← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · DakotaBlue
Thread ID: 20638 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2005-10-13
2005-10-13 19:17 | User Profile
A Newsmax article claims that sex in the military stationed in Iraq has reached ridiculous levels with condom and pregnancy kit hand-outs replacing cigarettes and gum in popularity. Yet the Pentagon brass hasn't seen fit to bring this to the attention of Congress.
Women and men between the ages of 18 and 21 represent the biggest number of enlistees and they're doing what comes naturally. And since the Pentagon has no restrictions against placing women in all male units, the sexual tension must be explosive. 75% of women admit to having sexual intercourse with fellow male soldiers, and that doesn't count the women who have sexual encounters with othe women soldiers. Women who talked under anonymity pointed out that 75% is probably a low number. It doesn't take into account sexual harrassment.
So what are we to make of this? Should we shrug and say this is natural and it probably went on in other wars but wasn't reported as much? Or maybe we should acquiesce to the new morality that has permeated our society so completely that f*ck is no longer even thought of as a four-letter word.
To those I'd say, the military isn't a democracy. Its function isn't that of society's. It remains a high risk enterprise with a payscale that would make you wince. Its one goal is to fight and maybe die in order to protect. So why then have women been allowed into combat units as if Gloria Steinem was running the whole shabang. One of the dangers, just one, is that a sexual liaisson will lead to favoritism then inappropriate tactical decisions followed by a demorilization of the troops. If homosexual activity presents a problem why do we open the door to heterosexual activity. It just doesn't make sense.
2005-10-13 19:24 | User Profile
The pressure on a young lady in the army to become a tramp is immense. Even the best of them buckle. Female presence within the unit is toxic. This is the way it plays out, always.
2005-10-13 20:38 | User Profile
This is one of those things that the mainstream conservative press like [I]National Review[/I] really did a pretty good job of covering ad exposing. Yes, its the shits, and a terrible situation, but what are we going to do about it?The egalitarianism bug has zaped the military like everything else in society, and the Bush administration and conservatives in general have spent all their political capital keeping an army in the field. They're in no position to quibble over its composition, much less tighten down on our field soldiers.
I wouldn't doubt even that some Army recruiters are using this as a recruiting tool. 'Mister, sign up, and you're likely to get an entry position under our famous platoon leader "deep throat" '. :drool:
2005-10-14 00:03 | User Profile
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Rome's Legions are in a state of deterioration and decay, and it will only wax worse and worse.
Truly sad.
Can you imagine what great military leaders like Jones, Washington, Lee, Jackson, Nimitz, Patton, MacArthur or Puller would say if they could come back from the great beyond and see this..?[/SIZE][/FONT]
2005-10-14 01:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=EDUMAKATEDMOFO]The pressure on a young lady in the army to become a tramp is immense. Even the best of them buckle. Female presence within the unit is toxic. This is the way it plays out, always.[/QUOTE]
Overwhelmingly, the two kinds of women who join the military are sluts and dykes. Neither needs to be pressured into having sex.
2005-10-15 03:01 | User Profile
The UCMJ has an article that expressly forbids adultery, to whit, sex with someone other than your spouse. That said, any leader with a brain, in a combat zone, is going to be a fool to lean on discrete sexual tristes. Morale is a tricky thing.
"Intense" or "in tents" is how and where soldiers in the desert do it. :nerd: Men and women in a harsh environment, full of fear, emotion, energy . . . all of the age of consent . . . you aren't going to stop it. I don't think it's good for unit cohesion, as the servicing of the troops does not tend to be universal, but given the last 30 years of social engineering by Congress, this is inevitable. Reaping what has been sown.
It's a people thing. What is the Brass going to do, go out of their way to destroy such morale benefit as the various trystes allow for? That would be nuts. The military is anal retentive enough as it is. [quote=DakotaBlue] And since the Pentagon has [U]no restrictions against placing women in all male units[/U], the sexual tension must be explosive.
Bull. Marines have no women in Infantry, and some of the other combat arms. No women in Army Infantry MOS, and I don't think in armor. Not sure about field artillery. Trouble is, thereare more support units than combat arms units, and that is where the hokey pokey tends to happen . . . in the rear (no pun intended) . . . Devil making work for idle glands. And on Air Force bases . . . the mind boggles, it's a Peyton Place.
[QUOTE]75% of women admit to having sexual intercourse with fellow male soldiers, and that doesn't count the women who have sexual encounters with othe women soldiers. Women who talked under anonymity pointed out that 75% is probably a low number. It doesn't take into account sexual harrassment. [/QUOTE]
I wonder where they got their "percentage" numbers. Smells like BS. That said, the Desert Queen syndrome is in full effect. Harshest thing ever heard on a C-141 taking a load of soldiers and airmen back to the States, to a rather plain gal who'd been a Desert Queen: "How's it gonna feel to get back home and be ugly again?"
Ouch.
