By eels.

Only in prison, or on a pirate ship.

Rearguard... now was that intended or not?  All of what you said was pretty much applied to Blacks (except the falling in love stuff)

Singling out the most "manly" of the Armed Services...I've read that unlike other servicemen, a lot of Marines are esthetes who adore the beauty and character and stereotypical identity of males: the male body and its muscularity (their own and/or that of others),  masculinity/machismo in behavior, model-like attention to appearance (exacting if severe haircut, perfectly polished shoes, pressed and tight uniform), a love of male rites and rituals, etc. All the vision of "real manhood" as defined by tradition. A weird combination of both over-the-top grit and snobbish preening. Doesn't automatically make them gay, but they seem awfully obsessed with maleness and macho allure. With a little push, many of them could be categorized as gay with an edge of S&M (brutish physicality). Apparently, a surprising percentage of Marines ARE gay.

Ironic, isn't it? That Marine roughneck sharing the foxhole or latrine with you...that Marlboro Man...the last person you'd EVER suspect of being "unnaturally attracted" to men, could be eyeing your pecs or butt or crotch with every "inadvertent" glance sideways.  Admiring, if not LUSTING.

Last edited by scarydog (2010-06-02 02:49:00)

Bigcat wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

, but I would feel uncomfortable sharing a shower with a strange woman.

I would LOVE to share the shower with a strange woman. The stranger the better.  R.T?????

Show of hairy palms. Who'd pay to watch?

Dmtdust wrote:

Rearguard... now was that intended or not?  All of what you said was pretty much applied to Blacks (except the falling in love stuff)

I'm not sure what the playing the race card here has to do with what I said.  My point was that by introducing characters that could potentially fall in love you then cause the parties to think more about protecting their partner than they do about protecting *everyone* and the achieving objective.  I don't believe it can be shown that [insert race here] are any more or less likely to fall in love with a comrade than any other race... so why toss in the race card?

Last edited by whosasailorthen (2010-06-02 08:57:30)

whosasailorthen wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Rearguard... now was that intended or not?  All of what you said was pretty much applied to Blacks (except the falling in love stuff)

I'm not sure what the playing the race card here has to do with what I said.  My point was that by introducing characters that could potentially fall in love you then cause the parties to think more about protecting their partner than they do about protecting *everyone* and the achieving objective.  I don't believe it can be shown that [insert race here] are any more or less likely to fall in love with a comrade than any other race... so why toss in the race card?

My point with the race card was that Blacks etc were not allowed to serve either, with multiple reasons as why they would be a determent to unit coherency.  That BS passed as well.

Good discussion this.  I'm no homophobe and I have gay friends, relatives, and co-workers with whom I have wonderful relationships, but I just think military service is different.  As a veteran who served a number of years on sea duty where men are confined to small spaces, I have another take on gays in the military.  The potential for lovers compromising battles is one thing, but, in my opinion, it would be the routine, day to day contacts that would be most problematic.  The value of good morale is something most non-military people don't consider and don't really understand.  When men are cooped up for weeks on end, tempers get short, mole hills grow into mountains, and readiness and just about everything else can suffer.  Poor morale exacerbates the whole situation.  Throwing women or gays into the mix cannot improve overall morale, so why do it?  The military is not there to offer equal opportunity to all citizens.  For instance, there are no concessions for those with disabilities as there are in other federal jobs.  Therefore, if accepting gays lowers the effectiveness of the military, then they should not be allowed to serve.

Taint wrote:

It's a fair proposition: can you show any cases where gays - particularly in nations that allow gay soldiers - have proven to lower military efficacy?

I'm sure someone has gathered stats on this, but political correctness would stiffle publication in the U.S.  Not sure of other countries, but my guess would be the same.  In any case, my point is based more on common sense.  If we can all agree there are homophobes in the military, then mixing them with openly gay men can't be good.  Also, there is no privacy on a ship.  Having your gay shipmates flirting and fucking in the next bunk would not be good for morale any more than if a couple of guys had their girlfriends in their bunks.  And poor morale lowers military efficacy, this we already know.  If the military was honest with the public about the effects of introducing women into certain military situations, this would all be crystal clear.  But right now claiming women disrupt military performance is simply not allowed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ori … ry_service

http://www.palmcenter.org/research/nati … gay+people

Oh horrors, it's only our prejudices that are keeping the services free from the taint of Homosexual Service (sorry Taint, not you but you knew that...) Whilst everyone else has joined the 21st century, like back in the 1970's.

Face it, it's down to backwardness, and provincial religious bigotry that is the real problem.

Oh my God, one of my biz partners is Gay, I shouldn't pick up anything around him!

Pathetic.

Yes indeedy.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

I know that there are a fair percentage of women aboard Navy vessels and while it has shown to cause some friction and strife, it's probably not a whole lot more than you would find in any large company where men and women work together. Most companies have policies to prevent coworkers from dating or being in supervisory roles over each other. Those rules are often ignored, but can be useful for dealing with situations where it causes problems for the company. If someone can't keep their emotions in check while doing their job, they don't belong in the military, gay or straight.

When you work for a private company you can choose your friends and you can go home at night.  I'm not saying that gays and women in the military instigate the problems they cause.  I'm saying the military should not have to accomodate either women or gays any more than they should accomodate blind people or those with physical handicaps.  There is no practical military reason for doing so.

Taint wrote:

It's too easy to attribute the lack of material supporting one's argument to a conspiracy political correctness to hide the truth. It sounds, too, as if you believe gay soldiers are less professional than their straight counterparts, i.e. "Having your gay shipmates flirting and fucking in the next bunk would not be good for morale any more than if a couple of guys had their girlfriends in their bunks."

I suspect those soldiers who find themselves in situations where their lives are in danger are far less worried about the sexual orientation of the guy who's coming to their aid.

I think you miss my point Taint.  I am not impugning the professionalism nor the dedication of gays in the military.  Let's use women again as an example because we have data on how many of them fuck while on shipboard duty.  In 2007 11.1 % of all women serving onboard navy ships were transferred to shore status because they became pregnant.  There was definitely lots of fucking going on.  And this figure doesn't account for abortions.  Why should the military put up with this?  Apart from the politically correct notion that women and gays should have equal rights to die in combat, I can think of no reason.  And "equal rights in the military" is an oxymoron.

Fresh Off The Wires:  "No One Having Gay Military Buttseck Gets Pregnant!"  Details at 9:00.

phreddy wrote:

Taint wrote:

Blah, blah, blah.

I think you miss my point Taint.  I am not impugning the professionalism nor the dedication of gays in the military.  Let's use women again as an example because we have data on how many of them fuck while on shipboard duty.  In 2007 11.1 % of all women serving onboard navy ships were transferred to shore status because they became pregnant.  There was definitely lots of fucking going on.  And this figure doesn't account for abortions.  Why should the military put up with this?  Apart from the politically correct notion that women and gays should have equal rights to die in combat, I can think of no reason.  And "equal rights in the military" is an oxymoron.

Actually, I think that is the point. Just as soldiers serve their commander-in-chief regardless of his or her political affiliation, they serve alongside individuals they may or not like, races or ethnicities they may or may not like, and despite any other host of personal prejudices. A soldier whose entire ability to perform his duties hinges upon whether he's afraid some other dude is admiring the curvature of his ass isn't much of a soldier.

The ridiculous part is we're talking about a subculture where displaying your dick, balls, and ass or putting said body part in/on another guy's face/mouth/ass/hand is a considered a fun game that should never end.