FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6698|'Murka

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


Oh so you guys were pissed around the uniform eh?

Well he is Rudy Reyes, former first battalion first force recon marines, he was a consultant for generation kill and he played himself in the series.
Yeah. As such, he should know better and should have more respect for the uniform, ffs. I bet his fellow Force Recon brothers are pretty happy with him right now, too.

It's not an "over the top reaction". All he needed to do is shave his goatee, ffs. And he couldn't be bothered. But why would I expect a couple of people who've never put on a uniform to understand?
Hmm I see your point, however I assumed SOCOM units to have a lot less restriction, such as the Aussie SAS don't have any uniform regulation at all, and they are allowed long hair and beards. But actually, Rudy is one of the most respected fire team leaders in his company, despite his questionable grooming and sexual orientation.
Relaxed grooming standards in the field and in preparation for going into the field are one thing. Wearing the dress uniform is a different thing entirely.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6968|Disaster Free Zone
Ohh the shit you get upset about makes me lol.
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6958|UK
i thought FEOS was having a go at SERE for swearing at a marine for being a bender
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Yeah. As such, he should know better and should have more respect for the uniform, ffs. I bet his fellow Force Recon brothers are pretty happy with him right now, too.

It's not an "over the top reaction". All he needed to do is shave his goatee, ffs. And he couldn't be bothered. But why would I expect a couple of people who've never put on a uniform to understand?
Hmm I see your point, however I assumed SOCOM units to have a lot less restriction, such as the Aussie SAS don't have any uniform regulation at all, and they are allowed long hair and beards. But actually, Rudy is one of the most respected fire team leaders in his company, despite his questionable grooming and sexual orientation.
Relaxed grooming standards in the field and in preparation for going into the field are one thing. Wearing the dress uniform is a different thing entirely.
Except he's no longer in and can do what he wants. You've obviously never seen a veterans day parade or you would have had a heart attack.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6983|NJ
Make new Policy and guidelines for gays? Seriously though, I see them as being treated the same as blacks.. But then again it probably won't really matter if we ever have a WWII type scenerio again, which is the only real time they'd be able to "Prove" themselves.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6698|'Murka

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


Hmm I see your point, however I assumed SOCOM units to have a lot less restriction, such as the Aussie SAS don't have any uniform regulation at all, and they are allowed long hair and beards. But actually, Rudy is one of the most respected fire team leaders in his company, despite his questionable grooming and sexual orientation.
Relaxed grooming standards in the field and in preparation for going into the field are one thing. Wearing the dress uniform is a different thing entirely.
Except he's no longer in and can do what he wants. You've obviously never seen a veterans day parade or you would have had a heart attack.
Yes, I have. Those guys normally try to meet the grooming standards when they attempt to wedge themselves back into their "younger man's" uniforms.

I have a buddy who's no longer in as well. He's entitled to wear the uniform. He shaved off his goatee when he wore his service dress for our buddy's funeral the last time he wore his service dress. It's a respect for the uniform thing, that's all. If he chooses not to show the respect he knows he should, that's his character flaw, not mine for having an issue with it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6698|'Murka

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Make new Policy and guidelines for gays? Seriously though, I see them as being treated the same as blacks.. But then again it probably won't really matter if we ever have a WWII type scenerio again, which is the only real time they'd be able to "Prove" themselves.
Read my earlier post on that topic. It's not the same thing as the way the blacks were treated prior to the end of segregation (which ended in the armed services long before it ended in the general population, btw).

Similar, but different. Blacks were allowed to serve. Openly gay people (not a risk) are not. Closet gays (risks, due to security) are. Makes no sense.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

FEOS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Relaxed grooming standards in the field and in preparation for going into the field are one thing. Wearing the dress uniform is a different thing entirely.
Except he's no longer in and can do what he wants. You've obviously never seen a veterans day parade or you would have had a heart attack.
Yes, I have. Those guys normally try to meet the grooming standards when they attempt to wedge themselves back into their "younger man's" uniforms.

