a routine basis. Why is that? Is it just backward thinking; should they be more enlightened?

Whilst a utopia where every section of society is completely at intimate ease with everyone else may be a great ideal on paper, it's not really how the world works!