Slashdot Mirror


Soldiers Looking For Hookups On Craigslist Are Being Warned of a Military Sting

Daniel_Stuckey writes with this excerpt from Motherboard: "Word has it there's a military sting operation to bust soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are using Craigslist to find casual hookups, and now troopers are being warned to keep their sexual exploits on the down-low. It all started when news article published last week in the Army Times suggested undercover military cops were trolling the Craigslist Baghdad personals to catch officers posting lewd photos looking for casual sex. (The Baghdad site is presumably a product of the war in Iraq, though most of the posters now are deployed in Afghanistan.) The story was picked up by the Daily Mail and a subsequent wave of media outlets, exposing the X-rated subculture."

335 comments

  1. In other news by DougOtto · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    There's a Craigslist Baghdad?

    --
    Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    1. Re:In other news by 228e2 · · Score: 2
      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    2. Re:In other news by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny
      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, and there is even one ad under vacation rental. I guess soldiers can park their hummers in her garage. Yes, it's a double-entendre.

    4. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a Craigslist Baghdad?

      Well, I certainly find that far more revealing that the concept that anyone was "exposing" the x-rated subculture of our military here. We act like that particular subset of society is any different sexually than the rest of society. What utter bullshit. Military members may be perceived as polite and professional, but they're still just as fucking horny as the rest of us.

    5. Re:In other news by pspahn · · Score: 1

      From a current W4M ad:

      I need your help to find a soldier whose pictures I received thru possible hackers who stole them. I am a female from Texas and would really like to find this soldier and get to know him. Want to be his friend and possibly more.

      Indeed... creeps manage to... well, creep into every walk of society.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    6. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG wamf mod points?!

    7. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, the personals section of craigslist baghdad is highly amusing.

    8. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Military members is that a euphemism for horny pricks?

    9. Re:In other news by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Members saluting/standing at attention :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    10. Re:In other news by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you join the military, youre agreeing to follow a different set of standards than the rest of society and voluntarily surrendering some of your autonomy.

      If your higher ups say "dont do X", you dont do X. If you have a problem with that, you probably shouldnt be in the military.

  2. There's a Baghdad craigslist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News to me.

  3. Hookers by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hookers supposedly got their name from General Hooker in the Civil War, who maintained a brothel for his troops. This is the right way to do it. Men have needs, and they need to be taken care of when deployed. We should be paying women(and men) to deploy with our troops and take care of those needs. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Make them official government employees, pay them well, give them excellent benefits, screen them constantly for STDs, and our troops will have better morale with fewer sexual assaults, fewer STDs, and fewer war babies. This is a win for everyone.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hookers supposedly got their name from General Hooker in the Civil War, who maintained a brothel for his troops. This is the right way to do it. Men have needs, and they need to be taken care of when deployed. We should be paying women(and men) to deploy with our troops and take care of those needs. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Make them official government employees, pay them well, give them excellent benefits, screen them constantly for STDs, and our troops will have better morale with fewer sexual assaults, fewer STDs, and fewer war babies. This is a win for everyone.

      Yeah, good luck with that shit in the Morality War. Only took a couple hundred years to allow gays in the military, I'm sure they'll get right on this idea...

    2. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men have needs

      There's nothing wrong with having or paying for sex, but men aren't mindless animals who need sex to survive, so I wouldn't say it's a "need." It might be beneficial in some way, but I'm not sure about using the word "needs."

    3. Re:Hookers by Eevee · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only flaw with this theory is the term predates the war. It's been recorded in use in 1845 in North Carolina.

    4. Re:Hookers by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with having or paying for sex...........

      That's called marriage.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    5. Re:Hookers by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hookers supposedly got their name from General Hooker in the Civil War

      Accent on "supposedly". Here it is five years before that war:

      http://books.google.com/books?id=6EfnQ2HMU9QC&pg=PA201&dq=intitle:americanisms+hooker&output=html

    6. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Japanese tried a similar experiment during WWII.

      It didn't go over so well.

    7. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow - a visitor from the past... 1920's I'm guessing? Welcome to 2013!

      Seriously, you're either sixteen or a Neanderthal. Grow up.

    8. Re:Hookers by hazah · · Score: 2

      Marriage gets you a shittonne more than just sex. So no.

    9. Re:Hookers by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      You are brave to post that from your regular account. Perhaps I am stupid to agree with you likewise... we shall see as this discussion unfolds. As far as maintaining a large standing military is concerned, you are right. However, I would just assume that we live in a world without a need for armies to begin with. War is evil and so is every reality that follows from it. Unfortunately I seem to have misplaced my rose colored glasses.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    10. Re:Hookers by linear+a · · Score: 5, Funny

      The key to military success is good advance planning.

    11. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's nothing wrong with having or paying for sex, but men aren't mindless animals who need sex to survive, so I wouldn't say it's a "need." It might be beneficial in some way, but I'm not sure about using the word "needs."

      Men and women both have this need. And yes, it is a need. It's why every one of us are here. It's THE need. We may neglect it and brush it off. We may turn some of its energy into doing great things, but every gene in us needs it to happen. Evolution and all of life is dependant upon reproduction. In homo sapiens, reproduction is done through sex.

      Don't underestimate the need for sex. If you are able to brush it off so easily, it's very possible that your genes are not going to make it. It's more likely that if you don't need it, you're not doing it right. ;)

      Yes, yes. Technically we can reproduce without sex. But currently it's trivial to our gene pool. I'll concede that may change. And yes, reproduction doesn't require much sex generally. However, evolution doesn't fuck around with reproducing. Unless your a social animal on the level of ants that can use non-reproducing members. In other words, in an animal like humans, where each member is pressured to reproduce, sex very much becomes a need. Even more so in a tense situation.

      Regardless of opinion, history shows that human populations often rebound quickly after war. Baby booms are common. As are, unfortunately, war crimes. Sex most certainly is a need. One that is ingrained in our DNA. If it weren't? Well, that DNA wouldn't be around anymore.

    12. Re:Hookers by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

      This is a win for everyone

      Except the government paid prostitutes.

    13. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Men and women both have this need. And yes, it is a need.

      You haven't met my Wife.

    14. Re: Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing wrong... in your idiotic opinion

    15. Re:Hookers by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It might work for the enemy also. Then they won't be so desperate for 72 v's. (And maybe won't even want v's after sampling the skills of the experienced.)

      One theory is that polygamy creates very unequal distribution such that there's a big agitated underclass with blue-balls.

    16. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      she's gettin it somewhere else sorry bro

    17. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hookers supposedly got their name from General Hooker in the Civil War, who maintained a brothel for his troops. This is the right way to do it. Men have needs, and they need to be taken care of when deployed. We should be paying women(and men) to deploy with our troops and take care of those needs. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Make them official government employees, pay them well, give them excellent benefits, screen them constantly for STDs, and our troops will have better morale with fewer sexual assaults, fewer STDs, and fewer war babies. This is a win for everyone.

      I'm sure the military men's wives and girlfriends would love that.

    18. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Americans immediately set up brothels for their troops when they occupied Japan. Isn't selective memory wonderful?

    19. Re:Hookers by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One minor flaw with your theory... in the country they are deployed in they stone women to death for this sort of behavior. Add to that the political ramifications and it's just not something that should be going on. I have a better idea, LEAVE IRAQ. I kinda thought this president promised us that?

    20. Re:Hookers by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      He said "right way to do it" not "the way I bet we will do it very soon."

    21. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (save for asexuals, and don't act like they don't exist, because I'm one)

      I hate when asexuals try to impose their world view on those of us who aren't.

      My ex-gf was asexual, that is why she is an ex.

      Also nobody cares if you have sex or not. If you don't have sex, and don't reproduce your genes will be lost from history. No funeral, no nothing, just never happens.

      100% of your direct ancestors, since the autotrophs began to drool, successfully reproduced; but that line can end with you. No hair off anyone's back.

    22. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would assume these women would be there on their own volition, and could always walk away from the job...
      Good pay, good benefits, protection, fit young men, nothing forced... Sounds better then my job!

    23. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I hate when asexuals try to impose their world view on those of us who aren't.

      I did not try to impose any world view upon you. You will not die without sex. Sex is not an absolute necessity.

      If you don't have sex, and don't reproduce your genes will be lost from history. No funeral, no nothing, just never happens.

      If you have sex and reproduce, you'll still die; big deal. I suppose I am thankful that people reproduce (it's why I can live in society), but my problem is that calling it a "need" without using any sort of qualifier is just silly; that implies that it would be impossible for an individual to live without it, or at least that's what that says to me.

      No hair off anyone's back.

      Exactly. It does not matter. You are simply acting on instinct, which is probably why you've been deluded into thinking it does matter. Personal desires are fine, and again, I don't think that sex is wrong, but it's not a need in the truest sense.

    24. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we allready do and they go above and beyond in their duty - screwing everyone left, right and centre.
      They are called failured lawyers more commonly known as politicians.

    25. Re:Hookers by phrackthat · · Score: 2

      Some actually might. For some people cheating is less about the physical exchange than the emotional - they might appreciate it if their men can get their physical needs attended to without the risk of the emotional attachment, baby making or STDs for that matter. If however the man gets his needs attended to by some random hookup, that woman may want to have that emotional connection or create a family bond through an unintended (for him) pregnancy or bring home some microscopic invaders.

      Hell, the troops are going to get their jones off one way or another so the options to a government sanctioned brothel would be infidelity or an unsanctioned brothel. That could even be a security concern - unsanctioned brothels could be a nasty attack vector on troops - give the ladies at the local unsanctioned brothels some HIV (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/SheMayLookCleanBut.jpg) and let the disease do their work.

    26. Re:Hookers by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate the need for sex. If you are able to brush it off so easily, it's very possible that your genes are not going to make it.

      With seven billion humans on the planet, I'm not so sure anyone is going to cry if my genes don't get passed on.

      It's more likely that if you don't need it, you're not doing it right. ;)

      There's a good chance you're right and I'm quite comfortable with that. :)

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    27. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that this just boils down to semantics of the word "need," and idea of what life is related to evolution and progeny.

      I think need is used in this sense relating more to an "emotional need" which can't be compared to a "absolute need."

      Though I think it goes beyond emotions because you can see it in cats and dogs that haven't been spayed or neutered...
      There is an extremely strong natural drive in most testosterone filled creatures to go around "spreading their seed," especially with fertile females, while the females when they are especially fertile often seek out and present themselves for the males.

      So maybe "need" isn't the right word, but besides that, I'm not sure what it should be called, it certainly is a very strong driving force.

    28. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am going to go ahead and call bullshit on this. The Japanese comfort house was one of the most horrific creations in known history. Hatta did not suggest anything like what the Japanese did. Please educate yourself on the subject:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

      "Estimates vary as to how many women were involved, with numbers ranging from as low as 20,000 from some Japanese scholars [4] to as high as 410,000 from some Chinese scholars..."

      "Approximately three quarters of comfort women died, and most survivors were left infertile due to sexual trauma or sexually transmitted disease."

      "In the so-called “Comfort Station” I was systematically beaten and raped day and night. Even the Japanese doctor raped me each time he visited the brothel to examine us for venereal disease."

      etc

    29. Re:Hookers by hackus · · Score: 1

      Um, if I may point out something.

      We wouldn't have this problem if there was not a dying empire known as the Anglo Banking system, and men could have sex at home in loving and might I add healthy relationships.

      We would have to get rid of this war thing though.

      Besides, these wars to lock up the markets so to speak by western bankers and prevent the rest of the world from using anything but dollars is going to come to an end anyway.

      Why not stop now so men can have sex with women and still have their limbs intact.

      -Hackus

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    30. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have sex and reproduce, your genes will NOT die.

      You would contribute to the continued progress of humanity.

      And if they continue to fulfill their genetic heritage, as your ancestors have for the last several hundred million years, your genes will live on forever.

      captcha: evolving

    31. Re:Hookers by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      I was just a child when my innocence was lost
      in a mobile army whorehouse
      a gift of the army, free of cost
      Next! Next! Next!

      - Sensational Alex Harvey Band

    32. Re:Hookers by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      I strongly disagree. A lot of the people in our armed forces practically run on testosterone. For them, and most, it is absolutely a need. Lets just turn this into nam pt 2 and do away w consensual hookups in favor of rape I guess.

    33. Re:Hookers by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Riiiight because wartime depression among soldiers has never driven anyone to suicide

    34. Re:Hookers by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Population explosion is a major issue I agree. Thats why we have condoms and vasectomies. Both of which need to be utilized a lot more often

    35. Re:Hookers by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You seem to not accept that US culture is based on Puritanism. Killing good, loving basically wrong. Neck up, good, neck down, bad.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    36. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would contribute to the continued progress of humanity.

      As an individual, that is irrelevant to me because I'll be dead.

    37. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because throughout history male soldiers have had it easy.

