Page 3 of 29 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 289
  1. #21  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,333
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    You have some interesting fantasies.
    Certainly you are not interested enough to try them, I mean life can be boring Noonie, fight these urges.:eek:
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    You have some interesting fantasies.
    It's interesting how you always have the opposite point of view to my every post.
    For your information ,as if information would ever change your little liberal mind.Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs,..Forced Male rape..

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...ret-shame.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Certainly you are not interested enough to try them, I mean life can be boring Noonie, fight these urges.:eek:
    She to liberal for sex...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    You're addressing the most minimal aspect of this. The issue is not going to be comments or jokes, but the sexual conduct of servicemembers in close quarters, sexual harassment, and the lack of privacy. Once again, all issues that have been repeatedly raised, but which you ignore.
    I don't ignore such issues, I merely refuse to support or oppose a policy based on your speculation of how gay men would behave from a straight man's understanding of male behavior.

    My personal experience, outside the military of course, is that sexual harassment between gay men and straight men generally takes the form of straight men taking the most outrageous physical liberties with gay men in the assumption that they would enjoy it... quite similar to the oft expressed mentality towards woman, ie "She liked it/she wanted it."

    Brass tacks, I have been physically assaulted by straight males in the workplace in ways I have never NEVER seen a gay male perpetrate on a straight one. For some reason, some straight men think that gay men are given to enjoy having their nipples pinched or being humped from behind as a form of "teasing". In fact, most gay men take this in stride and never pursue a workplace or legal complaint because we generally have thicker skin than that. We aren't women in men's bodies, we're men in men's bodies and as a rule there isn't the imbalance of power in the outside world that women experience. However, the previous treatment of gay men in the military would indeed create an imbalance of power when the first thing a superior officer was going to ask a gay man complaining of harassment by a heterosexual man is a question which would cost the gay man his military career.

    How exactly do you expect this change in policy to affect you in your actual workplace? Let's have some specifics rather than you speculating on how it will affect others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    , it is incumbent on the activists to demonstrate that changing the rules will enhance readiness and not have a detrimental effect.
    No it isn't. You can't prove or disprove a prediction without the application of the change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post


    The IDF is not a voluntary force, so it doesn't have to worry about recruiting and retention.
    The IDF not being a voluntary force would in theory make inclusion policies more difficult and uncomfortable as the men in uniform would not have had the choice to join or not join.

    The US military is at present a voluntary force. Those coming in have a choice to serve under the new rules or not. Those in have the choice to stay or leave in their window of choice. Eventually there will be no reason for there to be anyone in the military who can't live with an integrated military.

    And again, I have to say how surprised I am at your attitude on this given the esteem with which you consistently hold all military personnel regardless of individual possible differences. If joining the military is a noble and patriotic thing to do, and passing or excelling in training to go on to a respectable career in a field of highest calling then that will transcend petty concerns and religious prejudices, or should.

    You and those who accept the prospect of violence by straight soldiers on gay ones actually seem to have a much lower opinion of military personnel than those you accuse of being anti-military (ie me).

    PS- I think you also have some strange ideas of the dynamics of gay men and their relationships, especially friendships. I often get the impression that straight men think that because women do not control the sex supply for gay men that there are no rules and it's sex all the time with anyone who passes by. This is not the case.
    Last edited by Novaheart; 09-20-2011 at 07:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    No it isn't. You can't prove or disprove a prediction without the application of the change.
    Ody has had many years in the military. You have none. His experience trumps yours in your liberal queerly perverted mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member Chuck58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Posts
    990
    I've thought a little before making this post. I've decided to just say what I feel.

    First, I hate the term 'gay.' I call them what I've always called them.

    I'm a Vietnam Veteran. I know the attitude toward fags when I was in. I know what would happen to one if he outed himself during my time 1965-68. And, I'm reasonably sure that, short of death to the queer nothing would be done other than that he would disappear - probably a general discharge or worse once he was out of the hospital.

    This is a different time. Still, I don't think the Army is made up of people that much different than me. I'm curious whether enlistments and re-ups will suffer because of the law going into effect. Already, on CBS news, they showed a couple of guys in uniform just delighted with the fact that they could be all they wanted to be, and kissing. I mean, damn, what straight guy would want to bunk in the same room as one of them? Seriously!

    I'm really curious to see what this (in my opinion) moronic rule does to enlistments and re-ups.
    Last edited by Chuck58; 09-20-2011 at 08:19 PM.
    The poster formerly known as chuck58 on the old board.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I don't ignore such issues, I merely refuse to support or oppose a policy based on your speculation of how gay men would behave from a straight man's understanding of male behavior.

