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."

6 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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?

  2. 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.

  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: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.

  5. 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.