quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaybeee
When force must be applied, you don't run to Mummy's coat-tail's. You go straight to the Daddy.

Dude, you never met my Mom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue

My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue

My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that.

This was really in the TMI category.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue

My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that.

This was really in the TMI category.

The Romans (at certain times in their history) and Spartans approved of gay relationships in their armies, as they thought the men would fight more fiercely if they were defending their lovers, as well as improving unit cohesion. Since, unit for unit, they were some of the best troops of their respective eras, it’s a tricky one to argue. The Greeks even had an entirely gay battalion at one stage, the Theban "Sacred Band", comprising 150 gay male "couples", who were recognised at the time as one of the fiercest fighting corps of their day.

The modern-day attitude towards homosexuality in the military is just that - a modern-day construct.

Don't have nightmares :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983
Those soldiers didn't come from societies with deeply ingrained anti-gay sentiments. The service members in the US do. Many people blame the military for these sentiments, when in truth they originated from our society. And unfortunately the military doesn't produce mindless killing machines without bias or prejudice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue

My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that.

This was really in the TMI category.

The Romans (at certain times in their history) and Spartans approved of gay relationships in their armies, as they thought the men would fight more fiercely if they were defending their lovers, as well as improving unit cohesion. Since, unit for unit, they were some of the best troops of their respective eras, it’s a tricky one to argue. The Greeks even had an entirely gay battalion at one stage, the Theban "Sacred Band", comprising 150 gay male "couples", who were recognised at the time as one of the fiercest fighting corps of their day.

The modern-day attitude towards homosexuality in the military is just that - a modern-day construct.

Don't have nightmares :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
I just didn't need to hear about guys taking dumps and nudging each other with their morning wood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

[......To the OP....When I was in the Army, the main reason stated for women not being in direct combat roles was men would stop to help them, due to their teachings before Uncle Sam got ahold of them. 

Even though that was a couple of decades ago, I think it probably holds true still in many ways.

Fuck, nearly three decades.............htf did that happen?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue

My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that.

This was really in the TMI category.

The Romans (at certain times in their history) and Spartans approved of gay relationships in their armies, as they thought the men would fight more fiercely if they were defending their lovers, as well as improving unit cohesion. Since, unit for unit, they were some of the best troops of their respective eras, it’s a tricky one to argue. The Greeks even had an entirely gay battalion at one stage, the Theban "Sacred Band", comprising 150 gay male "couples", who were recognised at the time as one of the fiercest fighting corps of their day.

The modern-day attitude towards homosexuality in the military is just that - a modern-day construct.

Don't have nightmares :)

Those soldiers didn't come from societies with deeply ingrained anti-gay sentiments. The service members in the US do. Many people blame the military for these sentiments, when in truth they originated from our society. And unfortunately the military doesn't produce mindless killing machines without bias or prejudice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

I know this is going to be very unpopular to say but that's never stopped me before.

Having women in situations where physical strength could easily play a part is and has always been an issue for me. I also had a problem with women firefighters.

Simply put, there are limitations that nature has built into each gender. Lowering the standard by accepting higher risk for critical situations isn't progress.

Can women shoot guns? Sure. I know for sure there are excellent women crack shots. Can they think on their feet and follow orders. Absolutely. Can they do everything that a man can do. No. No more than we can do everything women can do.

I wouldn't trust a women like the one in that picture to be able to drag the average sized man from harms way or carry him on her back to safety. Very few women that I've met in my lifetime could do that in a pinch. Are we willing to sacrifice set security for political correctness?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaybeee

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue

My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that.

This was really in the TMI category.

The Romans (at certain times in their history) and Spartans approved of gay relationships in their armies, as they thought the men would fight more fiercely if they were defending their lovers, as well as improving unit cohesion. Since, unit for unit, they were some of the best troops of their respective eras, it’s a tricky one to argue. The Greeks even had an entirely gay battalion at one stage, the Theban "Sacred Band", comprising 150 gay male "couples", who were recognised at the time as one of the fiercest fighting corps of their day.

The modern-day attitude towards homosexuality in the military is just that - a modern-day construct.

Don't have nightmares :)

Those soldiers didn't come from societies with deeply ingrained anti-gay sentiments. The service members in the US do. Many people blame the military for these sentiments, when in truth they originated from our society. And unfortunately the military doesn't produce mindless killing machines without bias or prejudice.

Obviously, because prejudice, ie pre-judgement is conditioned out of them to stop them questioning the legitimacy of their missions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

There's prolly quite a few Dommes on this site who would delight in disputing your silly claim with you personally Jaybee

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue

My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that.

This was really in the TMI category.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IceDemeter

Fast reply ...
I didn't think it was TMI - in my opinion it was looking at politically incorrect but potentially important issues when considering women in front-line combat, particularly infantry.

The idea of basic physical strength should be fine, so long as the basic requirements are not changed and are applied across the board, then a woman who is physically incapable of doing the job would be rejected the same as a man would. So - not an issue.

There are now meds to stop menstrual cycles, so dealing with that in the field is no longer an issue. Where it could become an issue is in making the use of these meds a requirement to serving in the infantry. If they aren't compulsory, how do you deal with a menstrual period while in combat? "Cover me Bob - I need to change my tampon" just doesn't sound like a good plan...

The lack of privacy or the potential embarrassment of having an unintentional sleep encounter while in a huddle for warmth - well, the ladies would be just as capable of putting that aside and dealing with it from the prospective of a "soldier" as any man, so I don't see that as much of an issue.

BUT - from a purely physical standpoint, how to deal with urination? From stories told by friends who have served in combat, it is not uncommon to have no choice but to urinate while running, or to just roll on their side and go while in position. Neither of these are options for women - not without extra movement that would either slow them down when they don't have time to, or that might give away their position. Going in their pants is an option, but it would definitely lead to chafing / rashes / possible infection --- essentially making that woman a liability to her comrades. I don't really see carrying a supply of Depends along as being a viable option... There are devices that can be used to allow for standing urination for women, but can they be fitted while running? Can they be worn for hours or days on end without either causing physical damage or slowing the person down tremendously?

For all that I believe that there are many individual women who have the physical and mental strength and capability to serve beside the men in the field, I can understand that there are a multitude of potential issues like this which make it a difficult choice. For those of us who haven't been in combat, we may not understand what it is truly like in the field, and the seemingly small things that could potentially make a big difference.

I don't see this as being a situation of discrimation or of treating women as "less" - I see it as being a situation where all of the potential little issues need to be worked out first, so as not to add any further dangers to those who are in the field of fire...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaybeee
This would be sweet. Watching the government trying and failing to fill 48.7% of front-line positions with women because most of them are too...what's that word? Oh yes, COWARDLY to fight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue

My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that.

This was really in the TMI category.

speak for yaself!!