Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Exist

I have a unusual and, as far as I know, unexpressed observation about DADT. This is ultimately about the causes of homophobia, not effects. I am not attempting to diminish the reality of bigotry, but to help explain, in emotionally neutral terms, some of bigotry's causes.

My central claim is that a causal factor behind DADT is that the US Military finds it appropriate and necessary to limit the amount of sex (the act) that its members have, regardless of sexual orientation. Whether or not that is appropriate or whether the negative outcomes that they are concerned about even exist are open questions. Let's have Colonel Hardcore explain the problem that I'm talking about.

"Imagine, if you will, a cluster of large dorm buildings with about a thousand 18 to 22-year-olds. All of these young adults are a) compelled to be in good physical condition and b) ignorant enough to enlist in the military. These are people who lack the judgment to feel bad about voting for G. W. Bush and lack the experience to know not to sleep with roommates. These young adults are people who need to be able to serve side by side in life and death situations. Good order and discipline will be negatively affected by the level of drama (STDs, unwanted pregnancies, sexual assaults, etc) that would result from the amount of poor judgment sexual activity that would result from letting these people at each other." -Colonel Hardcore

That is an explicit description of an attitude that I believe is almost entirely implicit. I don't think that the powers-that-be give this dynamic any thought. The sexes are separated long before there are any real differences, and these kinds of paternal impulses can be seen not just in the military but in boarding schools and even nursing homes.

So the US Military addresses this "problem" of sexual activity among the enlisted ranks by separation of the sexes. Now for all of you out there for whom queer folk are part of your day to day considerations, you know how absurd this tactic is. Especially for all of you who were closeted in high school, not letting people of the opposite sex sleep over really wasn't any restriction on your sexual activity at all. But within the historical context of US Military leadership, homosexuality is practically unthinkable.

Homosexuality has been such a basic wrong in this context that no consideration of it needed to be taken into consideration. So this totally naive maneuver of separating men and women in all pantsless environments is a powerful, fair, effective, and simple anti-sexuality maneuver.

Now looking at the situation from the perspective of Colonel Hardcore: You've been told that you are no longer allowed to be homophobic, and you're the kind of guy who is willing to fight, kill or die when ordered, so just treating people fairly when you don't want to isn't a particularly difficult challenge. But now you must treat gay and straight enlisted members equally, but you still think it is important to keep all of these people from having sex with each other. But how do you do it? The tactic of separating the sexes is now absurd on the face of it.

Here we see one of the driving forces of support for DADT coming not from homophobia, but from a hostility toward sexuality generally, and an inablility to separate potential sexual partners once you let queers into the picture. The name of the policy itself points at this problem. The policy isn't "No Fags, No Dykes" nor is it "Two men touching is an abomination before God." It's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The powers-that-be don't really care if homosexuals serve. But if homosexuals come out of the closet, certain puritanical ideas become untenable.

The military's separation of the sexes fails to make sense the moment you admit the existence of homosexuals. It isn't just that people might be looking at you in a sexy way when you're in the shower¹, but that the very existence of gays in uniform turns this separation of the sexes into total bullshit.

I think this is one of the driving forces behind institutional homophobia generally. I don't think that people necessarily know this, or would admit to it even if confronted. For people who believe that sex is generally a sin, transforming a formerly chaste space, like a locker room, into a place where there could be even the simplest type of attraction makes that place unsafe and gross, EVEN IF you are not homophobic.

But notice, this discomfort is dependent, not on homophobia itself, but on erotophobia. It is the fear of sexual activity generally and the separation of the sexes method of controlling it, which are undermined by the mere existence of LGBT people. The idea that one is no longer safe from sexuality in a public restroom is a large part of the problem. If everyone were straight and dressed according to gender norms, then those who wanted to prevent sexuality could easily make that happen by separating the boys from the girls. So queerness is a threat to a more general puritanical intention. The existence and presence of queer kids ruins the party, not because they are bad party goers, but because they make the invite list impossible to handle.

The point of all of this is not just about my observation about the military, but about how to promote gay rights generally. Toward that end, I am trying to point out that at least some structural homophobia is driven by erotophobia that has nothing to do with one's feelings about orientation or gender. One of the causal factors in institutional homophobia, according to this argument, has nothing to do with homosexuality. The advancement of gay rights will move in lock step with sexual freedom to one extent or another, because the powers-that-be cannot control sex while homosexuals are present. So they are going to fight to maintain exclusion of queers, even beyond having negative feelings towards queers.

I don't really know what to make of this conclusion, other than to point it out to folks. I am not a gay rights activist, merely a gay rights supporter. I don't know what to do, but I thought this observation might help people see part of why the powers-that-be seem so intractable, even when they don't seem specifically hostile.


¹Which is a non-issue for many reasons.