I have a buddy who's no longer in as well. He's entitled to wear the uniform. He shaved off his goatee when he wore his service dress for our buddy's funeral the last time he wore his service dress. It's a respect for the uniform thing, that's all. If he chooses not to show the respect he knows he should, that's his character flaw, not mine for having an issue with it.
I wore my beret on vet's day last week and I didn't shave off my beard, am I a bad person?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6983|NJ

FEOS wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Make new Policy and guidelines for gays? Seriously though, I see them as being treated the same as blacks.. But then again it probably won't really matter if we ever have a WWII type scenerio again, which is the only real time they'd be able to "Prove" themselves.
Read my earlier post on that topic. It's not the same thing as the way the blacks were treated prior to the end of segregation (which ended in the armed services long before it ended in the general population, btw).

Similar, but different. Blacks were allowed to serve. Openly gay people (not a risk) are not. Closet gays (risks, due to security) are. Makes no sense.
I read it, Black I don't think were allowed to combat serve.. I'm just saying that gays won't be able to serve unless we really need them, like a World War event.. Which I don't think is going to happen in our lifetime so no chance for them to actually prove themselves.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6968|Disaster Free Zone

FEOS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Relaxed grooming standards in the field and in preparation for going into the field are one thing. Wearing the dress uniform is a different thing entirely.
Except he's no longer in and can do what he wants. You've obviously never seen a veterans day parade or you would have had a heart attack.
Yes, I have. Those guys normally try to meet the grooming standards when they attempt to wedge themselves back into their "younger man's" uniforms.

I have a buddy who's no longer in as well. He's entitled to wear the uniform. He shaved off his goatee when he wore his service dress for our buddy's funeral the last time he wore his service dress. It's a respect for the uniform thing, that's all. If he chooses not to show the respect he knows he should, that's his character flaw, not mine for having an issue with it.
Why do you have to respect the uniform? It's just some dyed cloth to show that someone belongs to a particular group or organisation, not really respect worthy.
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6941

It's not the uniform itself, it's what it represents.
Similar to a flag.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6698|'Murka

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Except he's no longer in and can do what he wants. You've obviously never seen a veterans day parade or you would have had a heart attack.
Yes, I have. Those guys normally try to meet the grooming standards when they attempt to wedge themselves back into their "younger man's" uniforms.

I have a buddy who's no longer in as well. He's entitled to wear the uniform. He shaved off his goatee when he wore his service dress for our buddy's funeral the last time he wore his service dress. It's a respect for the uniform thing, that's all. If he chooses not to show the respect he knows he should, that's his character flaw, not mine for having an issue with it.
I wore my beret on vet's day last week and I didn't shave off my beard, am I a bad person?
Did you wear your entire uniform?

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I read it, Black I don't think were allowed to combat serve.. I'm just saying that gays won't be able to serve unless we really need them, like a World War event.. Which I don't think is going to happen in our lifetime so no chance for them to actually prove themselves.
Yes, blacks were most certainly allowed to serve in combat. I think it's closer to reality for gays to serve openly than you do. It will be a culture shock, surely. But it will happen.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
rdx-fx
...
+955|6878

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hasan wanted out, the question is why they didn't let him go especially in light of all the other factors.
Enlisted members of the US Armed Forces are obligated by contract to serve a particular number of years before discharge.

Officers, however, can resign their commission any time after their initial obligation.

Hassan, being an officer, had the option to resign his commission (i.e. "quit" in civilian terms).
Why he did not, I couldn't say.

According to the biography I found on him;
YEARS OF SERVICE: 12 (date of appointment 22 June 1997)

The longest obligation of service that an officer incurs is 8 years, AFAIK.
He was well past that.
If he hated his job in the Army so much, all he really had to do was write up his letter of resignation (Resignation of Commission in mil-speak) and hand it to his commanding officer.  Within a month or two, he'd likely be a civilian again.

Even if he was below his 8 years of service, officers can be allowed to leave the service prematurely. But they generally have to pay back any education benefits they incurred.

Sounds like he hated his job, but not enough to give up the paycheck.
Instead of resigning his commission, moving to a more Muslim-friendly region (Saudi Arabia?), and starting a new life - he chose to use his religion as an excuse, kill 13 soldiers, and effectively commit "suicide by cop".
Pretty chicken-shit in my opinion.
He had options.  He chose about the worst one.
Karbin
Member
+42|6581

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hasan wanted out, the question is why they didn't let him go especially in light of all the other factors.
Enlisted members of the US Armed Forces are obligated by contract to serve a particular number of years before discharge.

