Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

United States Armed Forces finally recognizes combat duty of women

1234689

Posts

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?

    I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.

    The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.

    It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .

    Have you had sex in, say, the last twelve to eighteen months or so?

    Yes, but with my wife and I going through infertility, there have, ironically been periods of several months where we are not allowed to have sex. It sucks, but you deal with it.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?

    I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.

    The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.

    It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .

    Have you had sex in, say, the last twelve to eighteen months or so?

    Yes, but with my wife and I going through infertility, there have, ironically been periods of several months where we are not allowed to have sex. It sucks, but you deal with it.

    so you dealt with that while also being in a combat zone

    no probs right?

    do you or do you not think that abstinence only education is effective at preventing STDs and pregnancy?

    Bastable
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    As an example, loading a HEAT round in a tank requires significantly more upper body strength than firing an M4.

    And that's a routine combat task. That's before we get into shit-hits-the-fan scenarios, like "quickly pull a 200lb man out of a burning HMMWV" tasks.


    I couldn't haul a 200lb guy out a humvee either, I could still join the army as infantry if I wanted to because I'm a man. I'm guessing there are some women who could do it though.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    This is a lot of personal information to be getting all of the sudden.

    I've met General Claudia Kennedy a few times at various events. She's a top-notch individual. I'm excited to think that in the future, it might become easier to get more top-notch individuals like her up to the rank of Lieutenant General, as they won't be barred from the sort of jobs where they'll develop opportunities for the sort of commendation and respect that attracts appointment to prime billets.

    mcdermott
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?

    I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.

    The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.

    It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .

    Have you had sex in, say, the last twelve to eighteen months or so?

    Yes, but with my wife and I going through infertility, there have, ironically been periods of several months where we are not allowed to have sex. It sucks, but you deal with it.

    Well, believe it or not a lot of soldiers last decade spent the bulk of their twenties "forbidden" from having sex. That's what year+ on, year- off deployment schedules will do.

    Also, "several months" is not a year and a half. Sorry broski, you put a willing partner in front of somebody after a year and a half, and it's on like fucking donkey kong.

    Casual wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I don't know why women being allowed into a different role would change that policy. it didn't change when they started entering the military in the first place.

    It should either be done away with, or equally required for both genders.

    the draft?

    it's pretty unlikely there will be another war where a draft will be necessary for a few reasons

    1) if the US gets in a war with a country its standing military can't handle that country will almost certainly be a nuclear power, if war kicks off with China or Russia no amount of riflemen will save anyone

    2) swarms of infantry just isn't how we fight wars anymore, the individual cost of each infantry soldier in terms of training, equipment, salary and other military benefits has gone up exponentially since the last draft, you can't just give them a rifle and a uniform and send them on their way now

    i just don't see a draft happening in our lifetimes

    Whereas I'd argue the opposite...we should have been drafting for Iraq. Both to reduce the optempo of individual soldiers and to save money on contracted services. Our military wasn't actually capable of effectively occupying that country for the duration of that operation, we simply made due with what we had. We had reservists spending three years out of six deployed.

    A lot of people still want to ignore the toll this exacted on our ground forces.

    Bastable
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?

    I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.

    The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.

    It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .

    Have you had sex in, say, the last twelve to eighteen months or so?

    Yes, but with my wife and I going through infertility, there have, ironically been periods of several months where we are not allowed to have sex. It sucks, but you deal with it.

    so you dealt with that while also being in a combat zone

    no probs right?

    do you or do you not think that abstinence only education is effective at preventing STDs and pregnancy?

    Oh yeah, I forgot the part where people might be trying to kill you daily, and you feel like every morning may just be your last.

    So yeah. Donkey kong.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?

    I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.

    The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.

    It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .

    Have you had sex in, say, the last twelve to eighteen months or so?

    Yes, but with my wife and I going through infertility, there have, ironically been periods of several months where we are not allowed to have sex. It sucks, but you deal with it.

    so you dealt with that while also being in a combat zone

    no probs right?

    do you or do you not think that abstinence only education is effective at preventing STDs and pregnancy?

