Don’t hint, don’t wink: An immodest proposal

It’s been a long time since I was required to shower among 40 or so friends, acquaintances, and virtual strangers, or not do so at all — a socially unacceptable option.  Forty-two years after the fact, I no longer have a clear recollection of the experience, so it must not have made much of an impression on me.  I’m certain I would have vivid memories of the experience if my shower-mates had been potential sexual partners.

If you are as bored as I am with the nearly 20 years of political blather about gays in the military, you’ve probably stopped reading already, assuming you started at all.  But in all that I have read — before I stopped reading myself — and heard on the matter, I have never encountered my eminently sensible proposal, one that protects the patriotic urges of some homosexuals as well as the national interest on the basis of “force readiness” arguments which should govern the thinking of those charged with implementing the defense of our country:  Lesbians should be allowed to serve, gay men (hereafter “gays”) should not.

Exceptions to every generalization I posit abound, but I don’t think I’m enlightening many of you when I assert that men by nature are more promiscuous than women.  (You’ve noticed that, too, huh?)  This is overwhelmingly true whether those men and women are straight or gay.  Our instincts were designed by Parent Nature at a time when early humans were not the predators, but the prey, and our remote ancestors were still trying to avoid extinction and establish a permanent presence on this planet.  It fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate — a tough job but someone had to do it.  Women had to be more selective because, then as now, the principal consequences of copulation were theirs:  pregnancy; childbirth; most of the responsibilities of childrearing whilst their baby-daddy hunter-gatherers were about hunting and gathering and finding other women to subdue; and the ruination of their pulchritudinous figures.  How our ancient foremothers ever managed to establish any choice in the matter is utterly beyond me when one considers that they did not have access to Mace, police whistles, Lady Smith .38s, or domestic violence hotlines.

Regardless, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons lost the evolutionary crapshoot while Homo sapiens endured and multiplied.  Dumb luck is probably as responsible for our survival as our larger brains and female selectivity, but these characteristics prevail still and apply equally regardless of sexual orientation.  The associations and lifestyles of gays encourage these opposing natural forces.  Lesbians do not face the same pressures as straight women to “put out” for men.  They therefore tend to develop long-term, monogamous, stable, and even permanent relationships.

Certainly they have their counterparts among gays, but they are rarer than hyperactive sloths.  Homosexual men are not stymied by the instinctive — not to mention aggravating — caution and selectivity of most women.  Most men who are sexually attracted to other men can and do indulge their promiscuous urges with little or no restraint; i.e., it’s “party time” all the time. My wife and I watched a sad documentary about AIDS a few years ago.  An emaciated man in his mid-30s or so, not long for this world, said that he’d spent a lot of his free time on Fire Island and estimated that he’d had sex with “about 3,000 men.”  My wife said, “I don’t think I’ve spoken to 3,000 people in my entire life.”  I replied: “I’ll bet he hasn’t, either.”  The unrefuted 1978 study by Bell and Weinberg indicated that 43% of gays had sex with 500 or more partners, and 28% had 1,000 or more partners.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mingus-Ah-Um/100001180708136 Mingus Ah Um

    Mr. Rehyansky, when you were experimenting with homosexuality, did you experience personal advances – mostly or on average – by younger men or older men? I believe that the evolutionary urges for males to procreate can dissipate as we age and was wondering if maybe you supported older homosexuals to serve openly. Also I’m still weary about allowing lesbians to serve as I was always taught as a young man to never run while scissoring.

  • Joseph A. Rehyansky

    PS for bbeljefe: On Sundays I rest, like what’s-His-name.

  • Joseph A. Rehyansky

    bbeljefe: Pat Robertson is a religious REACTIONARY, not a RADICAL; he’s also a mindless, superstitious baboon. Religion and spirituality have no bearing on my views but, in case you’re interested, on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays I’m a Deist. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays I’m a Druid, in honor of my Saxon forebears who fought on the losing side at the Battle of Hastings. They worshiped rocks, you may recall — like the ones in your head.

    • GreenMan

      If Druids are said to worship anything (as an orgainzation they are primarily non-dogmaitc) it would be trees. I think you are the one with rocks in your head.

  • Joseph A. Rehyansky

    binkus200: I went out of my way at the beginning of my piece to point out that exceptions to all generalization are abundant, but this does not render the generalizations invalid. So, you want “proof that ALL (emphasis added) are so controlled by their primitive instincts . . . ” Positing an argument that your rhetorical opponent does not make and then demanding that he prove your theorem is, well, stupid. I cited the Kinsey studies from the ’40s to demonstrate its lack of credibility. In addition to the ’70s study I cited one from 2004. Now YOU can show ME how those studies have been invalidated by time. In any case, I’m delighted to have “rubbed” you the wrong way. To quote the world’s greatest living Englishman, Hugh (Greg House,M.D.) Laurie: “You’re an idiot.”