      And I'm not just referring to the battlefields of the past two thousand years.
      I'm referring to long marches with heavy packs. I'm referring to forced conscription. I'm referring systematic abuse.

      Speaking of the battlefield, here's a sanitized Hollywood version:
      Normandy scene of Saving Private Ryan

    38. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people can experience intense sexual desire and frustration. They get so horny that their ability to function normally gets impaired if they don't get some action...and masturbation does not cut it. A failure to meet the need can cause extreme stress (with a host of associated symptoms) and/or extreme depression (with its own symptoms).

      While it may not be a need to survive, going too long without can cause real health problems, productivity impairment, and even suicide (in extreme cases).

      Some people are built differently. Their sex drive is just low, and so they do not experience the desire for sex as a need, nor do they experience these symptoms when they go without. It is largely these people who insist that sex is not a need. They are simply ignorant of the facts: for some people sex is a real need with severe consequences of its going unmet.

    39. Re:Hookers by swillden · · Score: 1

      Hookers supposedly got their name from General Hooker in the Civil War, who maintained a brothel for his troops.

      They weren't called that because of his brothel. They acquired that name years earlier, as "Hooker's Ladies", because Hooker always had them around.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    40. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here you go.
      Or here are others.

      Of course, it looks like female soldiers love to give head there as well.

    41. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have just admitted to being a biological failure. At least you will play your given role in evolution by dying, and your subpar genes will not survive another generation.

      (HAHA, captcha = biology)

    42. Re:Hookers by pla · · Score: 0

      Marriage gets you a shittonne more than just sex. So no.

      Q: How can you tell when someone makes a shittonne less than their spouse?

      A: See above.


      Seriously, marriage, believe it or not, penalizes you financially if you have anything even remotely resembling comparable incomes. One of you either makes way more than the other, or you have yet to file a joint tax return. Oh, and BTW, you can't legally have one "partner" take the standard deduction, and one itemize, even if filing separately - Though my "domestic partner" and I can do that juuuuuust fine, and holy shit does that help out by giving her (the higher earner) all the deductions. Every year, she cuts me a check for a few grand for half the difference.

      Congratulations, you may kiss the bride.

    43. Re:Hookers by artor3 · · Score: 1

      We left Iraq years ago. We still have a few embassies/consulates, and they have guards (as do all such locations), but we're not occupying the country any more.

      If you had bothered to even read the summary, you would have seen that this is about Afghanistan, and the name of the Craigslist section is just a holdover.

    44. Re:Hookers by pla · · Score: 1

      I am going to go ahead and call bullshit on this. The Japanese comfort house was one of the most horrific creations in known history. Hatta did not suggest anything like what the Japanese did. Please educate yourself on the subject:

      So, new to the human race? Here, read this handbook, and try not to accidentally kill or rape anyone until you fully understand the ground-rules.

      This planet would do better without us. "Comfort women" count as one of the least of our sins.

    45. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gentlemen, I'd like to introduce you to Corporal Punishment -- our new morale officer. She'll be working under Major Payne. As always, feel free to make appointments as needed. Carry on.

    46. Re:Hookers by pla · · Score: 1

      Except the government paid prostitutes.

      Do you know how many whores get pensions?

      Sure, they make more than most of us do in their prime, but 25... 30... 35?... 40??? years old, and please pick up your complimentary shopping cart from the nearest grocery store.

    47. Re:Hookers by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      That was a quote...he just presented it poorly.

    48. Re:Hookers by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Unless you are implying that he serviced his men personally in that brothel, he sounds more like a pimp to me.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    49. Re:Hookers by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      your idea is excellent.

      but it makes too much sense and the religious 'right' would have a fit if you tried to implement it.

      again, religion holds us all back. sigh ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    50. Re:Hookers by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      What about the sex part?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    51. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nay. let them bring their wives and girlfriends to the battlefield.

    52. Re:Hookers by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      We're leaving Iraq. We're leaving through Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It's the overland route...

      (It's a variation on an old George Carlin bit)

    53. Re:Hookers by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Population explosion is a major issue I agree. Thats why we have condoms and vasectomies. Both of which need to be utilized a lot more often

      What I find challenging is the way population control isn't an issue in developed countries, because they're already developed. If only we could help African nations become developed, population control would take care of itself. Of course, they can't develop because their population and population growth is out of control.

      I must be embarrassingly ignorant of Human history because I'm sure we must have solved this problem to become developed nations in the first place.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    54. Re:Hookers by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      How is it that you know whether or not his genes are "subpar" (whatever it is that that means)?

      At least you will play your given role in evolution by dying

      He'll die like everyone else whether or not he engages in meaningless reproduction. Biology isn't everything.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    55. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most humans suffer psychologically if they aren't able to express their sexual urges. Saying that psychological damage doesn't count as damage to fulfill the definition of "need" is dumb. You're an awful example.

    56. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you're not healthy, male or female.

      I'm an asexual, and I'm no less healthy than any homosexual or heterosexual. I go to the doctor regularly.

      You, my friend, are simply ignorant of anything that is different and choose to discriminate.

      Anyhow, as I said, I suspect you're an angry, man-hating woman.

      I'm a male, fool, and I do not hate men. I do, however, disagree that anyone who doesn't desire sex is unhealthy (By what silly definition?) simply because it's not the norm, and that sex is an absolute need for individuals.

      Men are not all mindless beasts who can't control their lust. You're focusing on the "mindless" part in your reply, but that's my point; men are not mindless beasts, so it's far from a need even if many people desire it strongly. It says something about you when you counter this by saying that I'm a man-hater (I guess I hate myself, then.) for saying that men aren't mindless beasts.

    57. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Japan setting it up for American soldiers after the war. Yes, selective memory is wonderful.

    58. Re:Hookers by jrumney · · Score: 2

      Hookers supposedly got their name from General Hooker in the Civil War, who maintained a brothel for his troops. This is the right way to do it.

      The Japanese in Korea and China during WW2 thought so too.

    59. Re:Hookers by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Is this a joke about campaign contributions? Because it's not really a joke...

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    60. Re:Hookers by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as the female soldiers get some choice male & female "partners" to get their rocks off with -- believe it or not, most women *do* have a sex drive that's comparable to what a guy has. (If anything, the women might need the "companionship" more, as we can't masturbate with just our hands remotely as easily as a guy, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to use a noisy vibrator where others could hear it.)

      However, having hookers available isn't going to prevent the female soldiers or locals from being raped by our troops (in the classic sense of knowingly forcing oneself onto someone), since rapists of both genders attack because they get off on the power of violent domination, not because they're unable to find a willing partner. Like police, most soldiers have a drive for physical power, try to use it constructively, but in some cases do start misusing it to dominate others; add in the need to turn their empathy off to do their jobs, and it's not a surprise that rape isn't uncommon.

      Problematically, I've heard that the presence of hookers can sometimes increase the rate of rapes, not decrease it. When someone's in a situation where 90% of the people in a particular category that they see are there to serve them, then it's very easy for them to fall into the habit of expecting it from the other 10% -- not because they're bad people, but just because human brains work that way -- and, if they've been under a ton of stress for long enough, are angry about various things, etc. a "no" at the wrong moment could make the soldier do something he/she wouldn't normally do.

      You guys are doing your gender a real disservice by promoting the "thwarted male=rapist" codswallop. Try to imagine yourself attacking and forcing yourself onto a decent person that trusted you enough to let their guard down a bit (as rapists are almost always people the victim knows well) and ask yourself if you'd totally do that if you could, or if you figure your male friends would do it. It doesn't make sense to spread the idea that you would if it's not true -- or at least, I sure wouldn't encourage negative stereotypes about my gender, let alone a horrific one like that.

      FWIW just because some folks below keep using the term wrong, those are the views of a feminist geek -- someone that sees guys as people to fight alongside, not fight against. (Mentioning that because I've seen too many people spreading the 70s-vintage "feminists all hate men and want to cut your balls off and keep you from having sex omg" FUD in this discussion.)

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    61. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I guess I hate myself, then.) for saying that men aren't mindless beasts.

      Yep, I think that is exactly how it sounds. Sorry.
      Humans in general are actually just mindless animals with slightly more psychological hangups.
      I agree with the AC above, you should get your hormones checked. Might be normal for you, but that isn't to say it is best.... You should at least find out. You may be missing out on a huge part of your life.

    62. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you a feminist who is trying to play down the male urge for sex?

      No, I'm a male. I do not "need" sex; I can easily live without it.

      Omfg! Are you like saying males can't be feminists? Wow

    63. Re:Hookers by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      [sustained applause]

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    64. Re:Hookers by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      Sex is a definite drive ("need" is semantic), but reproduction as a drive is questionable for humans. A *lot* of people have great sex drives, but spend their lives either not caring either way whether they have kids, preferring not to, or actively repelled by the idea -- social pressure is what leads them to reproduce, not an innate drive. (By "social pressure" I'm referring to the mix of casual "when are you having kids" or "all women loooove kids" type comments, the nagging "when will you give me grandkids" ones, losing friends that decide to only hang with other parents, or the nastier "you're not a real man/woman, you haven't had kids" / "you're an evil child-hater if you don't love babies" style.)

      It's not something that you notice if you're among the crowd that *is* interested, or that always just assumed it was simply what you do and never thought about where the idea came from (especially if you're male), but many childless & childfree adults can attest it's quite strong. It's akin to religion in that sense: actively religious types rarely notice the pressure to be a "believer" and just assume it's what a person does, but many agnostics/atheists definitely feel it.

      The social pressure factor is one of the reasons child abuse is such a huge problem. Many of those parents knew they didn't particularly want kids, but either caved in to pressure directly (possibly because their spouse threatened to leave them) or decided they "couldn't" end an unexpected pregnancy. Alternately, the majority of the ones left never even thought realistically about whether they'd be happy as a parent or were capable of giving the kid a mentally & physically healthy life, and/or had overly-idealistic notions of what it's like -- because they just assumed it was part of the mandatory life script and bred without thinking it over.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    65. Re:Hookers by AlternativeIdeas · · Score: 1

      I've seen too many people spreading the 70s-vintage "feminists all hate men and want to cut your balls off

      It ain't 70's-vintage

      (WARNING: NSWF. Image shows a topless feminist holding a bleeding scrotum)

    66. Re:Hookers by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      You will not die without sex.

      Yes, you will. It might take longer, but you will die without sex, even with. The biological "need" for sex is no different than food. You may die sooner without food than sex, but the "desire" for the two is similar in strength, and both are "need". that you are asexual doesn't mean you have a better gauge than others, it means you have a worse one.

    67. Re:Hookers by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      This War On Sex is becoming ludicrous.
      Presumably soldiers stationed in crisis areas are adults. Assuming soldiers still are mammals there's bound to be sex. And the need for casual sex will always be there. You shouldn't need to fill in a form(in triplicate) requisitioning a one-night-stand.


      There is no need for regulation. The usual rules apply.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    68. Re:Hookers by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Nope. I agree with the asexual guy here. Due to my upbringing (single-parent lower-class) I went hungry for at least one day a month. After years of that and not , my body stopped bothering to tell me I'm hungry. So yes, I'm a normal functioning adult who doesn't get hungry. I've passed out from lack of food for forgetting to eat for 4 days. My first sign of a problem was the crash from low blood sugar, but I didn't get hungry first. Having a biological "need" fail someone isn't impossible, or even that unusual.

    69. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mines are still there. Would have been nice if you picked them up when you left, or at least provided the locals with a map of where they are placed.

      Ten years from now Iraqi children is still going to be killed and/or maimed by your weapons. (Heck, U.S. bombs still kill German civilians. None of which was born before the war ended.)

    70. Re:Hookers by AlphaFreak · · Score: 1

      Check the novelette "Pantaleón y las Visitadoras", by Mario Vargas Llosa, about a (fictional) specops unit set up by the peruvian army to... hmmm... "cool down" its troops in the amazonian zone. It is written in an hilarious language, mocking the military report style when Capt. Pantaleón Pantoja writes to his superiors discussin his "personnel" needs to "service" his soldiers adequately...

      It was made into a movie, with the colombian bombshell Angie Cepeda in the main female role.

    71. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we can't masturbate with just our hands remotely as easily as a guy

      Erm. You're doing it wrong.

      I'd offer to demonstrate, but I'm posting anonymously because frankly I can do without the hatemail.

    72. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the war babies might be able to contribute in an economically beneficially way after the war, provided that the seeding nation evacuates the vessels and fruits of labor duly.

    73. Re:Hookers by r_a_trip · · Score: 2

      Don't talk authoritatively about sex if your being is completely lacking the "firmware" for performing this function. This is not to dismiss you, belittle you or label you as a freak. You are not any of those things. You are you. You don't do sex, which is ok, but you have absolutely no insight into what the "need" for sex is, because you are in a minority with a differing psychological make-up that doesn't need it.