    It is not because (1) teenagers are idiots and (2) people are allowed to have sex under normal circumstances. I would hope that our soldiers have better impulse control than teenagers, and they happen to actually be banned from having sex, for a designated period of time. To be clear, I would not stop anonymously providing free condoms to soldiers, I would just drop the hammer on anyone caught having sex.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    As an example, loading a HEAT round in a tank requires significantly more upper body strength than firing an M4.

    And that's a routine combat task. That's before we get into shit-hits-the-fan scenarios, like "quickly pull a 200lb man out of a burning HMMWV" tasks.

    I couldn't haul a 200lb guy out a humvee either, I could still join the army as infantry if I wanted to because I'm a man. I'm guessing there are some women who could do it though.

    Hey, wow, that's a pretty good argument for possibly allowing the top percentile or few of women (and culling the bottom percentile or few of men).

    It's also far from your original "hurf durf how much strength does it take to fire an M4" post.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Space, you... you know how many enlisted personnel in the military are teenagers, right?

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?

    I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.

    The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.

    It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .

    Have you had sex in, say, the last twelve to eighteen months or so?

    Yes, but with my wife and I going through infertility, there have, ironically been periods of several months where we are not allowed to have sex. It sucks, but you deal with it.

    so you dealt with that while also being in a combat zone

    no probs right?

    do you or do you not think that abstinence only education is effective at preventing STDs and pregnancy?

    It is not because (1) teenagers are idiots and (2) people are allowed to have sex under normal circumstances. I would hope that our soldiers have better impulse control than teenagers, and they happen to actually be banned from having sex, for a designated period of time. To be clear, I would not stop anonymously providing free condoms to soldiers, I would just drop the hammer on anyone caught having sex.

    some of our soldiers ARE TEENAGERS

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    To be clear, I would not stop anonymously providing free condoms to soldiers, I would just drop the hammer on anyone caught having sex.

    ...what?

    "He's a condom. Don't get caught using it."

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?

    I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.

    The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.

    It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .

    Have you had sex in, say, the last twelve to eighteen months or so?

    Yes, but with my wife and I going through infertility, there have, ironically been periods of several months where we are not allowed to have sex. It sucks, but you deal with it.

    so you dealt with that while also being in a combat zone

    no probs right?

    do you or do you not think that abstinence only education is effective at preventing STDs and pregnancy?

    It is not because (1) teenagers are idiots and (2) people are allowed to have sex under normal circumstances. I would hope that our soldiers have better impulse control than teenagers, and they happen to actually be banned from having sex, for a designated period of time. To be clear, I would not stop anonymously providing free condoms to soldiers, I would just drop the hammer on anyone caught having sex.

    some of our soldiers ARE TEENAGERS

    One fifth of active duty soldiers are under 21.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    holy crap, I revise

    A VERY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF OUR SOLDIERS ARE TEENAGERS

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    As an example, loading a HEAT round in a tank requires significantly more upper body strength than firing an M4.

    And that's a routine combat task. That's before we get into shit-hits-the-fan scenarios, like "quickly pull a 200lb man out of a burning HMMWV" tasks.

    I couldn't haul a 200lb guy out a humvee either, I could still join the army as infantry if I wanted to because I'm a man. I'm guessing there are some women who could do it though.

    Hey, wow, that's a pretty good argument for possibly allowing the top percentile or few of women (and culling the bottom percentile or few of men).

    It's also far from your original "hurf durf how much strength does it take to fire an M4" post.

    Which was in response to SKFMS "hurf durf woman don't have the +1 strength necessary to be soldiers" so no, I haven't changed position at all.

    Casual on
    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?

    I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.

    The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.

    It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .

    Have you had sex in, say, the last twelve to eighteen months or so?

    Yes, but with my wife and I going through infertility, there have, ironically been periods of several months where we are not allowed to have sex. It sucks, but you deal with it.

    Well, believe it or not a lot of soldiers last decade spent the bulk of their twenties "forbidden" from having sex. That's what year+ on, year- off deployment schedules will do.

    Also, "several months" is not a year and a half. Sorry broski, you put a willing partner in front of somebody after a year and a half, and it's on like fucking donkey kong.

    Casual wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I don't know why women being allowed into a different role would change that policy. it didn't change when they started entering the military in the first place.

    It should either be done away with, or equally required for both genders.

    the draft?

    it's pretty unlikely there will be another war where a draft will be necessary for a few reasons

    1) if the US gets in a war with a country its standing military can't handle that country will almost certainly be a nuclear power, if war kicks off with China or Russia no amount of riflemen will save anyone

    2) swarms of infantry just isn't how we fight wars anymore, the individual cost of each infantry soldier in terms of training, equipment, salary and other military benefits has gone up exponentially since the last draft, you can't just give them a rifle and a uniform and send them on their way now

    i just don't see a draft happening in our lifetimes

    Whereas I'd argue the opposite...we should have been drafting for Iraq. Both to reduce the optempo of individual soldiers and to save money on contracted services. Our military wasn't actually capable of effectively occupying that country for the duration of that operation, we simply made due with what we had. We had reservists spending three years out of six deployed.

    A lot of people still want to ignore the toll this exacted on our ground forces.

    And I'd argue making a draft for Afghanistan or Iraq would be politically impossible. I'm guessing vast numbers of people would just refuse to fight. I would.

    It's bad enough sending volunteers to fight pointless wars.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
    GethzagdrobSo It Goes
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    Seems that this argument could be used to not allow them into the military in the first place.

    spacekungfuman
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    Seems that this argument could be used to not allow them into the military in the first place.

    Good luck filling the ranks with people old enough to know better.

    zagdrobSammyF_J_Gennenalyse RuebenEvigilant
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    Seems that this argument could be used to not allow them into the military in the first place.

    Good luck filling the ranks with people old enough to know better.

    Congratulations on not going to college! If you manage to make it through the next five years without learning a useful trade that keeps you employed in a job you don't want to leave, AND if you have concurrently also not somehow ended up incarcerated, we will see you at bootcamp, private!

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Casual wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    As an example, loading a HEAT round in a tank requires significantly more upper body strength than firing an M4.

    And that's a routine combat task. That's before we get into shit-hits-the-fan scenarios, like "quickly pull a 200lb man out of a burning HMMWV" tasks.

    I couldn't haul a 200lb guy out a humvee either, I could still join the army as infantry if I wanted to because I'm a man. I'm guessing there are some women who could do it though.

    Hey, wow, that's a pretty good argument for possibly allowing the top percentile or few of women (and culling the bottom percentile or few of men).

    It's also far from your original "hurf durf how much strength does it take to fire an M4" post.

    Which was in response to SKFMS "hurf durf woman don't have the +1 strength necessary to be soldiers" so no, I haven't changed position at all.

    My post was a joke about role playing games. . .

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    I am unconvinced by this line of thinking. If you are old enough to carry a deadly weapon in the name of the US, you should be old enough to be able to control your impulses and not have sex while in a combat zone.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    I am unconvinced by this line of thinking. If you are old enough to carry a deadly weapon in the name of the US, you should be old enough to be able to control your impulses and not have sex while in a combat zone.

    Space, we are talking about people we don't think are old enough to drink a goddamned beer. You're right that there are elements about this that are head-scratching, but there are also elements that kind of aren't.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    I am unconvinced by this line of thinking. If you are old enough to carry a deadly weapon in the name of the US, you should be old enough to be able to control your impulses and not have sex while in a combat zone.

    Well you're wrong. Hate to break it to you. Go spend a weekend in a fucking infantry barracks sometime, it'll open up your eyes.

    Congratulations on not going to college! If you manage to make it through the next five years without learning a useful trade that keeps you employed in a job you don't want to leave, AND if you have concurrently also not somehow ended up incarcerated, we will see you at bootcamp, private!

    I seem to remember a poster here basically saying that the reason they'd not join the military despite supporting the war is that they're older, have a family, job, kids, etc....

    So yeah, like I said, good luck filling the ranks with those old enough to know better.

    GethBastablezagdrob
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.

    A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.

    how much upper body strength do you need to hold and fire an M4? You guys are talking like they're still swinging swords out there. A bullet fired by a woman will kill you just as well as one fired by a man, because yes, a bullet is a bullet.

