Gays in the RAF

[Tim McLelland]

Because it's a perceived difference, not a real one. Bit like racism.

[parabellum]

"Bit like racism"

And on that note, Tim, your entire argument, well presented though it may be, falls apart. There is absolutely no connection between homosexuality/homophobia and racism, not even a little thread.

[The Masked Geek]

Biologically, the male and female of a species are designed to couple, pass seed and reproduce....THAT IS WHAT THE ULTIMATE REASON IS, FOR PHYSICAL EXISTENCE ON THIS MORTAL COIL.

Same-sex coupling is abnormal-common, yes, normal, no.

To take this to the extreme to make a point:

Some people are attracted to the opposite sex - normal.

Some people are attracted to something else - be it animals, children, inanimate objects (one woman famously married the Berlin wall and got off on rubbing herself against it), the same sex, etc. - not the norm.

Now, before you go on to rant about peadophiles being sick and repulsive, it was not long ago that homosexuals were thought of as the same and, whilst I don't see opinion on peadophiles changing any time soon (and I'm not in favour of it changing) you can surely see that some sexual preferences are away from the norm and, therefore, deemed abnormal.

Afterall, a peadophile could live their life on the right side of the law and commit no abuse against children. Should their views be accepted as normal? Should they be accepted as just people or should we still maintain a "healthy" distrust of them?

As for the armed forces, most of us older members joined in a time where it was preached that to be homosexual was wrong and have lived through most of our careers supporting this view. It will take a little more than a cry for acceptance to change these views.

Personally, I tolerate homosexuals and have been on the receiving end of the attentions of a rather persistant one who also insisted on running around the bar singing "Heeey, I'm a queer" at the top of his voice. I almost got to the point of decking the fecker but decided to introduce him to my wife instead. He finally got the message.

[Tim McLelland]

it was preached that to be homosexual was wrong

Exactly - preached... as if by preaching something it means it's right when of course it was/is simply poisonous nonsense. Some people are attracted to the opposite sex - normal. Likewise, some people are attracted to the same sex - normal. How commonplace does something have to be before it becomes normal? Just because society suffers from fashion trends, it's a bit much to be expected to be classed as "abnormal" depending on what beliefs and attitudes happen to be in vogue at any given time!

The old argument about people having a fetish for children, animals and many other bizarre subjects is an old and rather specious one. Obviously, there have always been some (but not many) people with their own bizarre fetishes but we're not talking about that. We're talking about homosexuality which, even by the most pessimistic of statistics, applies to at least ten percent of the population. It's probably fair to say that it applies to many more but while there's social pressure to reinforce the notion that homosexuality is uncommon (and therefore abnormal), you'd be surprised at the numbers of people who claim to be heterosexual and who are patently not - at least not exclusively. You probably wouldn't believe me I guess, but if you ever spent some time talking to people such as health workers who encounter all kinds of people and circumstances, you'd know that the world is full of people who fit neatly into the gay or bisexual category - but either avoid saying so, or try to convince themselves that they don't. But I digress - the point is that you really can't say that a human condition which applies to so many people - and has always done - is somehow abnormal. It's a contradition in terms. Trying to connect homosexuality to beastaility or paedophilia is just cheap and rather old. Even the newspapers have dropped that kind of rubbish!

I understand what you're saying and I'm sure that you think that by claiming to "tolerate" homosexuality, you're being very reasonable and liberal. But I (and many others like me) don't want you or anyone else to "tolerate" us. We'd just like you to accept that just like some people are straight, some are gay and leave it at that! I don't have any need to "tolerate" straight people so I really can't see why there's any need for anyone to do the opposite. Surely we can just accept that we are who we are and we're born how we are, and get on with our lives? I've heard lots of stories about people who (like yourself) claim to have endured the advances of a gay man but so what? I presume you've also endured the advances of a few girls too? So what's the difference? I would imagine that you're more than able to politely decline?! The implication is that gay men are all predatory wierdos and no straight man can feel comfortable in their presence. Of course it's nonsense - it's no different to being in the presence of a woman, unless you seriously believe that it's somehow okay for the odd girl to fancy you, but not so much as one gay man?

your entire argument, well presented though it may be, falls apart. There is absolutely no connection between homosexuality/homophobia and racism, not even a little thread.

