[PimpBrewski123]

There has been females in the military for some time. Not every guy gets a hard on simply by glancing at a woman. Typical stereotype or generalizing or whatever.

[andyt]

PimpBrewski123 PimpBrewski123:

There has been females in the military for some time. Not every guy gets a hard on simply by glancing at a woman. Typical stereotype or generalizing or whatever.

I completely agree - Guy Fawkes was sure generalizing. Same with his looking only at the male side about getting horny, as if women don't.

[Brenda]

Yeah, but we don't have to jerk off every time we get a "hard on", or think we cannot do without sex for a couple of months when necessary.

I'm not saying "every man" does, but once we have to "dress modestly" or just "not serve" because "men" can't keep their d*cks in their pants, I am getting a little annoyed.

Grow a damned pair!

Sure, love is everywhere, even in the army, but like with any other job, keep it off of the work floor.

[andyt]

]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

There are several women in combat roles, put some sweat pants on and waddle to the closest military base and see for yourself. Just because one story makes it to the papers, does not mean there is a HUGE problem with fraternization. 99% of the soldiers who go to Afghanistan do their job in a professional matter, what they do on decompression or when they get back in country is a different matter.

Several usually is taken to mean 3 - is that what you meant? This post is not just about what makes it to the papers, but about the concerns of the brass about the situation.

$1:

andyt andyt:

Why are you only focused on the men? Presumably the women who are involved in fraternization also want companionship and are are at least equally capable of jealousy?

Do you have a point at all? What I said was merely an example of one of the MANY issues that would come up with legal prostitution.

Looks like you misread - I was addressing your suggestion that anybody who has a problem with getting horny should just suck it up and rub one out. It shure sounded like you were talking only about the men, but i guess you could have bee suggesting this relief to the women too.

$1:

andyt andyt:

Score! But any fraternization policy that doesn't address the GLBT issue is going to be defective.

I can see you're just a useless fucking troll, sorry for feeding you.

Nice one - you haven't actually addressed the issue of gays/lesbians in the military at all - just called me a troll to shut down the discussion.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

Yeah, but we don't have to jerk off every time we get a "hard on", or think we cannot do without sex for a couple of months when necessary.

I'm not saying "every man" does, but once we have to "dress modestly" or just "not serve" because "men" can't keep their d*cks in their pants, I am getting a little annoyed.

Grow a damned pair!

Sure, love is everywhere, even in the army, but like with any other job, keep it off of the work floor.

Maybe you don't get hard ons, but women certainly seem to jerk off at times as well as men.

And why is your response about men who can't keep their dicks in their pants, but not about women who can't keep their pussies in their panties? It takes two to fraternize, yet your focus seems to be only on the men's role in all this. Don't the women have any responsibility here?

And of course the article is all about people in and out of the military saying that it's impossible to expect men and women soldiers to keep it off he work floor.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

Yeah, but we don't have to jerk off every time we get a "hard on", or think we cannot do without sex for a couple of months when necessary.

I'm not saying "every man" does, but once we have to "dress modestly" or just "not serve" because "men" can't keep their d*cks in their pants, I am getting a little annoyed.

Grow a damned pair!

Sure, love is everywhere, even in the army, but like with any other job, keep it off of the work floor.

Maybe you don't get hard ons, but women certainly seem to jerk off at times as well as men.

And why is your response about men who can't keep their dicks in their pants, but not about women who can't keep their pussies in their panties? It takes two to fraternize, yet your focus seems to be only on the men's role in all this. Don't the women have any responsibility here?

And of course the article is all about people in and out of the military saying that it's impossible to expect men and women soldiers to keep it off he work floor.

Of course women do. But wasn't it you who said "women just shouldn't serve"? Why is that? Because women are "lust-objects"?

And personally, I think it is very possible to keep sex off the work floor. It's a state of mind.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

Of course women do. But wasn't it you who said "women just shouldn't serve"? Why is that? Because women are "lust-objects"?

And personally, I think it is very possible to keep sex off the work floor. It's a state of mind.