      I don't know what life without sex is, because my firmware compels me to seek it out. Sexual beings get pretty unhappy and frustrated if their want for (non-solitary) sex is not met. For sexual beings, the togetherness, the physical act and the release it gives, is something we simply don't want to do without. We sexual beings might not die if we don't get sex, but our quality of life greatly diminishes.

      To give you something workable, imagine it like this: Denying sexual beings their access to sex (probably) makes us just as unhappy as you'd be if someone were to constantly badger you with proposals for physical sex.

      --
      # touch universe # chmod +rwx universe # ./universe
    74. Re:Hookers by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      They're "subpar" because they prevent the individual from passing them on to his progeny. That's an evolutionary failure, or dead-end.

      I really don't understand why everyone is getting so damn hostile over this.

    75. Re:Hookers by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is this a joke about campaign contributions? Because it's not really a joke...

      No, actually, not a joke.

      As long as humans have existed, and as long as they continue to exist, we will have some form of "sex workers". As the single best thing we can do to increase their quality of life (particularly post-career, which as my not-quite-a-joke pointed out, fades with their youth), we can legitimize them. Give them a medical, a 401k or pension, profit sharing, the works.

      Now, as for TFA - Sorry, but whether you accept them as "needs" or not, any military consists of a huge number of guys at the peak of their... "virility"... All sent far away from their wives/girlfriends/other for six months to a year at a time. And these asshole MPs want to bust them for finding consensual outlets? Wow. Just... Wow. Really makes you need to ask if "the good guys" deliberately use rape as a weapon of war.

    76. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still done today. When I was deployed to Ecuador the Ecuadorian commanders make sure their conscriptos needs are met one weekend a month. The officers pay for a couple truck loads of prostitutes to help blow off some steam.

    77. Re:Hookers by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Until there is double digit negative growth (controlled, temporary) and massive legal restrictions on procreation it's not solved.

    78. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Britain, France and Germany's method of population control is to have a war with each other on a regular basis.

    79. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, U.S. bombs still kill German civilians. None of which was born before the war ended.

      If by still you mean three years ago, and if by civilains you mean army engineers.

    80. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm.... Listen bro, are you sure about that?

    81. Re:Hookers by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We're leaving Iraq. We're leaving through Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It's the overland route...

      Well, you know, that is the natural route to the sea from there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    82. Re:Hookers by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Why not stop now so men can have sex with women and still have their limbs intact.

      Because we have too many people. War has traditionally been a way for some members of a nation to profit from reduction of excess population. Send them out to help generate some revenues...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    83. Re:Hookers by evil+crash · · Score: 1

      Men and women both have this need.

      Incorrect. I will not die if I don't have sex, and it is not essential to me.

      Evolution and all of life is dependant upon reproduction. In homo sapiens, reproduction is done through sex.

      This is all irrelevant to whether or not sex is a need for individuals, and it really isn't.

      And yes, it is a need. It's why every one of us are here.

      Our instincts may make us desire sex (save for asexuals, and don't act like they don't exist, because I'm one), but it is by no means a "need."

      Don't underestimate the need for sex. If you are able to brush it off so easily, it's very possible that your genes are not going to make it.

      Reproduction is not a form of immortality! It is completely and utterly irrelevant to me (to me) if someone who shares my genes makes it into the future or not; I gain little from it. It would only be useful to me if I could take over the child's body. But because sex is desirable (thanks to instincts), this is largely ignored and people go on and on about passing on genes; at least I benefited a bit from it, I guess. But again, I do not for a moment believe it's a need in the traditional sense.

      Sex most certainly is a need. One that is ingrained in our DNA. If it weren't? Well, that DNA wouldn't be around anymore.

      That's silly. You can intently desire something without it being a need.

      Shut up Sheldon!

      --
      "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."-THG
    84. Re:Hookers by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      . And these asshole MPs want to bust them for finding consensual outlets? Wow. Just... Wow. Really makes you need to ask if "the good guys" deliberately use rape as a weapon of war.

      You have this completely twisted. It's not just consensual outlets, it's illegal ones. If we can't even follow the laws of these countries, are we the good guys? If their laws are somehow objectively wrong, why aren't we doing something about that while we're there? Answer, because we're there so that some rich people can get richer and not for any other reason.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    85. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There aren't enough whores in government already?

    86. Re:Hookers by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      You need to learn that there are exceptions to every rule. It's also very telling that you assume anyone asexual is female.

      Also, women have the same urges and needs men do with regard to sex. They are better at not openly displaying it, perhaps, but that's more of the societal "lady in the streets, whore in the bedroom" kind of thing than a biological one.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    87. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another standing ovation for you, madam/sir. It's a worthwhile cause, to bring a little more feminism to /.

    88. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're referring to the contract which you sign, which amounts to "when we're bored of each other but have kids and a mortgage I promise not to pursue my personal development and happiness"? Right. No thanks.

    89. Re:Hookers by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      You watch too many movies. The US military isn't full of mindless idiots who live to kill things. The people who "practically run on testosterone" are few and far between. Sure there are certainly some of those out there but they typically don't last very long because people don't trust them or want to be around them. Or they do something stupid and get dead.

      I agree with your assertion that doing this is stupid because it is a need, but let's cut out the hyperbole; it does no good and is a horrible way to try and support an argument.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    90. Re:Hookers by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear, US bombs still kill US civilians too. From the US Civil War, no less. I'm pretty sure there's no one that was alive before that war ended. The problem with your premise is that there are no maps of where they are placed. There are still huge fields of fenced in area in Cambodia that are labeled "mine field".

      Let's also be clear that not all of those mines were placed by US troops. We have a lot we can be blamed for, but not everything.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    91. Re:Hookers by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

      Human beings *NEED* intimate (or at least some form of) contact with other human beings. Just because we are semi-autistic and don't get why Tom Hanks needed to talk to a Volleyball, when he could of just had conversations with himself, doesn't mean we are the norm.
      Hmmm, speaking of contact.... spending years of my life with the same co-workers. I see now when suicide rates are so high in the military.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    92. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it sad that sex is everything to you. I've never once felt I'm missing something or any other such nonsense. You're simply intolerant and can't imagine people who are 'too different' from you being healthy.

    93. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not that AC, but I have sexual desires and never fulfill them outside of just masturbation, yet I don't feel unhappy at all. Pathetic people must not be able to go without it, so I suppose it depends on the individual.

    94. Re:Hookers by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

      I suppose that an improvement over being stoned to death for being the victim of rape.

    95. Re:Hookers by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Those don't sound "subpar" to me; if we had more people with those types of genes, we probably wouldn't be suffering from overpopulation.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    96. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been quite a bit of effort to do population-control in many countries but there are quite a few idiots working against it.

      Christianity:
      http://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/12/the-catholic-church-condoms-and-hiv-aids-in-africa/
      Islam:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/contraception.shtml - Leaders talking against any.

      Generic regarding contraception and religion:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_birth_control

      Here you have a pope claiming that condoms are infected with aids:
      http://www.irinnews.org/report/75412/mozambique-condom-mythology

      Then you have all that crap in regards to abortion, in both Islam and Christianity....

      On top of this you have this thing where people just have to have a male offspring and they will continue until they have.....

      Some reasons for big families in Africa:
      http://povertynewsblog.blogspot.se/2009/12/reason-for-desire-for-big-families-in.html
      Summary "Historically families where big to be able to take care of the farm. When people moved to cities the urge to have many children still remained"

      Another thing that can cause families in developing countries to have big families is that they don't have any care for the elderly there so they have many children so someone can take car of them when they get to old.

      If religion could stop interfering with sex-education for people (both kids and adults anywhere in the world) and also stop spreading lies. (no. I'm not gonna start a flame-war here, i was just referring to the example with the pope that said that condoms can give you aids)

      3 things are needed for population-control:
      - Sex education. This should start before puberty.
      - Provide affordable or free contraception. (condoms, pills etc)
      - I know this is really bad, but if someone wants a male or female offspring allow them a free check and abortion if it's not a match. (It sounds cruel, but look at how many abandoned female children there are, how many that are actually killed after birth etc.)
      http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/16/it%E2%80%99s-a-girl-the-three-deadliest-words-in-the-world/

    97. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The planet doesn't give a shit about our "sins". Even if we turn it into a radioactive dust ball, all we've done is sterilize the gunk on the surface that accumulated there.

      The planet won't do better or worse without us. The only things who care about what humans do or do not do are other humans, and maybe aliens or deities. So, yeah, it would be bad if we messed things up, but in the end, the good comes with the bad.

    98. Re:Hookers by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Read about the massive, and legal, prostitution in Hawaii during WWII.

      Any vet who was in the Pacific during the Cold War is familiar with the hardcore party culture that once was. Bar girls aplenty, public fucking in bars, good times.

      The correct attitude IMO is "we kill for you folks back home, so if we want to fuck and party GTFO, MYOB, and STFU". It was that way during the Cold War and it was a blast.

      The military in recent decades has been infested with Bible Thumpers and PC do-gooders who are under the delusion whores aren't volunteers and in general just hate other peoples fun. (Been there, saw that, '81-'07.)

        I and many vets have years SOCIALISING with hookers, not just banging them. I kept it in my pants when I got married, but hung with Filipina "juicies" in Korea. Mostly nice (yes, really) girls just making a buck and good company when they were not making a buck. A job's a job and it beat anything they'd make back in the PI, which is why they did multiple years in Korea. They even bought us "ammo bowls" of soju when we partied at "their" bars, and we'd cook out in A-town where some Airmen rented houses. GI's would buy the food, the bar girls would make a feast, and it was chill.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    99. Re:Hookers by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      (Score:3, Informative)

      Classic Slashdot.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    100. Re:Hookers by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I don't get a pension either. I would not be suggesting prostitution as a good career choice, but if it was legal they could at least set up a 401k. Lots of prostitutes are dumb, but there exist those who are not. I don't think there is anything keeping them from using the money they get early on to help support themselves later. The old former hookers who are homeless and used up are partially in that position because of the fact that they need to hang around with the criminal element to do their work. They start off at a disadvantage, they're easily preyed upon, and they're frequently abused.

      My biggest problem with the job is that it is one that can often lead to psychological side effects that screw up their relationships later. Humans are not strictly monogamous, but we're also not rampantly promiscuous either. That could happen whether you are legal or illegal prostitute.

    101. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Legalize both sale and purchase of the service.
      - Spend money on STD prevention. Maybe even have that anyone that goes to a prostitute must have regular STD checks like once per month.
      - Spend money on STD research (vaccines / treatments etc).
      - Allow them a safe working-environment.

      Having say 10% tax on the service would bring in quite a bit of money that should be able to cover the STD prevention while still have quite a bit of money over for the STD research.

      If this was done:
      - We would basically get rid of all human trafficking for the sex-trade.
      - Both parties would get an big risk-reduction on catching a STD.
      - Both parties would have less risk in being subjected to abuse or other crimes.
      - Since it would be an official occupation a whole range of services would open up to the working-people like pension-plans and all other perks a employee can have.
      - Home-tests and vaccines would be created for the rest of the world reducing the amount of STD infected people in the world.

    102. Re:Hookers by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I did not try to impose any world view upon you. You will not die without sex. Sex is not an absolute necessity.

      You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between physiological needs and psychological needs.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    103. Re:Hookers by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      So? Have you actually had your androgen levels looked at? It's not a standard test, and wouldn't have been done without your request or should one of the results of having an imbalance prompted him to investigate.

      I "feel" the same way as you do. But I did have the test (for other reasons) and I know that my testosterone and estrogen levels are terribly out of balance. I am working on correcting this, because if I don't - I am not going to be a very healthy person in another 10-20 years...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    104. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing that needs to "sound" anything. It is merely a statement of cause and effect.
      I will suggest reading the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins to get a bit more of an insight into where people are coming from with regards to gene theory.
      It covers most of these topics quite well.

    105. Re:Hookers by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That you are aware of. Do you overeat? Do you oversleep (or perhaps not sleep enough)? How about stress - how short is your fuse?

      There's lots of non-obvious stresses that that can cause. Self-analysis is a developed skill. Knowing what is going on in your own head is harder than you'd think.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    106. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religions do not only hold us back... They fuck up large parts of the world..

    107. Re:Hookers by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It's funny how we have these interesting things called "prophylactics" that let you satisfy your psychological needs without actually reproducing...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    108. Re:Hookers by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Apparently they trust these people with the guns they are provided with, but not the guns they are born with.

      Seems a bit illogical to me.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    109. Re:Hookers by pla · · Score: 1

      You have this completely twisted. It's not just consensual outlets, it's illegal ones.

      Consensual does not equal legal. Illegal does not equal non-consensual. And perhaps most importantly, casual Craigslist hookups don't all count as prostitution - In fact, most of them don't, merely ones more way for horny adults to find each other and "get it on".


      If their laws are somehow objectively wrong, why aren't we doing something about that while we're there?