Well I'm inclined to point-out that simply making this statement doesn't necessarily mean it's true! Of course there's a connection, in fact it's exactly the same. I'm no more able to change my sexual preference than a black guy can change the colour of his skin. It's not a lifestyle choice that one picks out of a magazine. You presumably wouldn't have any issues with the concept of working with, or being freinds with a black, Chinese, disabled or any other categorised person you might care to think of, so why on Earth do you suppose there should be some sort of exception for gay people?

It's quite funny that some (okay not all) people have some truly odd preconceptions and beliefs about the whole gay issue and I'm convinced it has has absolutely nothing to do with one's honest beliefs and attitudes. Ultimately it's down to upbringing, social conditioning, and - in quite a few cases - personal sexual issues which tend to contaminate one's views of others. It's encouraging to note that there are very many (particularly younger) straight men who have absolutely no issues with gay people at all. They're happy to work with gay people, be good friends with them, share showers if necessary (eek!), share beds even (and no I don't mean for sex), and so on, and be completely open about themselves, their lives, even their sex lives, without any need for worries about whether the person they're with might be gay or not. Any why? Because they've grown-up without all the old "baggage" being imposed upon them and they're secure with their own sexuality - and so they don't have any issues with anybody else's. That's how it should be. The armed forces have (finally - and with more than a little encouragement from their British and European political masters) done a great deal to stop all the situations where prejudice and social "bullying" placed gay people in very difficult situations. Now all that is left to do is to wait until the whole issue finally drifts away - which it inevitably will do in time. I accept that us poofs will always be the victims of cheap jokes and banter but that's fine - it's no different to being picked-on for being ginger or being a fat b*stard! I just hope or wish that the remaining "diehards" would try to understand that we're not wierd, not predatory rapists, and not even uncommon. It's a pity that some people can't carry "gaydar" detectors in their pockets - I think they'd be quite astonished if they even had a clue just how many gay people they do interact with, and don't even know it!

[Twon]

Tim,

You make some valid points but the discussion has digressed. The original post wanted to debate the method of introducing themselves/partner/sexuality to others on joining. and how they might be perceived. Many have offered their advice, which is to tread softly, not carefully, when "announcing" their sexuality.

This advice is not the same a saying you should conceal anything or modify your behaviour but is simply a matter of manners and protocol. I would not dream of introducing my wife to the CO's wife by saying 'I'd like to introduce my big-norked wife; can you tell I'm hetero yet?'. Likewise, I wouldn't expect anyone to announce they are gay but follow protocol and just introduce their boyfriend or life partner for what they are: ' Mrs Staish, I'd like to introduce you to Steve, my partner' would suffice. She will also follow protocol and respond with something like 'nice to meet you Steve', thus life goes on as normal without any conflict/disagreement/pink beret burning from CHOM roof.

Most have taken offence or bitten at the implication that there will automatically be any resistance and/or homophobic attitude. The answer is, don't make an issue of it; no announcements (or would it be pronouncments?) and no fuss, just be yourself. If anyone asks about girlfriends or a wife, then obviously it will need to be answered but nearly all on here seem to be saying "DO NOT ANNOUNCE YOUR SEXUALITY THE MOMENT YOU ARRIVE AT CRANWELL"; it is not officer-like behaviour.

[Wader2]

Digressing, anyone remember the grannie grabbing competitions? Do they still go on?

[Tim McLelland]

I agree with your comments Twon. Likewise, I think you do get the impression that some people would still prefer some sort of stipulation that new arrivals at Cranwell should somehow avoid announcing their sexual preferences unless questioned on the subject. That's all well and good, providing the person in question isn't going to feel obliged to hide his partner away (if he has one) until everybody else graciously decides that it's appropriate! I'm tempted to cringe at the very mention of terms like "Officer-like behaviour" when I consider what this sometimes translates into. Some of the more entrenched homophobes would probably collapse with shock!

[brickhistory]

I'm tempted to cringe at the very mention of terms like "Officer-like behaviour" when I consider what this sometimes translates into.

Again, remind everyone of your military experience and qualification to judge what it is or is not to be an officer?