    It's more the fact that you are required to pull wounded soldiers out of the line of fire and carry your equipment over long distances. I have female friends that are 95-105lbs, who I would never, ever trust to be able to do either of those things even though they were amazing distance runners and in terrific shape. And when dealing with putting people in life or death situations, it is OK to say "No, you cannot properly do this job, you should not be front line infantry." On the other hand, my high school team had a girl playing linebacker (who wasn't half bad). I would be perfectly OK seeing her on the front line because I know if a 160lb squad mate of hers got shot she could haul his ass out of trouble if she had to.

    And we could also concoct a million combat situations where a 110 pound woman would be the only person to save to squad. It's just we are preconditioned to want our soldiers to be extra manly because that is what society is based around.

    It's pretty simple. You use people to do the jobs they are best at.

    Space: I bet if we take a man well past his sexual prime and make it so he will lose his spot at the top of the CIA if he can't keep it in his pants he will do fine, right?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    I am unconvinced by this line of thinking. If you are old enough to carry a deadly weapon in the name of the US, you should be old enough to be able to control your impulses and not have sex while in a combat zone.

    Space, we are talking about people we don't think are old enough to drink a goddamned beer. You're right that there are elements about this that are head-scratching, but there are also elements that kind of aren't.

    I'd ask if space went to college, but I'm guessing he went to college around a bunch of other people like himself.

    College kids do all kinds of shit they aren't supposed to.

    It's not like people suddenly become 1000% more mature just because they're in a combat zone. Hang around a FOB sometime. Outside the wire, it's srs bsns. In the hooch? Laughing, joking, playing videogames, generally being fucking human beings.

    As for "zomg control your impulses," if there's one thing that will override impulse control in a lot of people a lot of the time, it's sex. Especially when you go awhile without it.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.

    A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.

    how much upper body strength do you need to hold and fire an M4? You guys are talking like they're still swinging swords out there. A bullet fired by a woman will kill you just as well as one fired by a man, because yes, a bullet is a bullet.

    It's more the fact that you are required to pull wounded soldiers out of the line of fire and carry your equipment over long distances. I have female friends that are 95-105lbs, who I would never, ever trust to be able to do either of those things even though they were amazing distance runners and in terrific shape. And when dealing with putting people in life or death situations, it is OK to say "No, you cannot properly do this job, you should not be front line infantry." On the other hand, my high school team had a girl playing linebacker (who wasn't half bad). I would be perfectly OK seeing her on the front line because I know if a 160lb squad mate of hers got shot she could haul his ass out of trouble if she had to.

    And we could also concoct a million combat situations where a 110 pound woman would be the only person to save to squad. It's just we are preconditioned to want our soldiers to be extra manly because that is what society is based around.

    It's pretty simple. You use people to do the jobs they are best at.

    The difference is that we don't need to "concoct' medevac situations. That's a thing that was happening like every single day.

    We don't need to "concoct" loading tank rounds. A projectile capable of destroying a tank is going to be heavy.

    You're "concocting." Others are just, you know, pointing out how the military is, and would be, regardless. The bias towards manliness is due to the nature of warfare. Though you're correct, there are jobs women are especially good at. Just look at Soviet snipers sometime.

    Space: I bet if we take a man well past his sexual prime and make it so he will lose his spot at the top of the CIA if he can't keep it in his pants he will do fine, right?

    Yeah, but it's not like that guy ever spent time in a combat zone or anything.

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Or the female soviet tank aces from WW2. They seemed to manage to operate tanks.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    What exactly is it about a combat zone that would break down sexual impulse control? Because I have always chalked up the stories you hear about soldiers cheating as them just being terrible people (the cheaters, not soldiers in general) just like cheating spouses waiting at home. If I was in a situation where I might die, that would not impact my faithfulness to my wife one bit. . .

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    What exactly is it about a combat zone that would break down sexual impulse control? Because I have always chalked up the stories you hear about soldiers cheating as them just being terrible people (the cheaters, not soldiers in general) just like cheating spouses waiting at home. If I was in a situation where I might die, that would not impact my faithfulness to my wife one bit. . .
    Not everyone is as faithful as you. Many people are,, in fact, different from you.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    What exactly is it about a combat zone that would break down sexual impulse control? Because I have always chalked up the stories you hear about soldiers cheating as them just being terrible people (the cheaters, not soldiers in general) just like cheating spouses waiting at home. If I was in a situation where I might die, that would not impact my faithfulness to my wife one bit. . .