      Because if we actually demanded the savages quit killing people for witchcraft, mutilating little girls' genitalia, and throwing acid on each other in semi-legitimized "honor" attacks - We'd have no allies left anywhere in the entire Middle East or Africa. Simple as that.

      So instead, we take it one step at a time. "Hey, guys, guys, calm down here - Let's try this, what if he just gives you a goat instead of you sodomizing his sister to death? Surely that goat will bring you far more milk, cheese, and meat in the long run, right? Okay then, two goats - Sound good to everyone?"

    110. Re:Hookers by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Those were foreign prisoners that were forced into prostitution. They weren't even getting paid for their services, they were slaves.
      Surely you realize that's different, especially if you take into consideration that the Japanese are extremely racist and also performed various sorts of extreme medical experiments on their prisoners during World War II (pretty much anything you can imagine and worse).

    111. Re:Hookers by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Desires yes, needs no. Do you have any documented cases of death or great harm to befalling a man because of a lack of sex?

    112. Re:Hookers by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to sound like a heartless jerk, but I find that interesting how the body adapts to things like this
      I think for a lot of people, eating becomes habit ( it's noon, eat!) more than hunger need.
      It also makes me wonder if more people are out there like you without this drive.

    113. Re:Hookers by loufoque · · Score: 1

      It would also make it much easier to find good quality of service for the best price.

    114. Re:Hookers by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Most women are not so open-minded.
      They'll be all into it when they want you to cheat on your girlfriend, but they will be quite unhappy if you cheat on them.

    115. Re:Hookers by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      I know 6 marines 3 army..whatevers..and 1 airman. 4 of the marines and 1 of the army guys fit that description. We all used to play rugby so maybe that's a heavy bias...I never said killers..just impulsive, in need of "the hunt," and always trying to hook up.

    116. Re:Hookers by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      I think a huge percent of ALL of us menfit that.

    117. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rapists of both genders attack because they get off on the power of violent domination,

      Then answer this:

      Why rape? If you get off on 'violent domination', the easiest thing to do is to simply threaten to beat some one up. Or actually do it. (You'd think soldiers would be good at that sort of thing.) But rape involves finding the appropriate person (male/female, the right 'type', etc), and then somehow managing to have sex with them while physically restraining them. Letsee... gotta hold their wrists (2 hands), spread their legs (2 hands), remove their clothes (1 hand at least), while removing your own (another hand). Yes, there are ways. People DO get raped. But it seems like the hard way (no pun intended) to get off (still not intended) on 'violent domination'.

      Thus, rape is NOT just about violence. Otherwise, they would commit violence, and not rape.

    118. Re:Hookers by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1
    119. Re:Hookers by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Marriage gets you a shittonne more than just sex. So no.

      Depends on the couple. I know people who are married but hate each other and are just staying together for the kids. My guess is that they never asked their kids how much they enjoyed having their parents who hate each other stay together and fight all the time, but that's a topic for another comment.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    120. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, kidnapping an 8 year old girl and raping her 40 times a day until she dies qualifies as "least." Whats worse, waterboarding? The inquisition? Ok so the inquisition was pretty bad but I think calling comfort houses "least" has to be trolling, right?

    121. Re:Hookers by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Except the government paid prostitutes.

      There would be a line wrapped around the block 3 times to sign up for that job. Most women are perfectly happy to have sex with soldiers, free of charge. To get paid to do it would be a dream job.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    122. Re:Hookers by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I disagree with calling it a psychological need because I doubt that's true in a majority of cases (or perhaps people are just weaker than I thought), but what I said still holds true. If fewer people wanted children, it is likely that fewer people would have children given the options we have today.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    123. Re:Hookers by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      If anything, the women might need the "companionship" more, as we can't masturbate with just our hands remotely as easily as a guy, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to use a noisy vibrator where others could hear it.

      The difference is that women can find male companionship much more readily than the reverse. This is simply due to most women wanting to establish some modicum of trust in a man before hopping into bed with him, for obvious reasons. Remember, when we walk outside our front door, we don't instantaneously have 10 women hitting on us.

      Oh, and I guess it's worth pointing out that women's effort required in jilling themselves off is highly variable. I'll agree that "apply vrooms to clit" is the least effort, most reliable technique, though! But doesn't having a dude make the mechanical part less-efficient? Especially if he's not a regular partner?

      since rapists of both genders attack because they get off on the power of violent domination

      I'm not totally sure that that's precisely the motivation. I think it's more along the lines of caring about oneself, to the exclusion of anyone else. I'm thinking narcissism vs. brutalism here.

      That was my experience, anyway. I had a woman attempt to rape me in college (as in, I told her plainly that I wanted to hook up, but I didn't want to have sex and that I never have sex without a condom, which we had none, but which was irrelevant, because I did not want to have sex, only hook up. We started hooking up, and she got on top of me and tried to have sex with me anyway, without a condom. So I'm not throwing the R-word around lightly.) Anyway, there was no chance that she was trying to violently dominate me, because I had probably 3x her strength (I was a student athlete). But what was clear was that she didn't care what I wanted or didn't want--she knew what she wanted, and decided I'd see it her way or at least try not to hurt her feelings by rejecting her.

      FWIW just because some folks below keep using the term wrong, those are the views of a feminist geek -- someone that sees guys as people to fight alongside, not fight against.

      FWIW, "feminism" is a big tent, and under it are many reasonable and non-so-reasonable people. Just because you are reasonable and self-identify as a feminist doesn't make all feminists reasonable people! Heck, just look at the existence of radical feminism (yes, people do actually self-identify as "radical feminists"!) and what it stands for and tell me I don't have a point, here!

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    124. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rape isn't about power it's about pussy, that's some woman's studies bullshit.
          I know some rapists and they're pathetic men, not powerful men. Does whining your way into a girls pants or pumping your limp dick into her drugged out vag sound powerful to you? No these are weak men. Furthermore while it doesn't bother me I experienced some things that women would consider sexual assault while in the military. A bunch of my friends pinned me down while a big fat fuck stuck his shower wet limp dickhead into my ear... shit like this is common, and it was a joke and not rape, this is why guys resent women in the military, they want change and everyone who is already there just wants to get through their soul crushing day. You don't know rape and you don't know the military.

    125. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hatta posts a lot of ludicrous things from his regular account, including glowing praise of communism (and especially Cuba), condemnation of every system of economics and governance that HASNT resulted in genocide or atrocities, and a general inability to understand either history or human nature.

      Usually anything he suggest completely fails be remotely feasible in the real world, and completely ignores such antequated concepts as "morality".

      In a nutshell, it tends to be the sort of ivory-tower thinking that has caused so much joy in the past century.

    126. Re:Hookers by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      As long as humans have existed, and as long as they continue to exist, we will have some form of "sex workers". As the single best thing we can do to increase their quality of life (particularly post-career, which as my not-quite-a-joke pointed out, fades with their youth), we can legitimize them.

      There is a glaring hole in that sort of reasoning. You could say the same thing about murder or theft: it will always exist, so we might as well legitimize it in order to reduce the amount of harm.

      The goal of laws isnt just to reduce instances of a particular thing to zero, and it hasnt necessarily failed if it doesnt do so.

    127. Re:Hookers by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate the need for sex. If you are able to brush it off so easily, it's very possible that your genes are not going to make it. It's more likely that if you don't need it, you're not doing it right. ;)

      Obviously those friends of mine who remained chaste until marriage are fictitious and / or anomalies, right?

      There are a lot of cultures that would argue pretty heavily against what youre saying.

    128. Re:Hookers by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I must be embarrassingly ignorant of Human history because I'm sure we must have solved this problem to become developed nations in the first place.

      We became a developed nation by robbing (via colonialism, and even outright slavery, theft of human beings) those undeveloped nations.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    129. Re:Hookers by pla · · Score: 1

      There is a glaring hole in that sort of reasoning. You could say the same thing about murder or theft: it will always exist, so we might as well legitimize it in order to reduce the amount of harm.

      You've compared an adult - not talking about slaves or children or anything like that here - choosing to have sex with another adult, for pay... With murder?

      I can't help but think you may need your sense of proportion recalibrated.

    130. Re:Hookers by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I was not comparing the nature of the particular crimes, but the reasoning involved. Neither was I comparing theft with murder. I simply used those two because like prostitution, they are constants of human culture; but noone would argue that we should legalize either of them.

    131. Re:Hookers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Fucking idiot. Slaves are lousy workers. They only work hard enough not to get whipped, and you have to pay someone to watch them and whip them. The south was a third world backwater, which is why it lost the civil war.

      If keeping slaves made a nation rich, Africa would be wealthy.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    132. Re:Hookers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The word is 'liars'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    133. Re:Hookers by Cederic · · Score: 1

      A bunch of my friends pinned me down while a big fat fuck stuck his shower wet limp dickhead into my ear... shit like this is common, and it was a joke and not rape, this is why guys resent women in the military, they want change

      "friends" ?

      If you think that's friendly, no wonder you're confused that women want change. I'm not a woman and I'd want to change that culture too.

      It's possible to create a strong bond based on trust, respect and friendship without sexually assaulting people.

      Being an apologist for bullies makes you weak, not the people demanding change.

    134. Re:Hookers by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's why I agree with asexual guy. I never tried to drop it, but I just had environmental issues that wiped hunger from me. It's not hard for me to imagine anything else being "wiped". Deep skin divers do the same. The urge to breathe is based on a poor trigger. The need to breathe "should be" based on the partial pressure of O2 in the lungs. That's the actual need, when it's too low, you stop absorbing enough O2 to live. But the actual trigger is partial pressure of CO2. Too much, and you get that "I need to breathe" sensation. You get that when you have lots of O2 left, and the world-class skin divers supress the desire. I have no idea if they still feel it like we do, but choose to ignore it, or if they have the sensation decreased.

      A "normal" human couldn't get hit on by attractive members of the opposite sex without giving in eventually, or refrain from eating in the presence of food until they passed out, or hold their breath until they passed out. There are well documented people that are in the third group. I'm in the second. Asexual man is in the first. I see no reason to doubt the existance of the other groups, so I find it odd so many people here get offended by asexual man.

    135. Re:Hookers by hazah · · Score: 1

      I'm not in the US. I cannot comment.

    136. Re:Hookers by hazah · · Score: 1

      It's one way to read it. For the record, I'm married and cannot relate to what you say.

    137. Re:Hookers by hazah · · Score: 1

      Yes it does depend on the couple. I said what I said, and I love my wife!

    138. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had such tests done, and nothing was wrong with me. That said, I enjoy my lifestyle right now, and can't stand it when people erroneously believe that life is all about sex, or that something is wrong with anyone who is different from them (which is just pure intolerance).

    139. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know if I'm happy or not, and it is arrogant to say otherwise. I'd rather not delve into the realm of pseudopsychology.

      Do you overeat? Do you oversleep (or perhaps not sleep enough)? How about stress - how short is your fuse?

      No. No. I'm a very calm person.

      People who are even somewhat different are always going to be ostracized and attacked, and one of the ways to do this is to tell other people how they feel and how they're 'unhealthy' (read: different from me) or 'wrong' (read: doing things that I don't like).

    140. Re:Hookers by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      OK then. You're just wired differently. So long as you got it looked at.

      It's not that we don't believe you, it's just that such "asexuality" is often a symptom of something Bad happening.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    141. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once we delve into the realm of psychology, everything becomes rather subjective. Behaviors people don't like are deemed to be 'unhealthy' and other such nonsense. I'm not really too keen on talking about that garbage.

    142. Re:Hookers by drkim · · Score: 1

      ...men aren't mindless animals who need sex to survive...

      New to planet earth - are we?

    143. Re:Hookers by Raenex · · Score: 1

      A bunch of my friends pinned me down while a big fat fuck stuck his shower wet limp dickhead into my ear... shit like this is common, and it was a joke and not rape

      I think you have Stockholm syndrome.

    144. Re:Hookers by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but what you're talking about is the benefit to society as a whole, and not the individual and his genes. Overpopulation will just be another external pressure that determines which genes pass on and which don't.

      But I do agree with you about the overpopulation. It's causing a whole lot more problems, particularly with our asinine obsession with pining over other peoples' suffering. People see orphans in Africa starving and think we have to help. That's horrible, and I wish they weren't going through that. But when I see orphans starving in Africa the only thing I feel is sheer anger at the parents that did not have the foresight to stop that problem before it became one.

    145. Re:Hookers by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but what you're talking about is the benefit to society as a whole, and not the individual and his genes.

      Well, there is no such thing as something being objectively "subpar" no matter what you're talking about; that's utterly subjective. I just don't think it makes sense to call it "subpar."

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    146. Re:Hookers by sahonen · · Score: 1

      A "need" is not necessarily something you have to have or you will die. You won't die if you're locked in a room for the rest of your life with no human contact, but there's a reason that solitary confinement is considered a form of psychological torture. Social contact is a human need, emotional bonding is a human need, sex is a human need. Hell, Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs puts sex in the *bottom tier* of the pyramid.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    147. Re:Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sing along with me, won't you:
      One of these things is not like the others
      One of these things just isn't the same...