Yeah, the women just should't serve was me trolling a bit. But I amended it to maybe they should have separate units for men and women with no contact. Or, how about we have only women serve, since men are just as much lust objects as women, no?

I don't see how men and women (or men and men or women and women) could be expected to keep it in their pants under such conditions. Normal workers don't live together in close quarters, and aren't subjected to nearly the same level of stress or the idea that today could be their last. So I think the army's rules here don't seem reasonable, and as the story says, apparently the US has relaxed theirs. I wonder what more relaxed people like say the Dutch army do?

But, if you relax the rules, I can certainly see how problems can arise with interpersonal conflicts, more so than the case now. I don't pretend to have an answer to this - but maybe segregated units could work. And then maybe let em get together when they're on R&R, tho then they should recruit a lot more women to make the ratio more like 1:1 - I feel sorry for all the guys that would be left out.

I guess the proof is in the pudding. The Israeli army seems to function pretty well, and they are co-ed. OTOH, they're fighting at home, for their homeland, not deployed for a year halfway around the world.

[Brenda]

$1:

Or, how about we have only women serve, since men are just as much lust objects as women, no?

Hmmmmm, no...

That, and the fact that men and women are just not equal, and (a lot of) women just cannot do the things men can, and vice versa, so you would end up with a very small army... I am sure the women serving are very capable of doing their task, but for example, I would definitely not be. I am mentally and physically not able to do what they do...

I would assume men and women have different quarters, but I don't know how privacy is handled with when deployed. Not here, and also not in The Netherlands. I am of no opinion about it either, the only thing I have an opinion of is that "we" should keep it in our pants when at work, no matter where.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Or, how about we have only women serve, since men are just as much lust objects as women, no?

Hmmmmm, no...

That, and the fact that men and women are just not equal, and (a lot of) women just cannot do the things men can, and vice versa, so you would end up with a very small army... I am sure the women serving are very capable of doing their task, but for example, I would definitely not be. I am mentally and physically not able to do what they do...

I would assume men and women have different quarters, but I don't know how privacy is handled with when deployed. Not here, and also not in The Netherlands. I am of no opinion about it either, the only thing I have an opinion of is that "we" should keep it in our pants when at work, no matter where.

Infantry have to hump 100lbs of gear - I doubt that many women can do that. I would be surprised if they really have co-ed actual infantry combat units, but Guy Fawkes would know better than me. That still leaves the gay/lesbian issue, tho - don't know how they address that. I mean if straight people shouldn't live co-ed because of fraternization, that doesn't help the gays or lesbians, does it?

I'm sure they have separate male and female quarters on bases - but there's still lots of opportunity to get together. And still danger and stress - do you really think you could keep it in your pants for a year in those conditions. When you're in your 20's, lonely and scared?

[SprCForr]

FWIW, if the women are Infantiers then they can in fact hump a ruck. If they couldn't they wouldn't pass. There's only one standard for Infantry regardless of sex.

The units have their assigned lines. There isn't seperate buildings for the sexes like the old days. They won't assign different genders to the same room. The days of communal sleeping and ablutions are long gone.

[Guy_Fawkes]

andyt andyt:

Infantry have to hump 100lbs of gear - I doubt that many women can do that. I would be surprised if they really have co-ed actual infantry combat units, but Guy Fawkes would know better than me. That still leaves the gay/lesbian issue, tho - don't know how they address that. I mean if straight people shouldn't live co-ed because of fraternization, that doesn't help the gays or lesbians, does it?

The infantry very rarely carries over 100lbs on patrols, and Spr is right if you cant meet the standard (guess what men get cut too!) you are out of the unit.

I cant believe I'm going to feed you again: For the gay and lesbian issue, its not an issue. These people are PROFESSIONALS not boys and girls at scout camp. You are the one talking about segregation, with the truth being, its not needed. There is not a deeper issue of rampant sex while on tour, all we have here are a few shitbirds who do not have any self restraint and thought they could get away with it.

andyt andyt:

I'm sure they have separate male and female quarters on bases - but there's still lots of opportunity to get together. And still danger and stress - do you really think you could keep it in your pants for a year in those conditions. When you're in your 20's, lonely and scared?

Yup, been there done that, so have thousands of other soldiers.

BTW - Its not a year that you are on tour.
- You are never alone you have: A fire team partner, your section 2 IC, your Sgt, your TP warrant, your TC and if you're on KAF or he makes it out the FOB a padre to talk to. (( Those in Bold have to authority to pull you out of the wire if they feel you cant carry on, and are trained to recognize those who should be pulled))
- Yup you can get scared, but there is training to turn that off when needed and if you feel scared constantly see the above bullet.

[andyt]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I cant believe I'm going to feed you again: For the gay and lesbian issue, its not an issue. These people are PROFESSIONALS not boys and girls at scout camp. You are the one talking about segregation, with the truth being, its not needed. There is not a deeper issue of rampant sex while on tour, all we have here are a few shitbirds who do not have any self restraint and thought they could get away with it.

See, it's not so hard to address what I'm saying rather than just insult me. I'm responding to the article. It, or maybe other headlines I've read, make clear that many soldiers support the current policy, as it sounds like you do. But the article mostly focuses on people within and without the military who say the current policy is unrealistic and should be relaxed, as apparently the US has done. And of course then other people think this would lead to all kinds of problems. Suggesting the military be segregated is a way of engaging that question, not that I really expected it to be implemented.

None of this addresses the issue of homosexuals living in close quarters with their "lust objects" as Brenda put it, vs heterosexuals living in separate units. This would seem to put more stress yet on the bents (if we're straight, can't we have a casual, accepted term for them that includes both genders? I'd use queer, which seems to be being rehabilitated, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable used by straight males yet). I'm sure they're professional, but seems to me they're being asked to be more professional than the straights.

Anyway, as I said, the Israelis seems to have figured it out, so I'm sure we can too.

It's been fun.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Not one 'expert' who gave their opinion is working within the military, the only one who came close said

$1:

Even retired colonel Michel Drapeau, now a law professor in Ottawa, called for "common sense," arguing soldiers are not robots

and thats all. The sex therapist only link to the military was that her office was close to the defence headquarters and she had several soldier come to see her. In my experiance contracted civilian employees have a biased view of the soldiers they treat.

[andyt]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Not one 'expert' who gave their opinion is working within the military, the only one who came close said

$1:

Even retired colonel Michel Drapeau, now a law professor in Ottawa, called for "common sense," arguing soldiers are not robots

and thats all. The sex therapist only link to the military was that her office was close to the defence headquarters and she had several soldier come to see her. In my experiance contracted civilian employees have a biased view of the soldiers they treat.

Well it's definitely for the soldiers to figure out, or specifically the brass. Tho I think a civilian with expertise is not to be dismissed. If this sex therapist was so biased, I doubt soldiers would continue to come and see her, since it doesn't sound like she's on contract to the military.

But attitudes certainly change. I'm sure a few decades ago, if you were in the army then, you would have argued vociferously about having women in combat roles. The gays in the military seems to be an ongoing argument in the US, I don't hear much about it in Canada, so I'm not sure what the situation is here. So who knows where this is heading. But I know if I was in that situation, and a woman soldier expressed an interest, and I wasn't married, I'd find it pretty hard to say no.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Soldiers who need to see a therapist are told who they are to see, unless they want to pay for it out of their pocket. As for the bias, she is getting thousands from CF members and she wants to look like she cares for their relationships. So she would more than likely support any kind of caring relationship regardless of the rules put down by the CFAO/QR&Os. Besides if soldiers didnt have any relationships she wouldnt not be getting them as clients, so ya I think she is extremely biased.

Homosexuals in the CF have never really been much of an issue, the CF has a very open policy. I know of two individuals who opted to have a military wedding in the church on base, military has to accommodate them but I have never heard of a time when they were not happy to preform the service. Also its my understanding is that if you are transgendered in the military they will pay for your sex change.

What this guy did was not have a one time fling, but had a relationship with a subordinate while on deployment. Personally I would find it very easy, since if she is that horny to grab some soldier for a night, Im positive Im not the first one. What ever she has Im sure there are several RCRs with the same hitchhiker.