Officers, however, can resign their commission any time after their initial obligation.

Hassan, being an officer, had the option to resign his commission (i.e. "quit" in civilian terms).
Why he did not, I couldn't say.

According to the biography I found on him;
YEARS OF SERVICE: 12 (date of appointment 22 June 1997)

The longest obligation of service that an officer incurs is 8 years, AFAIK.
He was well past that.
If he hated his job in the Army so much, all he really had to do was write up his letter of resignation (Resignation of Commission in mil-speak) and hand it to his commanding officer.  Within a month or two, he'd likely be a civilian again.

Even if he was below his 8 years of service, officers can be allowed to leave the service prematurely. But they generally have to pay back any education benefits they incurred.

Sounds like he hated his job, but not enough to give up the paycheck.
Instead of resigning his commission, moving to a more Muslim-friendly region (Saudi Arabia?), and starting a new life - he chose to use his religion as an excuse, kill 13 soldiers, and effectively commit "suicide by cop".
Pretty chicken-shit in my opinion.
He had options.  He chose about the worst one.
Ok, just a question on that.
First you do four years on a Undergrad degree, then four years to get your M.D. and one year Internship.
Next, specialized training in the form of a Residency with a possable Fellowship added that can add three to eight years to get a Psychiatrist qualification.

With all that time and training, the Army only wants eight years of service?
mikkel
Member
+383|6888

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:


I doubt they would give a flyin fuck about your respext. However, if a straight guy does not want to shower or bunk with s gay guy, I am thinking that is something that should be respected.
I don't. I think they should grow the fuck up and start acting like mature adults.
I love it, all of these opinions from people who never served and have no intention on doing so. I guess it goes along with thinking they have an nrestricted "RIGHT" to other peoples money.
You've served in an institution created to protect the freedom and will of the people, funded by a government made to represent the mentalities and opinions of the people, through funds collected from every citizen in the country, and you presume to tell people that their opinions are void because they've never served in the same institution.

The way I see it, you're marginalising the legitimacy of the concerns of the people who paid your salary and paid for your equipment. It is you who seems to think that you have an "unrestricted right" to other peoples money.
rdx-fx
...
+955|6878

Karbin wrote:

Ok, just a question on that.
First you do four years on a Undergrad degree, then four years to get your M.D. and one year Internship.
Next, specialized training in the form of a Residency with a possable Fellowship added that can add three to eight years to get a Psychiatrist qualification.

With all that time and training, the Army only wants eight years of service?
The four years as an undergrad would be prior to entering the military as an officer, in the majority of cases.
A bachelors degree is a requirement to be commissioned as an officer in the US military, with very rare exception.
(but things can be ... different ... for medical officers.  see below)

Most officers get their 4-year degree, enter the military as a Lieutenant, then serve (at least) 8 years.

During their service, they may get sent to professional development courses while serving & paid as a full-time military officer.
Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California is an example. Full-fledged post-graduate college, with masters and doctorate degrees in various topics, generally in line with the interests of military service.  And the officers get paid full time to attend, get the advanced degree, and get the degree paid for by the military to boot.  Sweet deal, if you're high-speed enough to get a slot.

Some select officers even get selected to serve as teachers at military colleges.  My former section officer, an Engineer branch officer, was a teacher at West Point for a few years after she left the Engineer Battalion we were in.

Medical officers are a little different than other branches.
I'm not 100% clear on all the paths they can take, but I know a few of them;

1) Do all medical schooling, out of your own pocket.  All residencies, all undergrad, all post-grad, etc.  THEN join the military, agree to serve 8 years (or thereabouts), and the military directly commissions you as a senior officer.  You skip the beginning rank of Lieutenant or Captain, and are commissioned as a Major or Lt. Colonel.

2) As #1, but the military pays off some percentage of your previous student loans too.

3) Join the national guard or reserves as an enlisted soldier, start going to college in a medical degree program, then apply for the Physician's Assistant program.  Military pays you about $2000/month to go to medical school, if they accept you into the PA program.  After serving part-time in military while going to school full-time for 4-6 years, you're commissioned as an officer (Lieutenant) and are obligated to 6 or 8 more years of service.

