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."

60 of 335 comments (clear)

  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. 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 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.

    2. 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

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

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

    4. Re:Hookers by linear+a · · Score: 5, Funny

      The key to military success is good advance planning.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

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

      she's gettin it somewhere else sorry bro

    8. 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?

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

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

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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

    13. 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)

    14. 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!
    15. 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.

    16. 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!)
    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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
    20. 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.

    21. 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.'"
  3. 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 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!)
  4. Re:In other news by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  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 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'
    2. Re:Discrimination by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Article 125? Engage in unnatural carnal copulation?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  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
  7. 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.

  8. 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 !

  9. 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!

  10. 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 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.

    3. 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 ..."
    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.
  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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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/
  15. 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".

  16. 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.

  17. 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
  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.
  21. If you want to serve your country in campaigns by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2

    where sleazy Internet hookups are tolerated, then join Congress.

  22. Loose lips sink ships by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

    Loose lips sink ships.

    All over again.

    --
    bickerdyke
  23. 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 ]
  24. 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.