Gee....  Stuck in a Muslim region hot zone with Federally mandated gender integrated troops [except Combat Arms {still, I hope}].

Who could have foreseen any problem with this scenario?

MSG Tripps wrote:

Gee....  Stuck in a Muslim region hot zone with Federally mandated gender integrated troops [except Combat Arms {still, I hope}].

Who could have foreseen any problem with this scenario?

After all, boys will be boys, and I heard that sometimes in the military that girls will be boys, but don't tell.

MSG Tripps wrote:

Gee....  Stuck in a Muslim region hot zone with Federally mandated gender integrated troops [except Combat Arms {still, I hope}].

Who could have foreseen any problem with this scenario?

I'm not sure - those reasons seem as implausabile as my assertion that the lowering fo the recruiting standards has had a negative impact on good discipline and morale.

I agree with the lower recruiting standards reasoning.

Look at the shit that goes on. Rape, murdering entire families, degrading Muslim men and women and lets not forget the cock monkey that threw the puppy a few months ago. Wonder why the rest of the world hates us?? I think its pretty fucking clear.

Bigcat wrote:

Look at the shit that goes on.

Bigcat, unless you are there [have been there, etc] you are not qualified to render judgment on this.

What should I fuck myself?  All infractions "over there" will be dealt with under the UCMJ which you [and I] have absolutly nothing do to with anymore.

Bigcat wrote:

in the first Gulf War

Way to support your Bros, pal.  You sound like every other ignorant fuck in this country.
What were you in, the Air Force?

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2008-10-28 17:53:17)

Bigcat wrote:

Why don't you go enlist today?

21 1/2 years service and 58 years old, but I would if I were allowed.

Your Platoon SGT had his work cut out with you, didn't he?

Bigcat wrote:

I'm only saying that the things that happen now didn't happen then.

Yes {they} did.  What is different now is media and some stupid fucking idea that some how war can be made to appear as PC.

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2008-10-28 18:15:34)

We had a war (well a Fire-Ex anyway) - they have to deal with an occupation.

Walk a mile in their boots brother...

sierrabravo wrote:

they never speak about the male soldiers that were harrassed

Probably because no one wants to think about how the obvious fact that homosexual bonding behaviours lend cohesion to every army. In the past (spartans, janissaries, etc.), it was an open fact. In puritan America it's a deliberately ignored (but regretfully unclassified) secret.  It certainly messes with the gung-ho propaganda machine to imagine the troops snuggling in their fox-holes. (Not to mention their bung-holes.) 

As for  rape (the soldiers' socially acceptable release), it's one of the spoils of war, and probably always will be. Female troops, on the other hand, are an historical rarity. With another hundred years' perspective, it may be decided that soldiers with vaginas should be kept farther from the front, to protect them from friendly-fuck-fire. Note that 15% represents only the number of women with reported PTSD. The real statistics on rape and harassment will probably never be known, and I imagine, given the intense propaganda you live with in the US, that they're under-reported.

Women in camo turn me on...  I know a couple of gals in the National Guard and they wouldn't even catch my eye in civilian clothes...  Dress them up in MARPAT/ACU though and I fantasize about them roughing me up a bit....  It's hot....

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Probably because no one wants to think about how the obvious fact that homosexual bonding behaviours lend cohesion to every army. In the past (spartans, janissaries, etc.), it was an open fact. In puritan America it's a deliberately ignored (but regretfully unclassified) secret.  It certainly messes with the gung-ho propaganda machine to imagine the troops snuggling in their fox-holes. (Not to mention their bung-holes.)

And then there's:

Last edited by AladdinSane (2008-10-28 23:27:47)

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

The stuff you guys did to each other after reveille is a related matter, but not the one I was talking about.

After taps, not reveille. Anyway, the sad part of this story is I wager each of our former warriors here would reup in a heartbeat if they could, if their wives and kids let them, if they were still able.

I said goodbye last night to my best friend, guy I've known 40 years, redeploying to Iraq. Former marine, former patrolman, former police chief, and most recently a govt gumby with a secure state job. Same age as me, moron just turned 54, has 6 kids, two of them preschool and a 97 year old mother. I might rabbit a situation like that myself, but not to a warzone. I've lived there as a 'civilian' and it's not my idea of a good time. Yeah, I'd go back to newspapers without a second thought, if they still existed.

