DADT INDEED!

So, does DADT Classic (Don't Ask Don't Tell) now morph into DADT Update (DO Ask DO Tell)? And does the old saw IGTOY (I'm gonna tell on you) suddenly become meaningless? Well, hardly. The same old prejudices still exist, just now they're out in the open. Result: HIOIG "Hooray, I'm out, I'm Gay" begets STYFF "Suck this, you fucking faggot!" The military service is a vast complicated world, with lots of people trying to prove or disprove things zeroing in on them from their civilian lives.

The new reg assumes that no one will care, but just look at the military types (think Ernest Borgnine or Burt Lancaster in "From Here To Eternity" - Lotta hard guys doing hard army time) and think how they'll react to HIOIG. Me? Frankly, I'd still keep my sexual preference a secret, not volunteering any information. My policy: NOYFB (None of your fucking business), because my sex life is MOA (My own affair). "Oh, but now it's different," you say. That may very well be, times and the rules have indeed changed, and odd as it might seem, there are GLBTQ men women who would still prefer to remain anonymous, even electing the battlefield instead of the safer office jobs they might land, just to prove that they have a mite of bravery despite their sexual preference. After all, sex isn't necessarily the defining characteristic of life, unless one lets it be so.

The whole situation seems like a live wire, dangerous to touch, even to get close to as its current could be transmitted through the very ground or water on which one finds one's self. Best to just avoid interest in the subject, thus DADT classic sort of remains the order of the day among the sensible. So DJTC, Don't jump to conclusions. Assumptions are dangerous. But then, in a military situation where troops' lives depend many times on interpersonal relationships, and those relationships are poisoned by sexual, often physical sensitivities, it's the difference between coming home in a uniform bristling with decorations or coming home in a body bag. War-oriented people aren't always the most finely tuned people, trained and required to make quick life-affecting decisions based on sometimes flimsy evidence, so it's not how you ARE, but how you SEEM that might influence the choice, and given that war is not exactly a game of parcheesi, it would behoove one in the service to seem to be that which would affect the decision favorably to one's own skin, no?

BTW, The reason for all this seems to be that that people still think that other people's sexual preferences are a reflection on their identities, their character as men or women in certain situations. But DJTC - to conclude such might be a mistake, though in the field of battle the way one reacts may indeed be a result of the way one is "oriented" - just have to wait and see, and that's the danger. In battle it would seem everyone's scared. One would think 'most everyone adjusts, if they're there, I suppose one just does what one has to, i.e., what's next, trying to avoid disaster while doing the job. When it's "kill or be killed" there isn't much choice, and sexual preference is secondary to life itself. And if what they say is true, one is born either gay or straight, well, you're still a target in a shooting war, but maybe from either side. There might be a difference in the shower, but the military isn't prison, one has the right to say "No." To say "I'm not of that persuasion, and I don't want to have sex with you."

Hmm, are you worried you might be tempted? Ay, there's the rub. So how about settling for DETAI, Don't even think about it. INOYB It's none of your business.

Special to
The Port Whitman Times
Henry Francisco