    My personal experience, outside the military of course, is that sexual harassment between gay men and straight men generally takes the form of straight men taking the most outrageous physical liberties with gay men in the assumption that they would enjoy it... quite similar to the oft expressed mentality towards woman, ie "She liked it/she wanted it."
    That's your experience. OTOH, I've lived in Chelsea, in Manhattan, got harassed quite a bit, especially in uniform. I've never had to physically repulse an advance, but I've come close. I've been followed down a street, subjected to sexual comments in public places and assorted other indignities. In fact, being a straight man in uniform in Manhattan is like being a woman in a miniskirt at a construction site. Regardless, we're not just talking sexual harassment, we're talking sexual assaults as well, and as I pointed out before (and you blithely ignored it), the last year that I have stats for showed almost 400 male-on-male sexual assaults. And that's with gays being discreetly closeted. Imagine what will happen when that lid is blown off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Brass tacks, I have been physically assaulted by straight males in the workplace in ways I have never NEVER seen a gay male perpetrate on a straight one. For some reason, some straight men think that gay men are given to enjoy having their nipples pinched or being humped from behind as a form of "teasing". In fact, most gay men take this in stride and never pursue a workplace or legal complaint because we generally have thicker skin than that. We aren't women in men's bodies, we're men in men's bodies and as a rule there isn't the imbalance of power in the outside world that women experience. However, the previous treatment of gay men in the military would indeed create an imbalance of power when the first thing a superior officer was going to ask a gay man complaining of harassment by a heterosexual man is a question which would cost the gay man his military career.
    Trust me, I understand that gay men are men. Male sexuality is far more overt and predatory than female sexuality. The only difference between gay men and straight men is that the focus of that sexuality responds differently. Gay men are far more promiscuous than straight men because most women don't want the kind of relationships that would allow men to indulge their sexual whims at will, while most gay relationships are far more likely to be non-monogamous because men don't impose the same constraints on each other that women impose on men.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    How exactly do you expect this change in policy to affect you in your actual workplace? Let's have some specifics rather than you speculating on how it will affect others.
    Do you not read anything that I've written? Did you not notice the FY2009 stats on same-sex sexual assaults? Do you think that those stats will diminish when gays can openly engage in sexual conduct in the armed forces? I have repeatedly stated that there will be increased sexual misconduct with the introduction of two new orientations. For me, as an officer, it means more time spent on training to prevent sexual harassment, assault and a host of other issues. It also means more EO and IG complaints, and more distractions. It means that Soldiers who hold more traditional views of sexual relations will be less inclined to stay in the force, much less join in the first place, and the number of gays who might consider joining will not offset the loss. So, we will lose good troops en masse, those that remain will be subjected to PC indoctrination to a lifestyle that they don't really need to be forced to confront in the barracks, disciplinary and behavioral issues will increase and we will have additional distractions from our primary mission. This isn't speculation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    No it isn't. You can't prove or disprove a prediction without the application of the change.
    Wrong. I can prove it, because we've been here before. I've been through this with the introduction of women to the force, and we still haven't cracked the code on that. As a company commander, I had to deal with sexual conduct that ended careers, tore units apart and created massive problems. During my first time in the box, we lost three female Soldiers to pregnancies, out of a total female contingent of 30 out of 120 troops in our unit. As a result of those pregnancies, our commander distributed condoms and I had an altercation with him because I refused to take one (as a married man, I could not imagine having to explain to my wife that I took one). I've seen a Command Sergeant Major, an E9, come back from a tour as an E4, because of UCMJ actions related to sexual misconduct. I had a good friend whose career was ended over false allegations of an affair with an NCO, and the NCO got away with it because she had slept with enough senior personnel to ensure that the chain of command didn't dare go after her. I keep telling you over and over that this will create far more problems than it will solve, but you are impervious to reason. But, once again, don't listen to me. I just passed my 25th year since I enlisted, so what do I know?
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The IDF not being a voluntary force would in theory make inclusion policies more difficult and uncomfortable as the men in uniform would not have had the choice to join or not join.

    The US military is at present a voluntary force. Those coming in have a choice to serve under the new rules or not. Those in have the choice to stay or leave in their window of choice. Eventually there will be no reason for there to be anyone in the military who can't live with an integrated military.
    No, you've got it exactly backwards. Draftees have no choice in joining. We have to entice volunteers. They have to want to join, and that means that we have to offer them something unique. The people who join the US military won't sign up if they think that the military is hostile to their values. The troops that are currently in the force that we will lose over this, who you casually dismiss as being unable to live with an integrated military, don't deserve to be put out because they aren't down with your agenda, and the gay recruits will not make up a fraction of the difference when we start hemorrhaging bodies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    And again, I have to say how surprised I am at your attitude on this given the esteem with which you consistently hold all military personnel regardless of individual possible differences. If joining the military is a noble and patriotic thing to do, and passing or excelling in training to go on to a respectable career in a field of highest calling then that will transcend petty concerns and religious prejudices, or should.

    You and those who accept the prospect of violence by straight soldiers on gay ones actually seem to have a much lower opinion of military personnel than those you accuse of being anti-military (ie me).
    No, we have a realistic opinion of military personnel. We'll do the job that we are told to do, no matter how many idiotic constraints we are put under, but this will put another strain on a force that has better things to do than promote your lifestyle choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    PS- I think you also have some strange ideas of the dynamics of gay men and their relationships, especially friendships. I often get the impression that straight men think that because women do not control the sex supply for gay men that there are no rules and it's sex all the time with anyone who passes by. This is not the case.
    Uh, actually, that is pretty much the way that it is. Gay men are far more promiscuous than straight me, because other gay men approach sex the same way. That's not to say that they don't have their own rules, but every survey on the subject shows that the number of partners for the average gay respondent is an order of magnitude greater than for his straight counterpart.

    So, let's say that a year from now, we see a massive drop in recruiting and retention numbers, and a massive increase in sexual misconduct. What do we do then? How do we get the genie back into the bottle? Or will we even be allowed to acknowledge the problem?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    You can never leave hai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kapolei,Hawaii
    Posts
    1,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Tipsycatlover View Post
    Surely it does! Last time the world had a fearsome fighting machine, it was the Legions of Rome. At the height of Rome's power, homosexuality in the legions was punishable by execution. As the overall culture became degenerate, the legions became degenerate, homosexuality was accepted, celebrated. Then the legions abandoned Rome finding nothing worth fighting for. Then Rome fell. Overcome by barbarians who behaved, predictably enough, with barbarity.

    The world was plunged into the era known as the Dark Ages. How much darker the next dark age will be?


    But really there is nothing wrong with being gay,in time the people against gays will be thought of the same as those who tried to segregate people based on their race,or deny people the right to vote because they're women. Time marches on and times change. We're no longer living in the 1960's where Elvis could only be filmed from the waist up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •