Father Tony

Reconsidering the Merits of an Army of Lovers

Filed By Father Tony | August 13, 2009 5:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Gay Icons and History, Living, Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Army of Lovers, Don't Ask Don't Tell, plutarch, scared band of thebes

While touring the decommissioned military installation on Governor's Island (in the East River, New York) last weekend, I kept seeing the ghosts of the soldiers who once lived and worked there. I found myself thinking about our nieces and nephews whom we've known since birth and who enlisted soon after high school. They'd go in as typical, slightly out-of-shape kids, and they'd reappear a year later whipped into terrific condition, full of energy and mentally alert. We'd all rejoice in the transformation and conclude that the military can be a good experience for some aimless youth.

This led me to think about what the military experience can be for an aimless gay youth who, aside from needing the discipline that military life affords, must acquire self-confidence and a positive self-perception. Under the current Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, that growth is not really possible. What if there were an all-gay branch of the military? Wouldn't that be a good thing? I began to mumble about this to my husband while taking photos of empty barracks and officers' homes slated for demolition.

He reminded me of the ancient Band of Thebes/Army of Lovers which had been filed in my head under "erotic fantasy" rather than "useful communal structure".

With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that an all-gay branch of the military might not be such a bad thing. There is a difference between clustering the like-minded and sequestering/quarantining a minority group. If gay men and women were given the choice between joining an all-gay regiment or unit or battalion or joining one that did not differentiate by sexual preference, a large number would certainly opt for the gay one. This is not so different from joining a fraternity on a college campus that has as its focus sports, music or math or some other common emphasis. I am not talking about forced segregation, as was the case for African American soldiers and baseball players before those barriers were dismantled. I am talking about the mutual support and strength derived from natural clustering. For many of us, there is comfort and enjoyment derived from living in a gayborhood or gay ghetto, going to a gay church or a gay gym. It's not that we need those things. It's just that we like the dynamic of those places.

I can't even begin to consider the entirely pornographic possibilities of a group of men in the prime of their lives working, training, fighting, sleeping and showering together without entirely wrecking my train of thought, but that vision is not without merit or precedent, if Plutarch is to be given any credence when he describes the soldiers of that ancient society. The prurient aspect of this military model is where even the gay community splits itself into two groups: the one that wants the yoke of traditional marriage with its purported restrictions of sex as exclusively coupled, and the other that is comfortable with a communal sexuality that allows for romantic couplings and allegiances that are not offended by casual sex beyond the boundaries of those liaisons.

The Band of Thebes seemed to be based on the premise of lovers supporting each other but we do not read about monogamy as emblematic of the success of that group. I think a modern day all-gay military unit would probably allow for a good amount of communal but safe sex as well as strong romantic allegiances and friendships both sexual and non-sexually expressed, both exclusive and open.

As we left Governor's Island on the ferry back to Manhattan, I concluded that the mere mention of this concept is almost always met with derision, so bent are we on becoming mainstreamed and white-washed and straightened and entirely PC. But, as you can see, I have mentioned it, and you are all free to unsheathe your knives and have at it.

Before you trash the concept, try to imagine a generation of energized, healthy, productive, disciplined gay citizens who would exit the military fortified by their all-gay tours of duties and ready to become civilian leaders not tied down to hetero-regulatory structures and prescriptions and dialects that are not, and never will be, a natural fit for the gay community. If a gay general came back from a foreign war having led an all-gay unit with valor and courage and wisdom, wouldn't our gay communities and organizations benefit exceedingly from the civic leadership of such a one?

Someday, I suspect we'll see the common sense in this, but unfortunately, I will be (and already am) too old to enlist when that day comes along. Meanwhile, an army of lovers is just a hot midsummer night's dream.


Recent Entries Filed under Gay Icons and History:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


I'm not seeing it. Sorry, Father Tony.

What happens when they're deployed to Afghanistan and will live and work with other branches of the military? Also, I understand wanting to allow a young gay or lesbian woman to grow with other gays, but they would already need to acknowledge their sexuality to themselves and to those they talk to about joining the military. How many 18 year olds could do that?

Also, reputation and family tradition brings in numbers. What kind of reputation would a gay military branch have? People have a hard enough time getting past the association of gay sex and flamboyance when they hear the word gay. It wouldn't get respect, even if they captured Osama bin Laden.

I can see positives and negatives, but I don't think it would be successful.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | August 14, 2009 4:05 AM

“With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that an all-gay branch of the military might not be such a bad thing.” Are you sure? I think that from its inception it would be the worst possible choice for young GLBT folks who want to serve their communities. The US armed forces are an extremely reactionary tool of empire builders overseas and an anti-civilian authoritarian force at home.

You’re talking about the Army that was used to invade and occupy Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Estimates vary (depending on politics) but it’s very likely that millions of civilians died there at US hands. Millions! On March 16, 1968, in the hamlets of My Lai and My Khe of Son My village in US occupied Vietnam, roughly 500 unarmed civilians, almost of them all women, children, and elderly people were gunned down while cowering in front of US soldiers. Many of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, and mutilated.

Then consider the nature of US military operations to maintain the profits of predatory US companies like Anaconda Copper in Chile and United Fruit in Central American. Training in torture and murder is the core curriculum for military cadets from Latin American puppet states at the US Army School of the Americas at Ft. Benning, GA. “The U.S. Army School of the Americas...is a school that has run more dictators than any other school in the history of the world."

The US armed forces are currently being used to murder large numbers of civilians as part of the invasions and occupation and of Iran and Afghanistan with more fighting to come. There are about a million dead civilians, (again, depending on politics) and as of today, 5112 soldiers killed and that figure doesn’t include the wave of suicides and ‘unacknowledged’ deaths. Nor does it include these casualities: ”One in three female soldiers will experience sexual assault while serving… Nearly two-thirds of the cases involved rape or aggravated assault.”according to CBS news.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/17/.../main4872713.shtml

And don’t forget Kent State and Jackson State.

So no thanks, Tony; this is not what we want to sentence young GLBT men and women to. It’s the worst possible alternative.

But if you want to talk about self defense groups of trade unionists, GLBT folks, African Americans, immigrant workers and Latinos, women and other that would be worth exploring.

i agree with everything you said. The U.S. military it's not a summer camp, and thinking about all the abuses the U.S. army is responsible for (stimulated by an environment of violence), i can't imagine the repercussion that an abuse made by someone from this "gay branch" would have, not to mention that gay people (if we imagine a world without DADT)could find the same "dynamic" without being separate, just by hanging out with whoever they please
and the U.S. army is suppose to be based on discipline etc. i can understand having a fantasy with these gay people in the shower but, really? that's the reason we want a gay branch?? no thank you

I would be totally opposed to this concept. I do not believe that full respectful acknowledgment and acceptance by society is "white washing" our community. Instead I believe it is elevating our community and helping GLBT youths self esteem and worth.