So, to answer your question;
It depends on what path one takes to get your military commission and medical degree.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, here's their blurb on Hasan's military education;
Hasan joined the Army immediately after high school, and served eight years as an enlisted soldier while attending college. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1997 with a bachelor's degree in biochemistry, and went on to medical school at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences ("USUHS").[15] After earning his medical degree (M.D.) in 2001, Hasan completed his residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.[16] While an intern at Walter Reed, he received counseling and extra supervision.

Sounds like my #3 option above, the Physicians Assistant program.
Karbin
Member
+42|6581
Ok...... but how much time would he owe to the army. Just asking as you have posted that he could have quit.
Could he have left with nothing outstanding?
He didn't go part time, from what I've been reading.
He also looks like he was one of the "problem" cases when in D.C.
Promote and transfer, let some one else handle the problem.

Last edited by Karbin (2009-11-21 18:05:59)

rdx-fx
...
+955|6878

Karbin wrote:

Ok...... but how much time would he owe to the army. Just asking as you have posted that he could have quit.
Could he have left with nothing outstanding?
He didn't go part time, from what I've been reading.
He also looks like he was one of the "problem" cases when in D.C.
Promote and transfer, let some one else handle the problem.
Hasan joined the Army immediately after high school, and served eight years as an enlisted soldier while attending college. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1997 with a bachelor's degree in biochemistry, and went on to medical school at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences ("USUHS").[15] After earning his medical degree (M.D.) in 2001, Hasan completed his residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.[16] While an intern at Walter Reed, he received counseling and extra supervision.

So, it looks like he had 8 years as enlisted, up to 1997.  Then 4 years of residency (1997 - 2001), unknown whether this was as enlisted or officer. Competed his residency in 2001, so by 2009 he'd done at least 8 years as an officer.  Possibly 12 years as an officer total, plus 8 more years as enlisted. 


At the least, he seems to have fulfilled his obligations (8 years).  Looks like he could've resigned at any time.

Hell, with a total of 20 years between being an officer and enlisted, he wouldn't have had to resign his commission, he could've retired.
oChaos.Haze
Member
+90|6725
Obviously a ton has been mentioned, mulled over, well thought out.  Enjoyable read. 

One thing:
To whomever thinks that gays in the military would be a distraction and hurt or disrupt the mission at hand, then NEVER, EVER, EVER look at, read, listen, or learn about many of the continually considered "best military machines or stands".  FULL of gayness, I mean, lock stock and smoking shaft...

You know those badasses that every red blooded male loves from the movie 300?  Yeah, they were hittin it with little boys, and it was considered proper...

Now I fully understand why someone today might be made uneasy by a homosexual in their unit, but (speaking with NO experience here, just so you know), if some dude saves my life or does something heroic and patriotic in a moment of sheer chaos and terror, then I don't care if they ride pole, dig holes, or whack it 9 times a day.  The job is victory, the rest is details when it comes to war, no?  I mean, just considering that history is written by the winner, or used to be for sure...

PS  I have no military experience, I am not pretending to know the depths of a chaotic battle, or understanding the sadness that comes along with the job.  Nothing but utmost respect for anyone who stands in front of those who want my countrymen dead and says bring it on....

I love walking through airports when you see TONS of soldiers on their way home, I stop and thank every one I can, and that's it.  I can't comprehend what they've seen, and will never pretend to...

But I do know and concede that I would not be here without their bravery and dignity...

Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2009-11-22 23:32:50)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

oChaos.Haze wrote:

Obviously a ton has been mentioned, mulled over, well thought out.  Enjoyable read. 

One thing:
To whomever thinks that gays in the military would be a distraction and hurt or disrupt the mission at hand, then NEVER, EVER, EVER look at, read, listen, or learn about many of the continually considered "best military machines or stands".  FULL of gayness, I mean, lock stock and smoking shaft...

You know those badasses that every red blooded male loves from the movie 300?  Yeah, they were hittin it with little boys, and it was considered proper...