Here's the kicker, though. My uniformed friend? An Army Sgt, just like Dhal, an MP tasked to convoy duty with a big fat fucking target painted on his helmet every single day of his tour. This is a guy who watched Saigon fall in 1975. If I ever see him again, I doubt I'll know him this time.

I thank baby jesus every day I resisted that life.

Emmeran wrote:

The theory you reference here is mirrored by hundreds of pieces of like attitude concerning male activities, the general thrust of these being that all male activity is homosexual in nature.

Whole idea makes your skin crawl, don't it, Auntie Emmy? Make him roll over and beg, Wilbur!

Put any healthy adult human in a confined, high stress situation, they won't care where they get their nut.

choad wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

The theory you reference here is mirrored by hundreds of pieces of like attitude concerning male activities, the general thrust of these being that all male activity is homosexual in nature.

Whole idea makes your skin crawl, don't it, Auntie Emmy? Make him roll over and beg, Wilbur!

Put any healthy adult human in a confined, high stress situation, they won't care where they get their nut.

Courtesy of PostSecret


Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Having spent four years in the military and most of my youth in athletic endeavors, I have come to the conclusion that there is a certain type of macho gay man that is drawn to these situations.  They look and, for the most part, act "normal".  So, when they are outed, they make perfect poster children for those who would claim that normal men congregate for sexual purposes.  Again, in my experience, this could not be further from the truth.

phreddy wrote:

Having spent four years in the military and most of my youth in athletic endeavors, I have come to the conclusion that there is a certain type of macho gay man that is drawn to these situations.  They look and, for the most part, act "normal".  So, when they are outed, they make perfect poster children for those who would claim that normal men congregate for sexual purposes.  Again, in my experience, this could not be further from the truth.

You and Em are both wriggling like worms on a hook. This is NOT about cock-sucking and butt-sex. It's about the psycho-sexual forces that underpin militarism, and military units. I'll ignore Phreddy's posting, because it's obvious he didn't read (or didn't understand) what I was saying. Emmeran, on the other hand, has made an atypically untenable argument.

Looking to Clausewitz and Colon Poo-well for insights into psychology and social anthropology makes as much sense as asking Freud and Marvin Harris for pointers on operational art. In fact, asking someone "on the inside" of any society, military or otherwise, to comment on their own background is to invite a litany of programmed attitudes, fears and prejudices. People live in a bath of strong and weak social forces - tacit assumptions and prejudices that define our actions and attitudes. 99.9 times out of 10,000 (yeah, I know, my math's not as good as my writing), it's as hard to part people from their tacit assumptions as it is to pull a proton from the nucleus of an atom. It's clear from a social anthropological view that homosexuality arises at the gene level because it's beneficial to our ability to form social groupings. Where men live in groups, especially in military situations that require intense inter-reliance, it's thanks to those genes that we can work together.

Here's the rub (but not the frottage) - the discourse on sexuality in our society has been controlled by people of a puritanical bent (aw shit, now I'm leaning on Foucault's History of Sexuality - we'll be at this for days), who exclude faggots from the perception of norm. Thus, modern armies A: defend the culture that controls the discourse that excludes homosexuality, and B: are reliant on the genes that engender homosexuality for their cohesion. The only way this can work is through the repression and denial of overt homosexual behaviours, effected by their translation into covert expressions of male intimacy.

Look - I don't really like it either. But it makes a lot of sense, and there's lots of empirical evidentiary support. Soldiers are only gay to the statistical norm, but the forces that bind a military together are fundamentally queer.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Having spent four years in the military and most of my youth in athletic endeavors, I have come to the conclusion that there is a certain type of macho gay man that is drawn to these situations.  They look and, for the most part, act "normal".  So, when they are outed, they make perfect poster children for those who would claim that normal men congregate for sexual purposes.  Again, in my experience, this could not be further from the truth.

You and Em are both wriggling like worms on a hook. This is NOT about cock-sucking and butt-sex. It's about the psycho-sexual forces that underpin militarism, and military units. I'll ignore Phreddy's posting, because it's obvious he didn't read (or didn't understand) what I was saying. Emmeran, on the other hand, has made an atypically untenable argument.

Looking to Clausewitz and Colon Poo-well for insights into psychology and social anthropology makes as much sense as asking Freud and Marvin Harris for pointers on operational art. In fact, asking someone "on the inside" of any society, military or otherwise, to comment on their own background is to invite a litany of programmed attitudes, fears and prejudices. People live in a bath of strong and weak social forces - tacit assumptions and prejudices that define our actions and attitudes. 99.9 times out of 10,000 (yeah, I know, my math's not as good as my writing), it's as hard to part people from their tacit assumptions as it is to pull a proton from the nucleus of an atom. It's clear from a social anthropological view that homosexuality arises at the gene level because it's beneficial to our ability to form social groupings. Where men live in groups, especially in military situations that require intense inter-reliance, it's thanks to those genes that we can work together.

Here's the rub (but not the frottage) - the discourse on sexuality in our society has been controlled by people of a puritanical bent (aw shit, now I'm leaning on Foucault's History of Sexuality - we'll be at this for days), who exclude faggots from the perception of norm. Thus, modern armies A: defend the culture that controls the discourse that excludes homosexuality, and B: are reliant on the genes that engender homosexuality for their cohesion. The only way this can work is through the repression and denial of overt homosexual behaviours, effected by their translation into covert expressions of male intimacy.

Look - I don't really like it either. But it makes a lot of sense, and there's lots of empirical evidentiary support. Soldiers are only gay to the statistical norm, but the forces that bind a military together are fundamentally queer.

Uncle

I'm just too damn hungover to focus on what you're saying so I'll just go ahead and concede the point on this one.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Well, that's no way to win an argument, but it doess confirm the statistical utility of large words and long paragraphs.

If that's what you've been doing this whole bit, you've been wasting your time. And ours. Bombard and bombast with your sequipedo predilections doesn't automatically "win" you every discussion you enter. Sometimes, you lose just for participating. Take it from someone who used to make a novella of every post and who has no personal shortage of SAT vocab. When succinctly deployed, language is a sword; when an overweening abundance, a shield between you and others.

pALEPHx wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Well, that's no way to win an argument, but it doess confirm the statistical utility of large words and long paragraphs.

If that's what you've been doing this whole bit, you've been wasting your time. And ours. Bombard and bombast with your sequipedo predilections doesn't automatically "win" you every discussion you enter. Sometimes, you lose just for participating. Take it from someone who used to make a novella of every post and who has no personal shortage of SAT vocab. When succinctly deployed, language is a sword; when an overweening abundance, a shield between you and others.

Christ on a dildo, pENIx, take a fucking chill pill. You really do need to get a little perspective, or sex, or exercise, or therapy, or...something. I write for a living, and I generally (but not always) use standard Englitch. When I write here, I write for fun. That's right - my own. Not yours. So...like...go fuck yourself, you querulous quimshy (oh no...horrors...neologisms...try not to shit yourself). You used to be fun too, old girl, after you stopped posting novellas, but lately reading your words is like eating crackers dispossessed of cheese and served without the wine - dry as dust, dry as the Gobi Desert, dry as the dry side of the planet Mercury in the driest part of the dry season, dry as your grandma's feather duster (bet you thought I'd say vagina...). Anyways, carry on with the vitriol - it vexeth me not, neither doth it rankle.

pALEPHx wrote:

Were you trying to prove my point, Sesquipedo?

No. I was trying to get you to lighten up or shut up, Desultofaggo.

pALEPHx wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

No. I was trying to get you to lighten up or shut up, Desultofaggo.

For all your facility with the language, Desultofaggo doesn't have the same chime to it. Sorry. And if you wanted me to lighten up, grab the lube, roll over, and make sure that ball gag is over your mouth so I don't have to listen to you complain until you like it.

That's more like it - that's the old pENIx!
Sure - Sesquipedo is a much better name than Desultofaggo. Desultofaggo, I believe, means "ass-mop" in Armenian. Small clarification: ball gags go IN the mouth, not over the mouth. Oh - and speaking of ass-mops, I've got incredible gas and a lower intestine full of impacted feces. Somewhere - but not in 101 Days of Sodom - the blessed Marquis wrote that there is no finer sensation than pushing one's cock up a whore's ass and into a soft stool. My shit, as of an hour ago, was extruding from my sphincter in the shape of an I-beam, with approximately the same tensile strength and hardness. But you know, go right ahead. No sacrifice is too great for a High-Street bro. But if you don't mind, I'll just keep reading my book.

Last edited by WilberCuntLicker (2008-11-01 15:44:25)