    Okay man, first thing you need to realize plenty of soldiers are single (across the force, it's about half). So it's not just about adultery, that's a separate issue...and conveniently punishable even outside combat zones in the military. So stop talking about adultery.

    So for a single twenty one year old, who's maybe gone a year or longer without getting laid, who suddenly comes across another single twenty year old who wants to bump uglies? Yeah, that's a pretty tough to just be all "naw, I'm cool."

    Now consider that you might, you know, die tomorrow. So this could literally be your last chance ever to get laid. Obviously that's true of anybody anywhere, but you're in a place where you just last week helped load a flag-draped casket on a helicopter. It's a bit more...real.

    SammyFrockrnger
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    American civilians expecting professional conduct from American soldiers doesn't seem like a radical idea.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.

    A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.

    how much upper body strength do you need to hold and fire an M4? You guys are talking like they're still swinging swords out there. A bullet fired by a woman will kill you just as well as one fired by a man, because yes, a bullet is a bullet.

    It's more the fact that you are required to pull wounded soldiers out of the line of fire and carry your equipment over long distances. I have female friends that are 95-105lbs, who I would never, ever trust to be able to do either of those things even though they were amazing distance runners and in terrific shape. And when dealing with putting people in life or death situations, it is OK to say "No, you cannot properly do this job, you should not be front line infantry." On the other hand, my high school team had a girl playing linebacker (who wasn't half bad). I would be perfectly OK seeing her on the front line because I know if a 160lb squad mate of hers got shot she could haul his ass out of trouble if she had to.

    And we could also concoct a million combat situations where a 110 pound woman would be the only person to save to squad. It's just we are preconditioned to want our soldiers to be extra manly because that is what society is based around.

    It's pretty simple. You use people to do the jobs they are best at.

    The difference is that we don't need to "concoct' medevac situations. That's a thing that was happening like every single day.

    We don't need to "concoct" loading tank rounds. A projectile capable of destroying a tank is going to be heavy.

    You're "concocting." Others are just, you know, pointing out how the military is, and would be, regardless. The bias towards manliness is due to the nature of warfare. Though you're correct, there are jobs women are especially good at. Just look at Soviet snipers sometime.

    Space: I bet if we take a man well past his sexual prime and make it so he will lose his spot at the top of the CIA if he can't keep it in his pants he will do fine, right?

    Yeah, but it's not like that guy ever spent time in a combat zone or anything
    You have more experience than me of course but it would seem like a rare situation were you had to load tank rounds and only the only one person was available. Or that the largest person needed carried and only the smallest person could do it and only by themselves. I'm sure there are squads where that would be impossible anyway even with the current standards.

    Also, I'm sure that finding cover in small areas is pretty common but we don't screen for that.

    rockrnger on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Also, being separated from your spouse for a year and a half also does some pretty shitty things to your relationship (some predictable, some less so), in addition to all the fun psychological effects you're already dealing with from a deployment of a year or longer. Something you'd probably realize if you would for a moment imagine that there exist people who are not you.

    Try it sometime.

    So It GoesBastable
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    What exactly is it about a combat zone that would break down sexual impulse control? Because I have always chalked up the stories you hear about soldiers cheating as them just being terrible people (the cheaters, not soldiers in general) just like cheating spouses waiting at home. If I was in a situation where I might die, that would not impact my faithfulness to my wife one bit. . .
    Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die.

    When the last part of that sentence is very possibly true, you will make the most of any attempt at merriment, or the possibility to feel something.

    It's perfectly fine not to intrinsically understand this if you've never been in a situation like this, but please accept the fact that people in high stress situations seek release from these situations they are in, be it from a bottle or a willing person to fuck. Its base psychology.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    American civilians expecting professional conduct from American soldiers doesn't seem like a radical idea.