Now I fully understand why someone today might be made uneasy by a homosexual in their unit, but (speaking with NO experience here, just so you know), if some dude saves my life or does something heroic and patriotic in a moment of sheer chaos and terror, then I don't care if they ride pole, dig holes, or whack it 9 times a day.  The job is victory, the rest is details when it comes to war, no?  I mean, just considering that history is written by the winner, or used to be for sure...

PS  I have no military experience, I am not pretending to know the depths of a chaotic battle, or understanding the sadness that comes along with the job.  Nothing but utmost respect for anyone who stands in front of those who want my countrymen dead and says bring it on....

I love walking through airports when you see TONS of soldiers on their way home, I stop and thank every one I can, and that's it.  I can't comprehend what they've seen, and will never pretend to...

But I do know and concede that I would not be here without their bravery and dignity...
Firstly, you have to understand how the military works. It's all based on discipline. Everything must be "Dress right, Dress" and "Everything in it's place". When you're in basic training they show you the proper way to store your gear in your locker and any deviation from the master plan will net you pushups or other punishment. When you're standing in formation, every person must be perfectly in line with the person to their right (which is where dress right, dress comes from) and perfectly spaced with the person in front of them. Recruits spend days mastering the art of standing in perfect formation. It's institutionalized OCD on a grand scale. Couple this with the obsession with dignity and pride and you've got an epic shit storm whenever a square peg doesn't fit into a round hole. Those square pegs are why basic training exists, to make their life so miserable that they quit.

Now, gay people have created their own stereotypes. You go to a parade (around here at least) and you'll generally see gay men flaunting their gayness openly, revealing shirts, lewd gestures etc. We laugh it off, they laugh it off, people have generally come to tolerate it and expect it. Those stereotypes exist because it's how they want the world to view them. As with all stereotypes, it doesn't fit with everyone, but the flamboyants are the ones that people see in their minds eye when the word gay is brought up.

The military is deathly afraid of this. What happens when DADT is lifted and a transvestite decides that his rights are being violated because he can't grow his hair long and wear a woman's dress uniform? Not only would it make the military a global laughing stock if it were allowed (attacking both the dignity and pride of the military service as a whole) but if it weren't allowed there would be a massive lawsuit about his rights being violated.

People will mention showers and close quarters etc too which I won't get into. The whole thing is just one giant lawsuit waiting to happen if DADT is lifted. No one is preventing gay people from serving right now, they just can't be flamboyant about it or flaunt it which in my eyes isn't a bad thing. There's enough homophobes in the military that it could wreck unit cohesion if there was an openly gay person in their ranks. Lesbians no one cares about. We had quite a few in my unit but they're essentially dudes so it was never an issue. We had one probable gay male and he was teased unmercifully. Guys are just like that, they find a weakness and torment the person about it for forever.

Anyway, rambling over and I hope I got some semblance of my point across.

Edit - I neglected one major thing. Religion and the military are inextricably linked as well. When you're in basic training the only book you are allowed to have is a Bible (I read the whole damn book during my thirteen weeks). Whenever there is a ceremony of any kind a chaplain gives an invocation first. Your religion is placed on your dog tags along with your SSN and name. If you visit a town outside of a military base there will be an inordinate number of: laundromats/dry cleaners/shoe shiners, strip clubs, used car lots, haircutters, fast food places, and... churches. When I was at Fort Hood the town of Killeen had about one church for every twenty residents, I kid you not. So you have a lot of very religious, very anti-gay people in the military and that isn't about to change either.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-23 07:15:20)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
rdx-fx
...
+955|6878

JohnG@lt wrote:

Firstly, you have to understand how the military works... No one is preventing gay people from serving right now, they just can't be flamboyant about it or flaunt it which in my eyes isn't a bad thing.
Spot on observation.
(I was assigned to Ft. Hood for a few years as well)

To reiterate with a slight variation;

When you're in uniform, there is nothing about your job that requires anyone to know anything about your sexual orientation or marital status.
You're a Soldier, Marine, Squid, or Airman.
While wearing that uniform, you're there to do your job.
What bits you've got in your underwear are not relevant to the job at hand.

I knew an enlisted S-2 clerk who was quite gay.  Not just homosexual.  Flaming, emotionally unstable, mentally imbalanced, and enough issues for a team of psychiatrists to write a pile of thesis papers.
In another gay soldier's terminology, she described him thus"There's gay, then there's too gay to function. C***** was too gay to function".
He lost his security clearance not for being gay, but because he failed one too many drug tests.
Everybody knew the S-2 clerk was gay, nobody really cared.
The other gay soldier mentioned was female, and only perhaps 3 people knew.