But you feel free to remark on "Officer-like behaviour."

Noted.

[sikeano]

All the Gai Pilot (Allegdley) wanted was to join the RAF, to serve our great nation. 10 Pages of discussion, we still dont know if this person wants to serve in the forces

[Tim McLelland]

I'm sure your note has been noted Brick. I trust you'll take note of that

[Shack37]

The thread originator has not posted since Nov.23rd. Having succeeded in kicking off this debate but failing to make it as heated as he had perhaps hoped, has he now retired to observe? Or does he continue to post under another name?



s37

[Airborne Aircrew]

Being gay has only one meaning - a sexual preference for a person of the same gender. Everything else, including every prejudice, dark mental image or media-fed belief, is purely in one's mind.

Not true I'm afraid and, apart from those who chose to use their religion as a battering ram to provide their moral compass rather than their brain, it's clear there are two "sorts" of gay. There's the sort of gay I served with in the early 80's on II Squadron who was a good soldier, tough, stolid and somewhat reserved who I would chose to have fight alongside me at any time who, unfortunately, died of AIDS a few years later that was caught through unprotected homosexual activity, (RIP Tash). He was, (in forces terms), the acceptable gay.

Then there's the flamboyant, (often known as "screaming" gay), with the penchant for redecorating, who likes to touch those he talks to and invade their space while seemingly oblivious to the discomfort he causes, who delights in being subtly outrageous and, again, making those around him uncomfortable and who makes it clear to everyone that his sexuality is nothing but that he, absolutely, mustn't be made to feel different or discriminated against. He's the unacceptable gay because he uses his sexuality as a weapon to keep those around him under a level of control.

If GaiPilot were not a troll, (which I still maintain he is), he would undoubtedly fall into the latter category simply because he is already preparing himself. Tim, you sound like the former category and good on you, but you need to accept that within your "society", just like in hetero "society" that people are different and while you are clearly predisposed to show favour to "your own" and dis-favour to "us" the hetero "society" does the same but is less likely to discriminate between the various factions of what is, after all, a relatively small group, (it's easier to paint a small group with the same brush than it is to do so a larger group).

[Tim McLelland]

I quite agree that the kind of behaviour you describe certainly isn't appropriate in the armed forces. Naturally, any sort of inappropriate behaviour, be it gay-related or otherwise shouldn't be tolerated. But as I'm sure you're aware, I'm not defending that kind of attitude. The "we're here and we're queer" rants might be appropriate for demonstrating on the streets, but it's not the kind of thing anyone should expect within a professional fighting force. As I've said repeatedly, the whole gay issue really shouldn't be that much of a big deal - and the responsibility for keeping the matter in some sort of proportion lays with everyone - including us homos!

[Airborne Aircrew]

As I've said repeatedly, the whole gay issue really shouldn't be that much of a big deal

Absolutely. Therefore one must question the motivation of GaiPilot's choice of nom-de-plume and his choice of subject and, I believe, that is why he has received the negative response he has from many. He's clearly the one holding up his sexuality for all to see and, metaphorically, wearing his rainbow.

[BEagle]

OK, some practical advice to Gai...

Prance about flaunting your orientation overtly, and you WILL end up behind the hangar being kicked in the nuts. Count on it. And no-one will ever know who did it.

STFU and get on with IOT, no-one will know or care whether you're normal, homosexual......or whatever.

Deal with it. Or go elsewhere.

Tough, I agree. But that's the way it is.

[An Teallach]

Never mind Gaipilot, things could be worse:

Fudge Packers Given Marching Orders

IGMC

[ShyTorque]

STFU and get on with IOT, no-one will know or care whether you're normal, homosexual......or whatever.

All this time to agree with my comment at post #2

[XL319]

I remember a 11sqn dining in night when a fellow colleague announced to his sqn that he was "out" He was told 'politely' by the Stn Co that he behaviour was not "officer like behaviour".

[Point0Five]

I just hope that all the "old and bolds" are typing this nonsense from their retirement homes, because the notion of bashing somebody behind the hangar for being a fudge packer is just a tad out-dated

[minigundiplomat]

Shouldn't gays be forced to join the RN. Its more traditional and have you seen the RAF working dress? It clashes with everything!