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."
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...
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.
This is what happens when you let gays in the military.