Hilarious dream sequence! Besides the Republican line of the hour, "Lifting the ban is a social experiment that would be irresponsibly dangerous to indulge in at this critical time of war," what is Mark Smith trying to convey here?
First, he wants to make it clear that Mark Smith (or insert other generic white male name here) has a rampant heterosexuality that is uncontrollable to the extent that he cannot even focus on his own impending death when there are women in short shorts around. The female body as unfailingly sexy is also important to protect the macho image of the virile male.
By the same coin, the ultimate macho man ends up taking the place of the Hooter's waitress when he is the sex object for the gay soldier. Thrown into a troop of (scantily clad?) Mark Smiths, the gay serviceman must be helplessly drawn to their unquestionable manliness. He MUST! If he doesn't, well that must mean that there is something wrong with Mark Smith's pristine masculinity! Yikes! That is just too scary a thing to do to our troops right now. After all, if Mark Smith can't face the fact that every gay male on the planet would not fall for him immediately, regardless of what he might actually be doing on the ground in Iraq (i.e. dressed from head to toe in camo, carrying upwards of 50 pounds of gear not including firearms, fighting for his life, trying to communicate with desperate people who speak another language, surviving attacks and dust storms, or other NON-SEXY things), then our manly troops couldn't handle it either.
What the Republican party is saying with this line is that they need to protect the masculine ego of a uniformly hetero, male military. (What about women? Oh, well everyone knows that the women in the military are all the "rough" "tomboy" types anyway. We just assume they are lesbians as long as they keep their mouths shut about that or anything else for that matter.)
The government should not be charged with policing self-image and identity. Those are personal things that should not concern public policy. What it should be doing is supporting those people who are strong enough to choosen this violent, traumatizing way of giving back to their communities. The government should be serving those people to the best of their ability, not forcing them to subscribe to a certain perspective on sexuality, or to lie about who they are to the people they work with. This policy does nothing but demean the professionalism of all troops, gay or straight and results in the thinning their ranks to punish the existence of human diversity. It's reprehensible and should be stopped.
Hilarious dream sequence! Besides the Republican line of the hour, "Lifting the ban is a social experiment that would be irresponsibly dangerous to indulge in at this critical time of war," what is Mark Smith trying to convey here?
First, he wants to make it clear that Mark Smith (or insert other generic white male name here) has a rampant heterosexuality that is uncontrollable to the extent that he cannot even focus on his own impending death when there are women in short shorts around. The female body as unfailingly sexy is also important to protect the macho image of the virile male.
By the same coin, the ultimate macho man ends up taking the place of the Hooter's waitress when he is the sex object for the gay soldier. Thrown into a troop of (scantily clad?) Mark Smiths, the gay serviceman must be helplessly drawn to their unquestionable manliness. He MUST! If he doesn't, well that must mean that there is something wrong with Mark Smith's pristine masculinity! Yikes! That is just too scary a thing to do to our troops right now. After all, if Mark Smith can't face the fact that every gay male on the planet would not fall for him immediately, regardless of what he might actually be doing on the ground in Iraq (i.e. dressed from head to toe in camo, carrying upwards of 50 pounds of gear not including firearms, fighting for his life, trying to communicate with desperate people who speak another language, surviving attacks and dust storms, or other NON-SEXY things), then our manly troops couldn't handle it either.
What the Republican party is saying with this line is that they need to protect the masculine ego of a uniformly hetero, male military. (What about women? Oh, well everyone knows that the women in the military are all the "rough" "tomboy" types anyway. We just assume they are lesbians as long as they keep their mouths shut about that or anything else for that matter.)
The government should not be charged with policing self-image and identity. Those are personal things that should not concern public policy. What it should be doing is supporting those people who are strong enough to choosen this violent, traumatizing way of giving back to their communities. The government should be serving those people to the best of their ability, not forcing them to subscribe to a certain perspective on sexuality, or to lie about who they are to the people they work with. This policy does nothing but demean the professionalism of all troops, gay or straight and results in the thinning their ranks to punish the existence of human diversity. It's reprehensible and should be stopped.