*SPOILER ALERT* - DADT


Really liked the movie, interesting subject matter of regret and cowardice in betraying a friend. The 'gay' theme is just the vehicle for the subject, it didn't bother me.

But two things stayed with me. 1) It was illegal for a homosexual to serve in the military at this time (@ 1979). Both guys could/should have not served, quit or been dismissed if they were discovered. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" didn't happen until the 1993. And 2) the beating. A beating like that would have to be reported. 'David' would have had to explain the beating, and why wouldn't he have reported his shipmates who beat him in hate, including his lover who "turned on him" as he said. Both things are pretty big, but ignored in the story. Any thoughts?

reply

While not having served in the military, both my brothers have had long military careers. Many in the military have reported that they knowingly served with homosexuals, going as far back as WWII. As a gay man, I've come to realize as true what a gay writer observed decades ago, that the straight world bends over backwards to explain away what is blatantly obvious in front of their eyes. Those straights that "have a problem" with gays often have problems with their own sexuality, would probably be gay in a supportive environment, because they willing SEE the gay world, they step through the looking glass as though it isn't there. DADT was developed because of the realization that there were so many homosexuals in the military, to the point it was very detrimental to military cohesiveness to sanction constant witch hunts. Eventually the military hierarchy realized, as much as the civilian world did, that the problem was not the homosexual soldier, it was the soldier that had an agressive problem with homosexuals, that they were the unbalanced individuals that should not be in the military. "Soldier's Girl" deals with this conundrum.

reply