      There is still a hole in your glaring hole. Murder and theft, by their very definition cause direct harm to the victims: death and deprivation of property, respectively. Legalized consensual prostitution has no such innate harm. Certainly there can be unintended negative consequences, such as disease and divorce, and implications for society in general. None of that equates to the harms of murder and theft, which is why prostitution is sometimes categorized as a "victimless" crime. Arguments against that categorization almost exclusively revolve around consequences which arise from the criminalization of prostitution and the social stigma associated with it, e.g. "the prostitutes are the victims", and so on.

      - T

    148. Re:Hookers by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Actually, marriage is when teh_sex dries up :-/

  4. unsurprising result by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ok... so when you take young men, put them in a testosterone fueled environment and take away their access to sexual partners, is this really a surprising outcome?

    perhaps you should at the very least, keep them for shorter periods of time.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's basically feminists wanting to control men's sex lives.
      If it was primarily females undertaking this activity we'd be celebrating their sexual liberation.

      Feminists have a love/hate relationship with testicles & testosterone.

      On the one hand, testicles give society aggressive young men who are willing to be pawns in someone else's war. They give society a large pool of strong, manual labourers. And testosterone has also been shown to enhance risky behavior, giving us men who are willing to be firemen, skyscraper window cleaners, deep sea divers, etc.

      On the other hand, feminists resent testosterone's very same effects when it works to men's favor:
      aggression: even amongst young school children, boys will fight and snatch what they want or need
      strength: most men are physically bigger and stronger than women
      risky behavior: there are more male CEO's and entrepreneurs because males are more likely to take risks. So while many men will fall flat on their faces, others will succeed and become wealthy

      So which is it:
      1) Do we embrace these soldiers for what they are? Or,
      2) Do we replace them with more politically correct individuals?

      Of course feminists will select option 3:
      3) Let's use horny young men to fight our wars and die ... but let's also micro-manage their private sex lives. Try to do the same to young women in society (abortion, birth control, etc) and we'll band together, kick-up a storm and have laws introduced securing the rights of our sisters.

    2. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope someone mods this up, it seems spot on.

    3. Re:unsurprising result by AlternativeIdeas · · Score: 1

      Well, the defence forces are just instruments of our government and so - either directly or indirectly - subject to the same lobby group pressures as other government bodies.

    4. Re:unsurprising result by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      I spent a mod point on a post about smurfs dammit.

    5. Re:unsurprising result by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, the women you're thinking of are conservatives. The vast majority of modern feminists just want to wipe out the stupid old stereotype of women having weaker sex drives. Both sexes have roughly the same range of strong, average, weak, and zero sex drives -- the main difference is that our society hasn't quite gotten rid of the old double-standard where guys are praised for getting laid while girls/women are condemned.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    6. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There ARE no conservative values except loyalty to the tribe.

    7. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be really interested in reading how you would define Feminism before even attempting an explination of pro war feminism. Alternatively you could just be making shit up.

      I can't help but feel you got lost on the way to r/MensRights.

    8. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have a higher sex drive than most females. You may even have a higher sex drive than some males.
      But overall, males have a much higher sex drive.

      society hasn't quite gotten rid of the old double-standard

      In the privacy of their homes, males masturbate much more often than women.
      To say nothing of the availability of porn ... largely targeted at males. Even when it features dudes, it's usually aimed at the gay community.

      I'm VERY curious why some feminists feel as though women must have an equal sex drive to males ??? As though having a weaker sex drive is a bad thing. As a female, do you mind responding to that?

    9. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of modern feminists

      sorry buddy, stopped reading right there. You can basically use "the vast majority of modern " in any situation to manipulate others and yourself that it is the majorities opinion... environmentalists, libertarians, republicans, politicians, housewives etc.
      Also, newsflash for our American readers, majority doesn't mean that they are in the right.

    10. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feminism used to be about equality. It used to be about women & girls not being disadvantaged just because of their gender.

      I support this. And this is the definition of feminism that you would like to project.

      In truth, a lot of today's young women have taken feminism BEYOND equality; they want additional privileges. And politicians are all too willing to comply so as to win the support of the women's lobby. The fact of the matter is in today's western societies, it is boys and men who face the lion's share of sexism: both cultural and legislative.

      You're currently on the winning team. Enjoy it ... you've earned it!

      Women have fought hard the past 100 years to get to this stage: more government money is spent on women's health than men's health (despite women living longer, having lower cancer and heart disease rates, etc), more girls go to college and university, women receive lighter sentences when committing the same crime as a man, many more men than women are victims of crime, the list just goes on ...

      I'm just glad that the men's rights movement has picked-up such fierce pace the past couple of years. The more men get screwed, the more we'll coalesce into a lobby ourselves. Then the fun really begins.

    11. Re:unsurprising result by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      That's not the mainstream feminist view. The only objection to this kind of thing would be that the women who are prostitutes should have an opportunity at a better life and not have to do that kind of thing to support themselves. It's not really a feminist issue, it's a quality of life and safety issue that just happens to mostly affect women.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately there is a rather large subset of feminists who are also man-haters. And these women give other feminists a Bad Name, and (sadly) make some men hate women in general.

      These man-haters appear clearly on websites whenever a gender-specific subject is raised. For example I was recently following an article that discussed circumcision, and whether it reduced the transmission of HIV. From what I could see, the evidence showed circumcision was virtually useless, particularly when compared to practicing safe sex. Additionally, hundred of males die every year (around the world) from botched circumcisions. Many of those in western countries.

      And yet there they were: a group of women commenters rabidly advocating circumcision. I could see no other reason than these women relishing the idea of a male (even a newborn) having his penis cut.

      Very saddening to see people harboring so much hatred.

    13. Re:unsurprising result by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      That's unchangeable scientific fact. An inconvenient truth, to be sure. Men's biological imperative is to spread his seed far and wide. A woman's is to carefully select the most suitable, highest quality male to father her children. Our society can't get rid of facts no matter how delighted feminists would be, sorry

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    14. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course they wonder why there are problems with morale, retention, and higher suicide rates in the military as compared to people of similar age and income in other lines of work. Such problems aren't because these people don't have any psychological needs outside of what their superiors tell them they should have. A good paycheck and steady work compared to high unemployment back in the home country should be good enough for anyone, right?

    15. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah dude, you have no idea, do you? If anything a feminist is fighting for exactly that: liberation for *all* from the patriarchal system! They're the last one you'll see micro-managing the sex lives of others. In my experience, it's also exactly the feminists who prefer open relationships etc, because there's such a thing as being realistic about everyone's drives (and welcome to the human race: everybody occasionally wants some on the side).

      And that stuff about abortion etc? I think you missed where feminists have been lobbying FOR the possibility of pro-choice and contraception, etc etc.

      Please stop making feminists look bad by misrepresenting us.

    16. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A (female) prostitute can make more money than almost any other career, at least while she's young. If you got to choose between making over $500,000/yr as a prostitute or making $25k/yr as a receptionist where you have to worry that your job is going to be automated next week, which would you choose?

    17. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird... I know a lot of feminists.

      (My) Definition of Feminist: Someone who believes that women are not, and should be, equal with men socially, politically, and economically, and puts forth effort to correct those imbalances.I don't see anything about managing sex lives.

      There is a LOT of rape in the military, and much of it is not reported or swept under the rug. Many feminists would say that should be corrected. I rather agree. It's not exactly a way out there view.... If anyone is going to micromanage sex lives, that would be the conservatives, both male and female.

      Anonymous coward is .... very wrong. And angrily so, it feels to me. The whole tone of that anonymous rant was kind of creepy angry.

    18. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If i could sell myself for $1500 for a day and take the rest of the week of i would be completely fine with that..

    19. Re:unsurprising result by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      our society hasn't quite gotten rid of the old double-standard where guys are praised for getting laid while girls/women are condemned.
      Not so much a double standard merely an appreciation of difficulty in the enterprise. See a young woman(age 20-35) barring any obvious physical flaws will probably be able to obtain 20+ sexual overtures in under 2 hours in a mixed population of over 100,000. A hetero young man must try considerably harder to achieve anything close to that. Thus the disproportionate application of praise.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    20. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Setting aside everything else, how many feminists are in positions of power in the military? Also even if the military were run by feminists, why would they (according to the article) primarily target gay male soldiers?

    21. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no patriarchal system. Males are just as screwed in society as females, if not more.

      Most people are well aware of the discrimination that women still encounter. If you visit any Men's Rights Activist website you'll find plenty of posts that clearly articulate and enumerate the types of discrimination encountered by males every day of our lives: both cultural and legislative.

      Or you could continue to think that men have it easy while women suffer in silence. It's what you'll do, anyway.

    22. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The powerful women's lobby (and let's be honest, it's very powerful) targets the government, which then puts pressure on the military.

      Is that so hard to follow?

    23. Re:unsurprising result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see anything about managing sex lives.

      One of two options:
      1. The feminists that indoctrinated you did a very thorough job, and you feel that women are suffering but that men have it easy, or
      2. You're a man-hater, and know that men are being screwed left-right-and-centre but don't care.

      Feminist war on sex lives:
      1. Rape accusations Part 1: the name of the alleged victim (usually female) is protected, while the name of the alleged perpetrator (usually male) is public. So even when the alleged perpetrator is found innocent, his name is still mud.
      2. Rape accusations Part 2: the only crime where the person on the stand must prove their innocence (did you have consent !!). All other crimes: innocent until proven guilty; the prosecution must demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
      3. Children: Even (if not usually) childless feminists always siding with mothers (simply because they only identify with people according to their gender) when it comes to custody battles. (See any of millions of comments.)
      4. Sexual Assaults: Equality? Where are the feminist groups demanding that women receive the same sentences as men. Check out what the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR said in this article
      5. Children: Feminists agree fathers should be required to financially support the upbringing of their children. Do feminists also believe a father should have the right to prevent a woman from killing his unborn child?

      The list goes on. You just don't see (or care about) the inequalities because you likely have a permanent victim mentality. You don't sympathize with males (even when males suffer) you only identify with women. Says a lot about you as a person.

  5. Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would have been nice if TFS pointed out it's targeting men seeking men, almost exclusively.

    1. Re: Discrimination by dnadoc · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Not too many gay bars in Baghdad.

    2. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not sure how much of it is truth and how much is fiction, but I was told that one reason why the military didn't oppose ending DADT was because they'd ALREADY effectively neutralized it with an earlier "stop loss" order, so gay soldiers who got fed up in Iraq or Afghanistan couldn't "come out to get out".

    3. Re:Discrimination by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Take a quick browse of the W4M hookups section of craigslist/Iraq. 1 post/day average, mostly obvious hookers.

      I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are targeting the M4M forums because that is where the traffic is.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Discrimination by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Article 125? Engage in unnatural carnal copulation?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't ask. Don't tell.

    6. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      M4M is where all the traffic is on craigslist everywhere.

      Post in M4W and you have a .01% chance of getting a real female reply. But you will get 2 dudes asking if you will let a guy blow you and 300 spambots.

    7. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Just a straight forward violation of General Order 1, which basically says no fucking in the war zone. If you can't keep your pants on for a year, well, maybe you shouldn't be a soldier.

    8. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a hearts and minds issue. You don't show a country where people get killed for being the wrong kind of Muslim that you're bringing homosexuals into their country and expect them to like you for it.

    9. Re: Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you watch Generation Kill (a frankly awesome TV series infamous for it's "show it as it was" absolute dogmatic adherence to authenticity in the face of almost all constraints), you'll see that there are plenty of gay guys in Iraq, they just have to operate on the down low.

      The scene in question is when the marines are in Baghdad and they get propositioned by a couple of guys on the street.

      "You have beautiful eyes. You like boys or girls?"

      "Girls, dag."

      "Eurgh. Blech. Girls."

    10. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because women in the military have no problem finding a hookup. Usually they will have a pack of men following them whether they want it or not. Some take advantage of their little pack of horny toads and get a lot of work out of them. "I would go to lunch with you but I have to...." Done!

  6. Swf seeking swm by alen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Must have 300 on pt test
    Shoot expert
    Combat infantryman's badge preferred

    1. Re:Swf seeking swm by tibman · · Score: 3, Informative

      That will limit you to only men. If you are looking for women, i recommend substituting the CAB for the CIB : )

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    2. Re:Swf seeking swm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't get KIA.

    3. Re:Swf seeking swm by Cederic · · Score: 1

      'seeking swm' kind of implies she's looking for men not women

    4. Re:Swf seeking swm by tibman · · Score: 1

      hah, thanks : ) I don't subjects for some reason. Really gets in the way when people start their posts there too. swf == single white female?

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  7. They're risking their lives in a hell hole by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fighting for their country. Let them hook up with whomever they want.