The gay S-2 (Security, Intelligence Section) clerk should've lost his security clearance, not because he was gay.
He should've never had a clearance in the first place.
He was 'soft' in the head, undisciplined, unfocused, had an addictive personality, and otherwise had a personality that was completely diametrically opposite to what you'd want of someone entrusted with any important classified information.

In other words, in the hands of even a half-assed enemy interrogator or foreign spy, this S-2 clerk would've cracked inside 15 minutes and flipped to thinking the enemy interrogator was suddenly his new best friend and the only one in the world who understood him...
THAT is a head full of scramble-fuck.  THAT is "too gay to function".
Nice enough 'guy', but noone you'd want holding a security clearance.

I knew a handful of straight females (officers) in the military, who were endowed with epic chests.  Rather than let their boobs be a distraction from their profession, they tended to de-enhance their chests.  Sports bras to flatten their chests, underneath BDUs (edit: BDU = Uniform, Battle Dress) worn in a manner to further de-emphasize their chests.  Makes it so the enlisted soldiers are <cough> saluting you for the right reasons, with the right appendage.
And, as an aside, if you're a no-bullshit professional Sergeant around said female officers in public - they tend to relax around you, and actually try to flirt with you in private, in a mostly-joking 'see if we can crack his professional facade' manner.

When you're deployed with so many other males, for so long that the sound of a female pilot on the radio 30,000 feet above is enough to start giving guys hard-ons, you realize a few key points;
  • It's good to be That former M.I. guy, who really knows how to keep his mouth shut, and is always professional, even around the hottest female officers
  • It's good to be the chosen trusted go-to SGT for above-mentioned female officers. A policy of "look, don't touch" gets you an eyeful on a regular basis.
  • Like everything else in the military, all of the most interesting assignments come to those who are technically proficient, keep their eyes open and their mouth shut, and are unfailingly professional in demeanor while in uniform.
  • Even the most disciplined female junior officers are, in the end, 20-something or 30-something women.  Who exercise 5 times a week, are more fit than their civilian counterparts, and know it.


Like any other job, it's good policy to "keep it in your pants" when you're at work.
In the civilian world, workplace drama from sex and relationships causes problems and lawsuits.
In the military world, it can wreck careers or get people killed.
Military world has the added fun factor of sending people overseas for 12-18 months at a time, where they cannot visit their spouse and are surrounded by 40:1 male:female ratio.
The women are at great risk of getting a case of Queen for a Day, and sleeping around on a massive scale.
The men are at risk of messing up their marriage to their high-school sweetheart hottie of a wife, for the nastiest, fattest, mental screwball of a vaginal life support system they can get ahold of.
The gays get a small handful of otherwise straight volunteers who get so horny, they're willing to take a walk on the Dark Side.

Discipline & Discretion become paramount, in any event.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-11-23 14:06:35)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Religion and the military are inextricably linked as well.
Seems wrong if church and state are supposed to be separate.
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Religion and the military are inextricably linked as well.
Seems wrong if church and state are supposed to be separate.
I don't disagree but it is the way it is. I always just walked out of the room before the invocation and then came back in afterwards. Tough telling people that can die at any moment that they shouldn't pray. Closeness to death breeds more devout people in my experience..
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
oChaos.Haze
Member
+90|6725
Yeah John, see what your saying.   

I guess I just mean, purely non stereo-typical, gay guy who does his job just as good as the soldier next to him, and never does anything that's sexually advancing.  I mean, obviously there's rules about sexual advances within the military b/w men and women, so I'd expect nothing less in this situation.

But Kudos again for stopping me in my tracks with a well thought out and written post....

Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2009-11-24 00:27:24)

DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6968|Disaster Free Zone

oChaos.Haze wrote:

But Kudos again for stopping me in my tracks with a well thought out and written post....
lol, its just page of excuses for bigotry there was nothing there that was logical or reasonable. It amounts to the likes of banning girls from preschool because you think your son will get cooties. It's absurd.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard