Wait. So I want to amend my earlier post. The abuse at Abu Ghraib isn't homoerotic. It's not erotic. It's abuse and not erotic and therefore can't be homoerotic. What is so damaging about sexual abuse, harassment, and assault, all things that American soldiers did at the prison in Iraq, is that it uses sex as a means of violating and as a means of control. In addition to completing destroying the United States's credibility as a champion of human rights, it exports a particularly American brand of disregard for same-sex sexuality and violence where gay sexuality is concerned. You all know what falls into this category: frat-boys drunken gay bashing and the Matthew Shephard and Boys Don't Cry-scale atrocities that are part of the fabric of living in the United States. I can't help wondering whether the outcome would have been different if Clinton had forced the Pentagon to really deal with the presence of gays in the military. If the armed forces had done training to encourage service men and women to deal with the legitimate presence of gay and lesbian service people, would we be seeing this kind of sexual intimidation and abuse?