    1. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A person putting their life on-the-line should be rewarded not punshed.
      When off duty, free and unlimited booze, sex, drugs, ad free tv and movies, free food, free detox, they have to unwind so they don't come home crazy.
      Support our troops, hire a hooker today !

    2. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Mod up, please.

    3. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

      Let them hook up with whomever they want

      Seriously? What business is it of the government who a soldier is fucking, when, how and why? "Let them"? To hell with anyone who tries to tell another person what their sexual antics should be.

    4. Re: They're risking their lives in a hell hole by dnadoc · · Score: 1

      They're risking their lives in a hell hole Always felt weird calling somebody's home a "hell hole" ... but then again...

    5. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1
      I couldn't imagine our PC government pursuing this if it was mainly females who would get caught.
      Could you imagine the feminist response if the Army tried to curb women's sexual freedoms?

    6. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let them hook up with whomever they want

      Seriously? What business is it of the government who a soldier is fucking, when, how and why? "Let them"? To hell with anyone who tries to tell another person what their sexual antics should be.

      That's not the way it works in the real world. During most wars, STDs were actually a serious problem that could bleed the ranks just as effectively as being shot. The military gives a shit because they don't want to train people, ship them out then have to send them home after having accomplished nothing due to a syphilis infection.

    7. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Fighting for their country

      Please tell me more. Did Afghanistan invade US?

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    8. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Well duh....if you're not a minority of some kind who cares about your rights?

    9. Re: They're risking their lives in a hell hole by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      They're risking their lives in a hell hole Always felt weird calling somebody's home a "hell hole" ... but then again...

      the GP is talking about base :p

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    10. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

      Fighting for their country.

      Nah - they are fighting for some commercial interests. Their country is paying their salary, though.

    11. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only this same logic would be applied elsewhere.

    12. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fighting for their country.

      This, right there, is the biggest, and least questioned lie America has ever told.
      First of all, "fighting" is just an euphemism for MURDERING. MASS-MURDERING, in fact.

      Secondly: No, not "for" their country. AGAINST their country. For a bunch of industries (military industry, oil industry, etc) that are actively and intentionally trying to destroy the USA and are happily walking over masses of dead and millions of sick people (including Americans) for profit and ONLY profit. Because they are sociopaths and psychopaths.

      So what those "soldiers" are actually doing, is falling for a lie, and murdering themselves and others, to line the pockets of a hand full of monsters that are on one level with Hitler, Stalin and Mobutu. Like Dick Cheney, to name a prime example.

      So: QUIT PARROTING THAT BULLSHIT. IT MAKES YOU AN ENEMY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

    13. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Seriously? What business is it of the government who a soldier is fucking, when, how and why? "Let them"? To hell with anyone who tries to tell another person what their sexual antics should be.

      In general principal, I agree with you. If they were here in the United States. However they are in a foreign country, where sexual encounters between unmarried individuals is illegal and such activity has also been ordered by commanding officers not to occur.

      What would your reaction be if two Afghanistan soldiers came to the United States and committed a criminal act that would have been legal in Afghanistan? Should they face justice here? Or should we turn a blind eye to it?

    14. Re:They're risking their lives in a hell hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soldiers should be disciplined enough to go through months of duty without sex with anybody. It's a shame to take time off duty because the soldier.caught some STD that'll burn his crotch all day long and won't go away with a simple cream treatment.

    15. Re: They're risking their lives in a hell hole by dywolf · · Score: 1

      120+ degree heat.
      Very little water.
      Very little food.
      (Plus wearing >50lbs of bady armor and equipment)

      It's one thing to grow up in it. It's home, you're conditioned to it, etc. But when you grow up with air conditioning, cars, plenty of food water, etc etc. plus you're under constant restriction anyway (cant leave compound whenever like, cant take advantage of local "good things" even if its just a swimming hole to evade the heat, have to go on partol in said midday heat, etc)..ya "hell hole" is a pretty good description. Plus the compound isn't usually in the "nice" area, but rather the somewhat undesirable (so as to not impact locals badly by taking their "good spot), and is also chosen for tactical reasons, not comfort ones...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re: They're risking their lives in a hell hole by dnadoc · · Score: 1

      Very true!

  8. I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagdag by Punto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm more surprised by the fact that having sex is illegal? And the military police has jurisdiction over this crime? wtf

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  9. So what? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean really, these people didn't sign up to join the priesthood. They're soldiers.

    Why is having sex a problem?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:So what? by Threni · · Score: 2

      They're 1) Americans, in 2) a Muslim country. Double repression.

      Probably safer to ship their partners over for conjugal visits, than go native.

    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why is having sex a problem?

      Read the summary more closely-- they're not even getting married first!!

    3. Re:So what? by gubon13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The issue is that - fair or not - these people made a commitment to the U.S. government and its people. Part of that commitment entails keeping themselves in the best possible shape to act at a moment's notice to protect the constitution and yada yada yada. (The so-called "military owns your body" argument.) So it's not a problem with sex, it's a problem with soliciting prostitutes - not exactly nature's perfect specimens of health. That these are people in high positions of authority makes it worse.

      Look at it this way - Imagine you're playing chess. If one of your pawns suddenly gets AIDS, you can lose him, even though it affects the overall battle worthiness of your troops. Now imagine you lose a knight. Significantly greater impact. And it's not like they're bringing prostitutes back to the safety of the barracks; they're going into seedy areas and putting themselves at risk of kidnap or attack.

      I'm not condoning what the military is doing in this situation, nor am I saying it's wrong. After reading the linked articles, I don't have enough information to form even a knowledgeable opinion on the matter. I'm just addressing why it would be bad to let soldiers fuck any filthy thing they want in their downtime.

    4. Re:So what? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Sex needs some/lots of cash and their gov wages might not cover their long term desires/addictions/kinks.
      Until they earn contractor/mercenary wages they are at risk of a foreign power discovering their needs and helping.
      You also have the extramarital affairs side too with discredit and risk of been caught.
      For every secured location their is a foreign power waiting to have a chat at a later time.
      As for other issues the US mil can think up?
      The soldier falls in love and wants to bring the back their new partner/extended family- requests papers, talks to the press.
      The soldier falls in love and will be indoctrinated for short term or long term use by a foreign power/cult/faith.
      The soldier falls in love and sees the locals as humans and talks about their discovery to others, talks to the press
      The soldier mixes with the locals and stumbles over drug trade/weapon/sexual slavery been protected by their troops/spies/contractors/mercenary/NGO ...
      They talk to the press, write a book, start talking to any congressperson who will listen.
      Best to keep them on base, talking to loved ones back home on Skype/US branded telcos.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:So what? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I mean really, these people didn't sign up to join the priesthood. They're soldiers.

      Why is having sex a problem?

      What, the army of a nation that thinks movies full of violence, gore, and flying body parts is OK, but not if the body parts are procreative?

    6. Re:So what? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      What, the army of a nation that thinks movies full of violence, gore, and flying body parts is OK,

      I'm fascinated. When someone objects to the violence and gore in the popular media they are branded as nutcases and looneys and of course violence in media has no effect on anyone. And now you seem to be implying that violence and gore in movies is a bad thing and that nobody has ever objected to such.

      The issue is not movies of body parts that are "procreative", but the actual use of such parts. There's a couple of very good reasons for this to be against the regulations.

      • We've seen the effect on the country when it happens with little to keep it in check. Unwed mothers with "American" babies in a country where both are scorned and discriminated against. For every honorable soldier in the Korean War who came back with a Korean wife, keep in mind the number who didn't do the honorable thing and left a family behind to fend for themselves.
      • The potential for blackmail as a lever to coerce dereliction or worse. "Let us run our black market or we'll tell your wife about ..."
    7. Re:So what? by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "So it's not a problem with sex, it's a problem with soliciting prostitutes - not exactly nature's perfect specimens of health."

      The solution is obvious then: make the army pay for hookers and have their health controlled.

    8. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civilian laws are different from military ones. Breaking the law is still breaking the law. Also, they are charging people with posting lewd pictures. It's like your boss firing you for posting your junk on Facebook. Maybe you don't see it as a problem, but they still don't want people who do that working for them.

    9. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at it this way - Imagine you're playing chess. If one of your pawns suddenly gets AIDS, you can lose him, even though it affects the overall battle worthiness of your troops. Now imagine you lose a knight. Significantly greater impact.

      I don't think you're playing chess right. At least not the same game I know as chess.

    10. Re:So what? by tibman · · Score: 2

      The US Army tests every soldier for HIV every year. I'm also very sure that STD metrics are closely watched. There are more ways to become infected than sex. Like people bleeding all over each other and so on. I'm sure sex is a big part of it though.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    11. Re:So what? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Because they're American soldiers and therefore evil. Where have you been since 9/11?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:So what? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Prostitutes are probably more likely to use protection than the average drunk chick being picked up in a club. Pretty hard to keep earning if your crotch is all rotten and painful. Anyway military-sanctioned brothels served millions of soldiers during past wars, and even with more primitive condom technology readiness was not significantly affected. Nowadays there are women being put into all combat rolls...and pregnancy makes the clap look like a splinter.

    13. Re:So what? by citizenr · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're 1) Americans, in 2) a Muslim country. Double repression.

      Probably safer to ship their partners over for conjugal visits, than go native.

      Especially with this camel virus going around.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    14. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone objects to the violence and gore in the popular media they are branded as nutcases and looneys and of course violence in media has no effect on anyone.

      It has no significantly harmful effects on people who aren't completely insane to begin with.

    15. Re:So what? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Prostitution is illegal in most of the places where the army operates.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:So what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The US Army tests every soldier for HIV every year. I'm also very sure that STD metrics are closely watched. There are more ways to become infected than sex. Like people bleeding all over each other and so on. I'm sure sex is a big part of it though.

      Rape is rampant in the military. How much of that rape involves protected sex?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially with this camel virus going around.

      Dude, toss out your CAMELS, switch to NAS... wtf!?

    18. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article. Its almost all male soldiers hooking up with other male soldiers. Are they really all gay? Or were the conservatives right and at least for some people sexual orientation can be changed by context?

    19. Re:So what? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      "So it's not a problem with sex, it's a problem with soliciting prostitutes - not exactly nature's perfect specimens of health."

      The solution is obvious then: make the army pay for hookers and have their health controlled.

      A technically possible solution that won't work for a political problem. The US government is not going to (openly) pay for sex for their cannon fodder.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    20. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prostitution is illegal in most of the places where the army operates.

      So...

      Drone strike - ok

      Prostitution - evil

    21. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is killing. What's your point?

    22. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is shooting innocent people! The army makes its own rules.

    23. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong dude these guys hate their lives they sometimes couldn't care less if they're dead or alive and act accordingly. The argument that they need to be in prime condition to fight is easily countered by the fact these guys are regularly treated like shit with missed meals and days without sleep.. not for an important mission, but so they can clean and do chores. It gets them used to being treated like shit and makes them mean as hell for the enemy.

      You have no idea.. sleep nice in your bed and judge a man who pays $20 for the last blowjob of his life.

    24. Re:So what? by tibman · · Score: 1

      It is certainly a problem that isn't talked about enough. The UCMJ should be able to crush people but it seems like the local commander keeps it from getting there. I read an article saying that for sexual assault the commander now loses his privileges to decide what happens and it goes straight to jag (or something along those lines). Express-lane justice with fewer places it can be swept under the rug. Sounds good to me : ) I think one of the major problems is that power is pushed down so low and soldiers are encouraged to solve problems at the lowest levels. If someone is caught stealing s/he is "dealt with" and nobody above will hear about it. If a young soldier sees this as the way of dealing with rape then s/he might also do the same thing when they are in charge some day. It becomes part of the culture. Drugs and DUI are some of the few things that go straight to the top. If sexual assault gets in that list it will help but the culture will take time to change. 10-20 years.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    25. Re:So what? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "So it's not a problem with sex
      [...]
      The solution is obvious then: make the army pay for hookers
      [...]
      A technically possible solution that won't work for a political problem."

      You are right and the poster I answered to is the wrong one: of course it IS a problem with sex, and that's why the obvious solution -if there were no problem with sex as he claimed, can't and won't be implemented.

    26. Re:So what? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      "So it's not a problem with sex
      [...]
      The solution is obvious then: make the army pay for hookers
      [...]
      A technically possible solution that won't work for a political problem."

      You are right and the poster I answered to is the wrong one: of course it IS a problem with sex, and that's why the obvious solution -if there were no problem with sex as he claimed, can't and won't be implemented.

      Yes but if there were no problem with gravity then we would be able to fly. And for Americans you might as well wish this as we're quite screwed up about sex (pun unintentional).

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  10. Sting? Whose sting? by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 1

    You mean US military Sting or Al-Qaeda sting?