[QUOTE]To those I'd say, the military isn't a democracy. Its function isn't that of society's. It remains a high risk enterprise with a payscale that would make you wince. Its one goal is to fight and maybe die in order to protect. [/QUOTE] It's core purpose is to fight and win the nation's wars, and to deter most of those wars by being so damned good no one wants to tangle with us. [QUOTE]So why then have women been allowed into combat units as if Gloria Steinem was running the whole shabang. [/QUOTE] They haven't been, in general, combat came to them due to the nature of this war. See above.
It just doesn't make sense.
Amen. It hasn't made sense for 30 years, and useless witches like Pat Schroeder of Colorado, may she burn in Hell, were part of the cabal who got the laws changed.
AE
2005-10-16 04:04 | User Profile
i work with the army. other civs i know have gone to irag and/or afg.
friday nite after hours is sposed to be quite a treat. we are now imperial rome.
one of my former co-workers, however, who wouldnt come back to work under me as a new team leader, did something different that is to be abhorred.
he was sposed to take a turn running a work site, and he did. he is former military, now da civ. also is in the reserves. but he posed as active duty military.
he wouldnt even come back to post over here to check out of da employment afterwards. worked some sweet deal with gutless uppermost mgmt so they would process his checkout paperwork for him.
now he is a consultant to a firm he was formerly involved in managging tech contracts for.
i stand ready to answer questions off-forum.
2005-10-17 02:50 | User Profile
I recall my grandfather telling me that the Navy put something in their food in WWII to cut down on friskyness. With the recruiting goals in a slump I doubt the military is going to try and curtail women being in these situations. Perhaps though, instead telling illegals they may get amnesty by illegally entering our country, tell them to sign up and fight for us.
2005-10-17 03:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]The UCMJ has an article that expressly forbids adultery, to whit, sex with someone other than your spouse.
At least one of the parties must be married for that statute to be applicable, however.
Many--if not most--of the troops hopping into the sack together are young and single.
2005-10-18 01:55 | User Profile
AE:
The solution is as simple as separating the sexes while in training and not letting women fight in combat units as they now do. The Marines may be the exception, but so what. It's happening often enough to be more than just stupid, it's dangerous.
2005-10-19 04:04 | User Profile
[quote=DakotaBlue]AE:
The solution is as simple as separating the sexes while in training and not letting women fight in combat units as they now do. The Marines may be the exception, but so what. It's happening often enough to be more than just stupid, it's dangerous.
You say it is simple. Trouble is, a first and a foot are in the tarbaby. As I said, the last 30 years of establishing the curent state of play has made a complete hash of the entire situation.
How many years did you serve, may I ask? I promise you, from painful personal experience, there is no longer anything simple about it. The effing politicians have thrown a wrench in the gears, and I don't think the damage can be undone.
AE
2005-10-19 04:05 | User Profile
[quote=BlueBonnet]I recall my grandfather telling me that the Navy put something in their food in WWII to cut down on friskyness.
Saltpeter.
AE
2005-10-19 14:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]You say it is simple. Trouble is, a first and a foot are in the tarbaby. As I said, the last 30 years of establishing the curent state of play has made a complete hash of the entire situation.
How many years did you serve, may I ask? I promise you, from painful personal experience, there is no longer anything simple about it. The effing politicians have thrown a wrench in the gears, and I don't think the damage can be undone.
AE[/QUOTE]
[B]You're confusing the simplicity of the actual solution with the consensus among the ruling nitwits to implement it. It was done during WWII first because it made sense and the nation wouldn't have supported co-mingling but equally as important, the politicians knew what side their bread was buttered. Now, the solution is still self-evident, but we have no politicians who are willing to put their necks fearing an assault from the radical fems and their cohorts in the Congress. As for my military duty, what's your point? [/B]
2005-10-20 03:08 | User Profile
[quote=DakotaBlue][B] As for my military duty, what's your point? [/B]
It's one thing to see a problem from the outside in, and I don't disagree with your general assessment. It is another to see it up close and personal.
AE
2005-10-20 14:23 | User Profile
This is my point. The solution is at hand but the political considerations outweigh common sense and reason. That in and of itself is a dangerous situation.
Forgeting about all the tangential reasons to abandon this insane policy of women in combat, the reason Congress and the president should focus on is that it's unworkable, and as such is potentially dangerous. But our feckless politicians won't touch the subject for fear of being called silly names. The wimps.
2005-10-20 23:49 | User Profile
[quote=DakotaBlue]This is my point. The solution is at hand but the political considerations outweigh common sense and reason. That in and of itself is a dangerous situation.
Forgeting about all the tangential reasons to abandon this insane policy of women in combat, the reason Congress and the president should focus on is that it's unworkable, and as such is potentially dangerous. [U]But our feckless politicians won't touch the subject for fear of being called silly names. The wimps[/U].
On that, and other more pressing matters, such as our borders and illegal immigration . . .
AE