    Its one we already have and there are already systems in place to address it. Those don't go far enough apparently, because skfm can't fathom why soldiers would ever break rules to have sex.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    You have more experience than me of course but it would seem like a rare situation were you had to load tank rounds and only the only one person was available. Or that the largest person needed carried and only the smallest person could do it and only by themselves. I'm sure there are squads where that would be impossible anyway even with the current standards.

    Also, I'm sure that finding cover in small areas is pretty common but we don't screen for that.

    A tank turret has only three people in it (plus one in the driver's hole). And every crewmember is expected to be able to perform all the positions below theirs...crosstraining is the norm.

    Situations where a large person needs to be moved and only a small person is available are also not uncommon.

    Have you, like, been in the military? Just want to be sure, because right now I'm assuming no.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    What exactly is it about a combat zone that would break down sexual impulse control? Because I have always chalked up the stories you hear about soldiers cheating as them just being terrible people (the cheaters, not soldiers in general) just like cheating spouses waiting at home. If I was in a situation where I might die, that would not impact my faithfulness to my wife one bit. . .

    Okay man, first thing you need to realize plenty of soldiers are single (across the force, it's about half). So it's not just about adultery, that's a separate issue...and conveniently punishable even outside combat zones in the military. So stop talking about adultery.

    So for a single twenty one year old, who's maybe gone a year or longer without getting laid, who suddenly comes across another single twenty year old who wants to bump uglies? Yeah, that's a pretty tough to just be all "naw, I'm cool."

    Now consider that you might, you know, die tomorrow. So this could literally be your last chance ever to get laid. Obviously that's true of anybody anywhere, but you're in a place where you just last week helped load a flag-draped casket on a helicopter. It's a bit more...real.

    Ahaha, this takes me way back. I mean, this could be just me, but...

    ...I thought the best thing about having sex for the first time was knowing that I wouldn't die a virgin. I was just so fucking relieved to know that I wouldn't get smashed in a car accident tomorrow or die of old age 70 years later without getting some. And I was 18 at the time. And no where fucking near a war.

    I think anyone who has even an inkling of memory about what being 18 was like should be able to understand what it would be like to feel that way with the idea that death might be a more immediate consideration.

    SammyF on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    American civilians expecting professional conduct from American soldiers doesn't seem like a radical idea.

    I'd be curious why being willing to go three years out of six without sexual contact (assuming a consenting partner is available) is considered a requirement for "professional conduct" to begin with.

    Fraternization between ranks and adultery being a separate issue (that's already addressed outside combat zones).

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, it's not like people in their early 20's are paragons of restraint.

    Seems that this argument could be used to not allow them into the military in the first place.

    Good luck filling the ranks with people old enough to know better.

    You almost make it sound like volunteering to get shot at, and kill people, is the opposite of wisdom.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    What exactly is it about a combat zone that would break down sexual impulse control? Because I have always chalked up the stories you hear about soldiers cheating as them just being terrible people (the cheaters, not soldiers in general) just like cheating spouses waiting at home. If I was in a situation where I might die, that would not impact my faithfulness to my wife one bit. . .

    Okay man, first thing you need to realize plenty of soldiers are single (across the force, it's about half). So it's not just about adultery, that's a separate issue...and conveniently punishable even outside combat zones in the military. So stop talking about adultery.

    So for a single twenty one year old, who's maybe gone a year or longer without getting laid, who suddenly comes across another single twenty year old who wants to bump uglies? Yeah, that's a pretty tough to just be all "naw, I'm cool."

    Now consider that you might, you know, die tomorrow. So this could literally be your last chance ever to get laid. Obviously that's true of anybody anywhere, but you're in a place where you just last week helped load a flag-draped casket on a helicopter. It's a bit more...real.

    Ahaha, this takes me way back. I mean, this could be just me, but...

    ...I thought the best thing about having sex for the first time was knowing that I wouldn't die a virgin. I was just so fucking relieved to know that I wouldn't get smashed in a car accident tomorrow or die of old age 70 years later without getting some. And I was 18 at the time. And no where fucking near a war.

    We had virgins in my unit.

    But if some hot Air Force chick was all DTF, those dudes should totally wait, because it's not like they could get their dick blown off tomorrow and it's totally not worth breaking an Army policy.

Sign In or Register to comment.