    1. Re:Sting? Whose sting? by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

      What about Sting, formerly of The Police? After all, isn't the motto "Every step you take, I'll be watching you"?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Sting? Whose sting? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      What about Sting, formerly of The Police? After all, isn't the motto "Every step you take, I'll be watching you"?

      So is this Military Police or the NSA?

      What were we talking about again?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  11. Time to move on guys... by czernabog · · Score: 2

    Wait wait... are you telling me Americans are still in Baghdad?

    1. Re:Time to move on guys... by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thats the part that surprised me - I thought we had got out of there.

    2. Re:Time to move on guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the immortal lines of Bagdad Bob during the first gulf war: "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

    3. Re:Time to move on guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You were supposed to. That was the entire point of telling you that we had.

    4. Re:Time to move on guys... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Yes but for training, as contractors/mercenary/NGO like roles i.e. counter-terrorism operations.
      See (Office of Security Cooperation—Iraq) OSC-I funding, institutional level staff helpers, past Foreign Military Sales staff numbers (some nice Abrams/F-16/Stryker sales numbers?).
      http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21968.pdf hints at numbers on page 35 onwards.
      From 'At the time of the withdrawal, there were about 16,000 total U.S. personnel in Iraq, about half of which were contractors."
      "However, staff cuts discussed below have left the total number of U.S. personnel in Iraq at about 10,000 as of mid-2013"
      So very, very few US troops in Iraq, just some "U.S. personnel".
      A lot of troops are ready in the region as always.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. Soldiers looking to hook up in the field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess it's cheaper (and less likely to give you a dangerous disease) than visiting a prostitute. Gender equal also. Um, why do we care this is happening?

    1. Re:Soldiers looking to hook up in the field? by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, why do we care this is happening?

      Because the locals don't appreciate it when it happens with locals. And when it is "consenting" co-members of the military it can often be less than consenting and it creates unnecessary conflict in a unit. When that E2 the E7 is banging depends on the good evaluations from the E7 to be promoted and/or get good assignments, it is a good assumption that there is not a lot of consent. And the other members of the unit may just have a bit of jealousy or disrespect for that E7 for what he's doing.

    2. Re:Soldiers looking to hook up in the field? by westlake · · Score: 1

      Because the locals don't appreciate it when it happens with locals. And when it is "consenting" co-members of the military it can often be less than consenting and it creates unnecessary conflict in a unit.

      Too many of these posts have cut right to the edge of what has been said by the mayor of Osaka.

      ''When soldiers are risking their lives by running through storms of bullets, and you want to give these emotionally charged soldiers a rest somewhere, it's clear that you need a comfort-women system.'' he told reporters. ''Anyone can understand that.'' Japan's obligation, he said, is 'to politely offer kind words to the comfort women'' ---- as if they are to be pitied, prostitutes for whom politeness would be a prize; as if they had been lowered, rather than the Japanese military debased.

      Hashimoto compounded that built-in controversy by suggesting that other countries might not only understand but emulate the Japanese experience --- that the United States might do so immediately at its bases in Japan: ''We can't control the sexual energy of these brave Marines ... They must make more use of adult entertainers.''

      ....what needs to be challenged is a basic complacency about linking soldiers and sexual violence. This is an issue that afflicts many war zones and militaries, including ours, where there is an unresolved crisis of sexual assault. There is also something telling in Hashimoto's muddling of wartime sexual servitude, prostitution, peacetime assaults on the streets of Okinawa, and ''adult entertainment.''

      The Mayor and the Comfort Women

    3. Re:Soldiers looking to hook up in the field? by phorm · · Score: 1

      In the case of Japanese comfort women, they females in question were Koreans who were kidnapped and FORCED into prostitution.

      In contrast, TFA is warning against soldiers taking on with women who are basically advertising their services in Craiglist. While they may be pushed to such a situation by circumstance, it's still a far cry from being kidnapped and basically gang-raped.

  13. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    And the military police has jurisdiction over this crime? wtf

    For military personnel of course the military police have jurisdiction.

  14. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your penis is a weapon. The military needs to what ever it takes to ensure its fighting readiness.

  15. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    conduct unbecoming an officer.

    Ten years ago, I knew an MP in counterintel who was basically a trained as a professional hooker/seductress.

    Her sole job was to seduce married officers and slap them in handcuffs, supposedly directions often came down from above for people that were already undesirable...

    Real feisty woman... very fun. But I would not have wanted to be on her bad side.

  16. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm more surprised by the fact that having sex is illegal? And the military police has jurisdiction over this crime? wtf

    I hear it's considered "Unauthorized Use of US Government Property".

  17. Oversexed, overpaid and over here by westlake · · Score: 2

    I'm more surprised by the fact that having sex is illegal? And the military police has jurisdiction over this crime? wtf

    The US military has never liked incidents that cause trouble with its foreign hosts.

    Conditions were harsh in Britain in the early 1940s and there was also an undercurrent of unease that was conveyed by the phrase, especially amongst British men, who resented the attraction of GIs, with their ready supply of nylons and cigarettes, amongst British women. The artist Beryl Cook, who was a young woman at the time confirmed this in an interview to the BBC in the late 1970s. I can't find the transcript of the interview, but from memory it was words to the effect of, ''food was scarce, but we supplemented our income by a little impromptu whoring with the GIs - we all did it''. Many of these liaisons were love matches rather than merely commercial transactions though, as the thousands of marriages between US servicemen and British women (the GI brides) is evidence of.

    Oversexed, overpaid and over here

    Fueling the fires while stationed in as volatile and deeply conservative a country as Afghanistan is of no help to anyone.

  18. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    SO as a married officer, you can go to jail for sleeping around? What if you have an open marriage?

    --
    Good-bye
  19. Re: I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bag by dnadoc · · Score: 1
    Your penis is a weapon. The military needs to what ever it takes to ensure its fighting readiness.

    Dude, you missed out on a sword fighting pun!

  20. Whose business is this? by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 0

    There are MP's telling soldiers where they can put their winkies? Are we going to have a new division of the army ... the Willie Police WP's?

    WP: "Soldier! Lay down your weapon. I'll bend over this vehicle, you're to perform a thorough cavity search, UNDERSTOOD!"
    Soldier: "Sir yes Sir!"
    WP: "Get in position"
    Soldier: [prepares for battle]
    WP: "All right soldier, MOVE IT OR LOSE IT!"

  21. Re: I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bag by JustOK · · Score: 2

    I'm sure it was on the tip of his tongue.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  22. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to believe it was a way to get rid of officers who had committed no crime but would be dangerous to have in charge of men.

  23. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    adultry under any circumstance is punishable under UCMJ. that, and many other regs are absolutely fucking ridiculous, but remember that all of these stupid rules are public record (www.apd.army.mil). no one is drafted, people sign up for it. if youre going to sign your life away to live in that insane asylum for 3+ years (or whatever the minimum is), you had better do a bit of research first. if you dont like the game, dont play.

    further OT: also mind that many soldiers "deployed" arent seeing any combat. a soldier i worked with a few years back is deployed to afghanistan right now -spends all day on the internet and dealing with idiot NCOs (fixing their printer, patching windows vulnerabilities, etc). his whole unit doesnt see action. some people do "fight for their country", but most dont. they simply do work tasks and battle buearucracy for a paycheck like the rest of us. then they retire after 20 years and collect a pension, perhaps also VA benefits regardless of whether of not they received a real combat injury. i know two people battling the VA for benefits they earned from heavy physical trauma, and dozens bragging about collecting for bullshit.

  24. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AC you replied to...

    What if you have an open marriage?

    I'm going to be a bit of a jerk (just for a few lines) here, but bear with me, since I want this to sink in. What are you, an idiot? You aren't asking about open marriages, you're asking about fucking adultery. It's illegal, get it through your head. Your ideals do not apply to the law any more than they apply to the law in Utah.

    They don't care if /you/ have an open marriage, this is moral code and law you waived other rights in.

    Ten years ago they could kick you out for being openly gay. How do you think they felt about adultery ? "Open marriage my ass" -- that's another word for 'sinner', now get back in line with the standards from 1950 before we discharge you instead of just cutting your pay for a month.

    Here, let me clear it up some...

    "In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In 2012, adultery was a criminal offense in 23 states."

    --
    Source: wikipedia (adultery)

    Article 133 is titled... "Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman"

    conduct violative of this article is action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officerâ(TM)s character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the personâ(TM)s standing as an officer

    This specifically includes for example, association with known prostitutes, and anything nebulously "dishonorable" -- particularly if it can reflect on those around you.

    Don't make the mistake of believing your modern ideals about sexuality apply to the military.

    Here's article 134 (Adultery)

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.htm

    Allowed punishment includes imprisonment for up to a year.

    So in answer to your question -- they can dishonorably discharge you, and lock you up for a year without pay. Assuming they don't add more crimes onto it (which they will if you don't take the discharge and shut up).

    That your SO is okay with it just further negatively reflects upon your character and the character of those you associate with.

  25. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Question:
    did the army also pay a charismatic man to go around seducing married women and arresting the women when they fell for his charms?

  26. Re: I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Ba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pun or the penis?

  27. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    I understand we are talking UCMJ, but the laws you refer to are highly unconstitutional and would be tossed the first time they saw a modern judge.

    "In the U.S. Military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense.[15] The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States is unclear following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults.[74] However, occasional prosecutions do occur"

    I appreciate your comment and im not trying to refute it, just adding perspective.

    --
    Good-bye
  28. make war not love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...

  29. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by hutsell · · Score: 1

    Your penis is a weapon. The military needs to what ever it takes to ensure its fighting readiness.

    The military is on the record about the actual purpose of one's penis. To insure new recruits properly call their firearm a weapon, they're required to memorize (and point to the appropriate place) while shouting in unison with the rest of the troops in the platoon or company the following:

    This is my weapon,
    This is my gun,
    This one's for fighting,
    And this one's for fun.

    This is brought to everyone's attention after the drill instructor entraps a "volunteer" into answering a question about what he's holding. After everyone is punished with push ups due to his mistake, anyone stupid enough to make the same mistake — calling it anything besides a weapon, usually a gun — will be in a world of hurt.

    On a separate note, I vaguely recall reading somewhere how the military, during the first world war, openly campaigned the idea to potential recruits that winning France back from the Germans would make them a hero in the eyes of all the French women. Additionally, they were informed about all the prostitutes in France they would be able to meet.

    --
    Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
  30. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by godel_56 · · Score: 1

    I understand we are talking UCMJ, but the laws you refer to are highly unconstitutional and would be tossed the first time they saw a modern judge.

    Ah, the US Constitution, that old thing. ;-)

  31. Military logic at work. by blackicye · · Score: 0

    Killing people good. Casual Sex, baaaad.

    1. Re:Military logic at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They found love in a hopeless place.

  32. Obscenity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!

  33. jarhead Puritan pride by epine · · Score: 2

    Incorrect. I will not die if I don't have sex, and it is not essential to me.

    Why do you even bother to post? Oh I get it, you're anonymous. Because ya know, by the time this exchange of fish tails ends, the universe itself will be considered optional. Space time? Who needs it? I mean, really needs it.

    I think this is a right the troops need to sign away during the recruitment process. Explicitly, not as part of an omnibus bill. Okay, just one last form: sign here to consent to being court marshalled for engaging in sexual activities with a consenting adult.

    Prospective recruit: Whoa, run that one by me again. No shit? You know what, I'm going to sleep on this. See ya tomorrow ... or the next day ... or the second Tuesday after not in this lifetime ...

    Whatever my morality about sex, I don't this should kept under the covers in the fine print on the application form. Shout it loud, shout it proud if you've got jarhead Puritan pride. Informed decisions before the first lock is shorn, that's the only democratic system there's any reason to protect.

    1. Re:jarhead Puritan pride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having or paying for sex is not wrong, so I'm by no means a puritan.

    2. Re:jarhead Puritan pride by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think this is a right the troops need to sign away during the recruitment process. Explicitly, not as part of an omnibus bill. Okay, just one last form: sign here to consent to being court marshalled for engaging in sexual activities with a consenting adult.

      That is not repeat not what is happening. They are being charged with violation of the law, not with consensual sex. Adultery is also already a crime under the UCMJ, and rape is still theoretically punishable by hanging but the whole fucking military would be swinging in the wind. Or at least half of it. But you already sign away your rights when you join the military and are now governed by the UCMJ, which directly conflicts with the constitution in several particulars.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:jarhead Puritan pride by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Adultery implies there is no agreement between partners/spouses that outside sex is okay. I know lots of deployed people who have such agreements, both military and civilian.

      The military typically uses the UCMJ adultery thing when someone is a total d-bag in other ways, there is fraternization involved, or the person is just not a good troop and there's not really a good way to get rid of them.

      If the commanders are using this as a primary charge for no other reason than the sex, then it should be stopped. It costs too much money to run these kinds of sting operations and does nothing but hinder morale of the troops who are already being pushed beyond reasonably with extended multiple deployments etc etc.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    4. Re:jarhead Puritan pride by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Adultery implies there is no agreement between partners/spouses that outside sex is okay.

