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."

Comments

Hookers

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Hookers

[Deadstick]

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

Re:Hookers

[linear a]

The key to military success is good advance planning.

Re:Hookers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hookers

[Anonymous Coward]

she's gettin it somewhere else sorry bro

Re:Hookers

[Charliemopps]

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?

Re:Hookers

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

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.)

unsurprising result

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Re:unsurprising result

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:unsurprising result

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

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.

Re:In other news

[PPH]

http://thefunnypicspage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Whore.jpg

Discrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Discrimination

[HornWumpus]

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.

Swf seeking swm

[alen]

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

They're risking their lives in a hell hole

[JoeyRox]

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

I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagdag

[Punto]

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

So what?

[Weaselmancer]

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

Why is having sex a problem?

Re:So what?

[gubon13]

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.

Re:So what?

[turbidostato]

"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.

Re:So what?

[citizenr]

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.

Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm not surprised there's a Craigslist for Bagd

[RabidReindeer]

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".

Rapes

[spike hay]

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