    • binkus200

      My comment was more about equality and less about your lack of research ability but i digress. The point I was trying to make is that, like other commenters have pointed out, our judicial system and our policies were designed to ensure the that all citizens are given the same opportunities. The argument you make clearly takes away the opportunity to enlist from a large number of people and it’s simply un-american. Your main points seem to be that gays should be barred from enlisting because they are “disease-ridden” and their presence would make straight soldiers uncomfortable because gays “can’t control their urges”. The solution to the aids problem is simple, make it mandatory that all soldiers get tested before enlisting. This would be beneficial in more than one way, making it impossible for soldiers to contract it from other soldiers. This i have no problem with, any person with HIV/AIDS that enlists is stupid and dangerous. It renders you in no condition to fight and in an environment where bloodshed is a routine part of the job, their presence is a danger to all other soldiers. But, that is not a gay issue, that’s a health issue, because, again, there are straight people with HIV/AIDS as well. So, problem solved. Second, if it’s as true as you say it is, that men are so uncontrollable when it comes to sexual urges, why stop with the military? Why do we let gay kids learn in the same environment as straight kids? Couldn’t the straight kids get uncomfortable? How could we possibly expect the gay kids to control themselves around so many men? With classroom overflow in so many inner-cities, they could be exposed to upwards of 35 men at the same time for at least 45 minute periods. What about the workplace? Should gay men and straight men be separated there too? How could anyone get anything done with gay men ogling them so? How could gay men possibly be productive around such a variety of possible sexual partners? And what about the women? Like you said, its not only gay men that can’t control their urges but straight men as well. So should we now legislate to the effect that men and women should never be in contact because men can’t control themselves around the opposite sex? This argument is ridiculous because the fact of the matter is, we do integrate gay kids with straight kids in schools and kids still learn without a problem. We do integrate gay men with straight men in the workplace and people remain productive. Men and women are in constant contact and the women remain unharmed. Dont Ask, Don’t Tell has been in effect for years and there are gay servicemen enlisted now. They fight bravely and they fight honorably. I reiterate, if a gay man acts inappropriately towards another soldier, he should be reprimanded but this should be decided on a case by case basis. Just because one gay man decides to act inappropriately does not mean all will. We should give the gay community the same respect that we give the straight and stop discriminating based on sexual preference. Your argument is proven wrong on a daily basis, just look at our society. We are a melting pot of cultures and people that would’ve never been if we functioned based on prejudice and stereotype. We have an integrated society and we came out okay. Taking Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as a starting point, we’ve had an integrated military since ’93 and i think it’s safe to say that we’ve been fighting pretty successfully and if you disagree, don’t blame the soldiers, blame the administration.

  • Joseph A. Rehyansky

    milo: Thanks so much for sharing your views on a matter — sexual assault — that was not the subject of my essay. BTW, an “unwanted sexual advance” does not amount to an assault. I am, however, intrigued by your idea of an all-female military, provided I was the only male exception permitted to enlist. Your observation that African-American have a higher incidence of HIV infection than do whites is a true non sequitur. Overwhelmingly, gays and needle junkies transmit AIDS, not African-Americans per se. As my old man might put it, “You’ve really got a point in your head.” Please give my best to everyone at your group home. Joe Rehyansky

    • bigcheese0001

      ??? I think the dementia’s getting the best of you. You should probably take your medication as none of that made any sense. Maybe you can rephrase your point to make sense after your game of solitaire.

  • Pingback: Man Solves Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: Gay Men Are Icky, Lesbians OK | Glibberal

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Walsh/678910963 John Walsh

    I thought Daily Caller was supposed to be some intelligent conservative response to Huffington Post. I guess you could call it conservative, as that word is currently applied. But intelligent?

  • milo

    These facts are just so outdated. HIV/AIDS infection rates are actually higher now among African Americans, but obviously that is no reason to resegregate the army. As for unwanted sexual advances I direct you to one of many exposés on the assault female soldiers face every day from their heterosexual male brothers-in-arms: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html. Gay men are much less violent and prone to rape than straight men. If the goal is to avoid sexual assault as much as possible, then following the logic of this article we need an all-female army (and all-white, too, just to avoid AIDS).

    • bigcheese0001

      I remember feeling pretty lucky to get KP with a female at a Forward Operating Base, first female voice I’d heard live in months. Then, when we talked she told me the most disgusting examples beyond the scope of sexual harassment. She cried in front of me, a virtual stranger, as she tried to hold back tear. She was clearly the most broken of the few women we had on base. She didn’t mention, although I’m sure she knew, of rampant rumors of all 8 females on base. Prostitution for crumbs, mad orgies, and sampling the local flavors. None of it true for this young mother. To be clear, I am not talking about a “Hey Baby,” or ass-grab. Every day, all day. That poor woman. But we must protect her from “The Gays.”

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Don’t hint, don’t wink: An immodest proposal | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment -- Topsy.com

  • binkus200

    Does innocent until proven guilty have any meaning to you because that is what sets our country apart from all the corrupt non-democracies that we (Americans) so vehemently protest. I’m sorry, but until you hand me legitimate proof that all men are so controlled by their primitive instincts that they have not a smidgen of self control, your argument is null. I agree with you one-hundred percent that the brave citizens who enlist and sacrifice their life for our country deserve the respect to not be gawked at like a piece of meat but it is insulting to me, as a member of the male gender, to be told that i have no self control. Yes, if a gay member of the military acts inappropriately to another soldier, he should be reprimanded, maybe even discharged, but that should be decided on a case by case basis. You, nor I, nor any other reader have the ability to look into the minds of other people. You, nor I, nor any other reader have the ability or authority to suggest that no man has enough self control to overcome his sexual urges. Besides, for most men we should agree, all one would have to do is wait until night time to quietly rub one out if really necessary. P.S. is anyone insulted by the amount of outdated sources used in this article, the least you could do if your going to suggest that a large number of our citizens be denied the right to fight for our country is provide some backup that isn’t from ’40s and ’70’s.

    • bbeljefe

      I agree wholeheartedly. This article reads as though it was written by Pat Robertson or some other ill informed religious radical.