      Adultery problem 3, "That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."

      How does that not apply in this situation?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  34. people need to start minding their own business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares how people find people to fuck. People are fucking and cheating all over the world every day and no one cares...as soon as it's a govt employee everyone loses their minds and plasters it all over the news...grow up America.

  35. Rapes by spike+hay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about the military focus less on solicitations for consensual sex and more on actually taking rape seriously?

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    1. Re:Rapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as war without mass-murder, mass-rape, mass-terrorism mass-looting/stealing. That is how war is DEFINED.

      There hasn't been a single war without it, and there never will be.
      If you make people go full monster (= mass-murdering), they will also rape. No exceptions.

      How about you take MASS-MURDER seriously??

    2. Re:Rapes by westlake · · Score: 1

      How about the military focus less on solicitations for consensual sex and more on actually taking rape seriously?

      Consent loses meaning when the request comes from a man in a position of power and privilege. It is not easy to say no when your entire village is starving --- and the only source of food is the man carrying a gun.

    3. Re:Rapes by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking more about intra-military rape, which is actually frar more common. If you've been paying attention the last few years, the military has a history of covering up rape instead of prosecuting. For example, a few years ago a female soldier in Iraq named Laveena Johnson was found dead with a broken nose, black eye, loose teeth, a gunshot wound, and chemical burns to the genitals. It was ruled a suicide.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  36. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

    It's a breakdown in discipline, and runs contrary to the conservative christian foundation that our military is based on (unofficially, of course).

  37. ME ME ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes, it isn't about YOU

    1. Re:ME ME ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I'm the one who would have to reproduce, it is about me. It is utterly irrelevant to any individual and only mindless biological urges convince people otherwise.

    2. Re:ME ME ME by trimpnick · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those mindless biological urges like wanting to keep breathing or eating food!

    3. Re:ME ME ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like those. What of it?

  38. MOD DOWN THIS BIGOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone mod this useless piece of shit into oblivion!

    1. Re:MOD DOWN THIS BIGOT by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      It was a joke. Read the title.

  39. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I saw "Full Metal Jacket," too.

  40. If you want to serve your country in campaigns by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2

    where sleazy Internet hookups are tolerated, then join Congress.

  41. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The document that says people that like Dick Cheney in Wyoming get 300 times more vote than I do.

  42. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I saw "Full Metal Jacket," too.

    I didn't see the movie. Was it, like, the same as actually being there? Faces of the American Dead in Vietnam: One Week's Toll, June 1969 (Slide 1 of 227)

  43. major hooker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't make general overnight, or pimp.

  44. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by SecState · · Score: 1

    In Afghanistan, part of the point seems to be to encourage some rough adeherence to local norms to reduce resentment of the US presence among locals. Hence, the ban on alcohol for US military in Afghanistan and, from TFA, in Afghanistan "commanders have forbidden any sexual encounters between unwed people." Questionable whether this is effective, but it originated as part of a bigger package of trying to discourage US forces from living in a complete bubble, separate from the political and social systems they're trying to change.

    In the Iraq case described in the article, there seemed to be some concern (misguided in my view) that hooking up online, posting nudies on CL, etc., is prejudicial to the "good order and discipline in the armed forces." While agreed that the Secret Service exhibited very poor discipline in soliciting prostitutes in Colombia, I'm not sure I see how a "casual encounter" between two soldiers in Baghdad undermines good order or discipline.

  45. down-low... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think that means what they think it means...

  46. Loose lips sink ships by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

    Loose lips sink ships.

    All over again.

    --
    bickerdyke
  47. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    u.s. military personnel, regardless of where they are stationed, are still under jurisdiction of u.s. laws (plus the laws of the foreign country they're in when off-post), in addition to military regulations. plus, many servicemen are married, and adultery is a no-no... and then you have the whole risk of fraternizing with the enemy or potential enemy spy besides... so its really a no-brainer that the military is cracking-down on this.

  48. Catholic Priest's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone would think these soldiers are being treated like catholic priests!!! lol... seriously... whats wrong with a human being having a sex drive??? and maybe these muslim women might want a buff soldier for a fling/root! whats wrong with that? looks like the muslim imam's from Saudi Arabia have their hand in this news story!!! on no!! SEX!!! its the 1920's we cant talk about that!!!

  49. Normal job by DrYak · · Score: 2

    This is a win for everyone

    Except the government paid prostitutes.

    If they don't like this job, it's up to them to quit it and seek another position. They are NOT sex slaves, they are just person doing one specific type of job. Don't like the job? Move to another job. Use that fact that by paying taxes and so one during this about-to-be-left job, you paid money to be granted access to services for unemployed/job-seeking (and be also happy that some money where also funnelled into your retirement plan).

    Hint: It's already the case in several European countries. Only not in Afghanistan where TFA is taking place, nor in the USA.

    The whole purpose of the parent's post (and the actual situation in Europe) is that if prostitution becomes "just another job", lots of the problems associated with prostitution go away.
    It's not only about making prostitution legal, it's about making sure that prostitute are entitled every single advantage and benefit that any other job has.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  50. Also by voss · · Score: 1

    Fewer suicides

  51. Jurisdiction: you're not in EU by DrYak · · Score: 1

    We should be paying women(and men) to deploy with our troops and take care of those needs. {...} Make them official government employees, pay them well, give them excellent benefits, screen them constantly for STDs, and our troops will have better morale with fewer sexual assaults, fewer STDs, and fewer war babies.

    Except that there's a minor problem:

    - YOU ARE NOT in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, etc. (Where being a prostitue is just another type of job. Where that includes prostitutes being entitled every single advantage and benefit that any other job has. You pay your taxes like everyone else. You get access to health care, social insurrance, etc. and other state-paid advantage like any other tax payer. You get professionnal-health checks and counselling (prostitutes get STD check just like a factory workers must get screened for back problems or pollution contamination). You get pension once you retire. You get access to services for unemployed/job-seekers when you decide to quit this job and find a new one. You can form unions. Etc. - Where, in short, everything you suggest is the legal norm.)

    - YOU ARE IN AFGHANISTAN, where until recently any form of intimacy between non married man and woman was forbiden and where the prostitute would probably get stoned to death by law just for exercising this job.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Jurisdiction: you're not in EU by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Except that there's a minor problem:

      And it is neither of the reasons you cited. There's already people who never leave base, the prostitutes could be on that list. The problem is that prostitution is not legal in the USA, and thus not on any US soil, no matter where it's located. That's because the USA is not a free country — you don't even own your own body.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  52. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by jasper160 · · Score: 1

    The UCMJ is constitutional. The laws are passed by congress under Article 1 Section 8: "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" So you see where the problem is. And since there is no wealthy lobbying group for changing the UCMJ don't expect and sudden changes.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  53. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    if youre going to sign your life away to live in that insane asylum for 3+ years (or whatever the minimum is), you had better do a bit of research first. if you dont like the game, dont play.

    The game is bigger than just the military. They provide deliberately substandard education to the masses in order to reduce their options and drive them into poverty, then they pretend that joining the military will help them escape it. Educated by the system, the words seem plausible and next thing you know they're on the corner panhandling with a major disability.

    Guess what? If you don't play the game, you die. It's a crime to be broke in America.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  54. Eew! by sabbede · · Score: 0

    Soldiers are using Craigslist for sex? Yuck! People use that to find babysitters! Won't someone think of the children?!?

  55. Jurisdiction: USA? by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The problem is that prostitution is not legal in the USA, and thus not on any US soil, no matter where it's located.

    Sorry, I'm really accustomed of how these thing work. (That has to do with living in a country which hadn't been at war for the past nearly 2 centuries).
    I didn't knew that wherever the USA decides to establish a base could count as US soils.
    (I would like to be enlightened about such details if you have time).
    As a side note: have other nations present among the peace keeping forces negotiated similar embassy-like "soil abroad" legal status?

    That's because the USA is not a free country — you don't even own your own body.

    Well, I'm more or less under the impression that the body, the life and death, and absolutely everything else (creationist education, etc.) is owned by the bible, and the mix of crazy religious nuts/zealots and of politician with an agenda that dictate how the metaphoric jumble in said books should be interpreted. Or so it seems, from the outside.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Jurisdiction: USA? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I didn't knew that wherever the USA decides to establish a base could count as US soils.

      That's normally part of the deal with both embassies and military bases...

      I'm more or less under the impression that the body, the life and death, and absolutely everything else (creationist education, etc.) is owned by the bible, and the mix of crazy religious nuts/zealots and of politician with an agenda that dictate how the metaphoric jumble in said books should be interpreted. Or so it seems, from the outside.

      That's one influence, but there's also the corporate influence; if there's money to be made telling you what you can do with your body, someone will buy some legislation along those lines.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Jurisdiction: USA? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I didn't knew that wherever the USA decides to establish a base could count as US soils.

      Generally, when you allow a foreign country to establish a military base on your soil, that base is essentially sovereign under the laws of the country whose military has the base, not the host country.

      This is also true of embassies.
      As a side note: have other nations present among the peace keeping forces negotiated similar embassy-like "soil abroad" legal status?

      I think very few other countries have established military bases in other countries, but I'm sure they exist.

      For most of these peace-keeping missions, the peacekeepers are on a US owned military base. One would presume the overall base is under US jurisdiction, or some joint agreement between the US and the other nations.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  56. Off the Clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are adults first. You want them to fighrt who? Leave them alone when they are off duty.

  57. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Well it's good that you at least understand that you're being a jerk. But let's make this clear: It's illegal like it was illegal to be black during the era of Jim Crow laws.

    So, you know, the equivalent comeback would go along the lines of :

    What are you, an idiot? That law you reference is itself illegal, get it through your head.
    A hundred years ago they could lynch you for being black and no one would bat an eye. Do you think that would fly today? Time change. "Sinner" my ass -- that's a word used by fascists, now get back in line with modern moral standards before we sue you, your commander, and the whole army instead of just cutting your pay for a month.

    All in all I think it's just another sign of how old and cumbersome our military is. Don't get me wrong, it's not something I want to be volatile and fickle. I just have little faith that they'll be able to adapt to a real modern threat. Case in point, nukes make the option of first-world full-scale combat kinda moot. So why are we pissing away our money on a navy? Does it cost that much to shoot some Somali pirates? Projecting force onto third world nations? Do we need the F-22 (or even the F-35) for that? Why are we doing it in the first place? Old and busted is the term. It applies to the whole military, not just their bullshit laws about adultery.

  58. Shame on uncle sam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These dudes are living in a world you can't imagine. Nice to bring your tea-time-at-noon and shower before bed morals to them.

  59. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a myth.. many serviceman will argue because the meme is sexy. But service people are not government property even if they've gotten NJPs as such for self harm, it would never hold water if it escalated to court martial.

    But it sounds good right "I'm government property".. it's figurative but the knuckling dragging shit talking lifer types who are too institutionalized to get the balls to leave like to parrot each other on that shit. Show me an authoritative government document, the UCMJ or anything, not a quote... that says servicemen are government property.

  60. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No this is new morality being applied to people who you're lucky maintain any morals at all. It's easy for the fat cat cigar smoking brass to sneer at the bro antics of the men that they're destroying for life from a distance.

    These guys act like this because of the cards their being dealt by the same dudes who won't let them whore it up. Take away their whores and cigarettes... why allow them any pleasure when you can add a bullet point when arguing your next fitrep score. Bigger office, better travel accommodations.. who cares that lots of these guys are going to off themselves. You can't fix that shit, well adjusted healthy human being aren't supposed to be ok in a filthy 120 degree warzone.

  61. Re:Masturbation by alexo · · Score: 1

    we can't masturbate with just our hands remotely as easily as a guy

    Erm. You're doing it wrong.

    I'd offer to demonstrate, but I'm posting anonymously because frankly I can do without the hatemail.

    There is no "right" or "wrong" here.
    Since most of it is in the mind, it shouldn't be surprising that different people have different turn-ons and react differently to different kinds of stimulation.

  62. Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd by dywolf · · Score: 1

    when you understand that throughout most of human history, countries' militaries were the refuges of societys dregs and undesirables, of murders and rapists, that combat didnt mean strategically siezing a city with minimal loss of life but raping and pillaging everyone in sight til nothing was left....the rules begin to make more sense.

    the UCMJ isnt simply a reflection of societal mores from the 1950s...thats shrot sighted, and ignores that people have liked sex for most of human history. no, the UCMJ is part of the entire concept of the "professional military", the trained attack dog that will hold perfectly still while being harassed, attack absoltelu viciously when ordered, yet also isntantly cease that attack when ordered....as opposed to the "military" as its been known throughout most of human history which can be likened to a rapid dog kept in a cage, and prone to attacking its own "master", that barely submits to any concept of orders or training.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.