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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
http://thefunnypicspage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Whore.jpg
Have gnu, will travel.
Would have been nice if TFS pointed out it's targeting men seeking men, almost exclusively.
Fighting for their country. Let them hook up with whomever they want.
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.
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.
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: ... 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.
3) Let's use horny young men to fight our wars and die
"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.
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.