I was wondering if the females needed a boost.
 |
I'd be hard-pressed to answer that. |
Posted on 04/28/2004 10:05:23 AM PDT by u-89
Mission Statement: To discretely provide US troops shipping out overseas with the most sensually pleasing departure possible.
Kelly McDonough types furiously on the keyboard at the cluttered desk in her house that serves as her unofficial command post. McDonough, a 5'4" brunette, looks far younger than her 26 years; asked to describe herself she unabashedly says, "farm girl, which is what I am". She waves apologetically and says, "Sorry, I'll be with you in a minute". Amid various calendars and dry erase boards a hand painted sign hangs above the desk, emblazoned in military style stenciling "Operation: Take One for the Country". McDonough pushes back from the desk and exhales, "So you want to know how Take One for the Country started?". McDonough leans back in her chair, "It was back in February of 2003, when a lot of troops were leaving Ft. Benning. My girlfriends and I were partying at a bar frequented by soldiers. At some point one my friend leaves with a young soldier. The next day we questioned her and commented that the soldier didn't seem her 'type'. My friend just shrugged and said, 'Hey, his unit was going to ship out in a few days, so I decided to take one for the country', I knew right then and there that this was an incredible idea, so I started Operation Take One for the Country".
McDonough energetically describes exactly what Operation Take One for the Country does, "First, a military operation would not be a military operation unless we used an acronym, in this case, Op T.O.F.T.C., or as we say 'To-FutK'. Essentially we organize, discreetly, single girls to frequent bars and restaurants near military bases and, well, Take One for the Country, with members of the military, especially those about to go overseas". As McDonough describes it, TOFTC volunteers work in secrecy, "We're not out there with signs or badges. We are completely covert, you could not tell a TOFTC member from anyone else in the bar, and that is essential to the success of the Op".
Military terms and phrases flow freely in McDonough's speech. She admits that, even with a brother in the army, before starting TOFTC she knew little of military life or lexicon. "There are a lot of girls out there like me who would like to do something for the country and really have no idea where to start. Our philosophy is if you are out there partying and engage in casual sex you might as well 'Take One for the Country'". The nicely built brunette sits cross legged on her chair and delineates what she sees as the benefits of TOFTC, "The men go off into harms way gratified, and because the organization is covert, they get the boost in ego thinking that they scored on their own attributes, they ship out relaxed and confident, with a distinct impression of a grateful nation behind them". McDonough is adamant about safety "The principle is simple, don't do anyone you don't want to do, be safe, be protected" and reiterates this when meeting with TOFTC groups.
Apparently there is no lack of volunteers for TOFTC outings. McDonough relates her findings, "There is some much societal pressure on getting a job, getting married, you know, getting ahead. I think there are a lot of gals out there that want to do something for the country, they may or may not support some aspects of foreign policy, but they want to feel like they contribute or make a difference. And this is a fun way to do it, . . . so to speak".
The map on the wall of her makeshift command post illustrates that TOFTC is a nationwide operation, and apparently growing fast. "We have 19 officially unofficial TOFTC 'battalions', as we call our groupings, across the United States, and we are getting emails and calls all the time". TOFTC memos and correspondences are all printed on pink stationary using a handwriting script font, McDonough explains that this is necessary for the covert nature of the operation and that men will likely not pick up or read something printed on pink stationary.
TOFTC has not been able to maintain complete secrecy and word has leaked out. I contacted Annette Spargas of the UC Berkley chapter of NOW and asked if she had ever heard of Operation Take One for the Country. Spargas said that she, in fact, had heard of TOFTC and was working to find and protest the group at the first opportunity. "These women are really sick, they are prostituting themselves", Spargas ranted, "they are objectifying their bodies to the killers of the Bush cabals war machine. They need to examine how men have made prostitutes of women throughout time". McDonough is un-phased by this type of objection, "What a bunch of bay-auches! Those femi-nazis really make me mad. Yeah, we have a TOFTC 'battalion' in Oakland, but nothing else in the bay area. Berkeley girls are too femi-nazi granola and the Stanford girls are too stuck up intellectual. Not to worry though, we're getting some good indications of interest from Sacramento and Amador Counties (outside of San Francisco) and we'll be able to take care of the men of the Pacific Fleet, don't you worry".
Jane Kelso arrives at McDonough's house that afternoon to work on a TOFTC 'battalion' trip to Jacksonville Florida. Kelso is married to an army sergeant and has expanded the mandate for TOFTC. "I'm getting married women into the equation, but not how you think", Kelso offers with a wry grin. "Like any other woman, a wife or girlfriend of a male member of the armed services, probably withholds sex. I'm trying to get these women to Take One for the Country as often as possible before their husband/boyfriend ships out. I mean, some of this military wives think felatio is a Baroque era painter! These women need to suck, eh, I mean take a big money shot from their husbands/boyfriends as a patriotic duty".
The discussion naturally swings to the question of "Do you have any male volunteers?". Kelso brightens as she and McDonough exchange a high-five, "Oooo-aaahh, YES we do!". McDonough becomes somewhat somber and says, "There are plenty of single women serving in the armed forces, and as we've all seen, they are in harm's way, although for the men it may not be about sex, it could be going shopping or cuddling up watching a chick flick or a 'Trading Spaces' marathon. Same rules for the men 'Be safe, be protected, be discrete'".
Kelso and McDonough return back to planning the TOFTC trip to Jacksonville and whether they will need two buses get everyone there. Afterwards, McDonough mused about the future of TOFTC, "I think the concept has been around during every conflict the U.S. has been involved in, even during Vietnam. Operation Take One for the Country is here to stay, I'm going to make sure there is always a TOFTC happening somewhere. The members of our armed forces deserve it. God Bless America"
As I said before, these women were promiscuous long before the war and they will be long after. This whole "movement" is just a weak attempt at excusing their preexisting whorish tendencies. As you should well know, soldiers on their way to and from battle tend to be lonely and anxious and can do some pretty stupid things, like getting attached to one of these snot dumpsters. Our boys deserve better than these sluts, and "deserve" has everything to do with it.
Your post is itself a weak attempt...at disguising your conclusion that Soldiers and Sailors are some kind of children, needing your "protection" of their "morals".
Doubtless, some may get their hearts broken. People get that every day regardless of the circumstances, and sometimes, sweet, innocent girls do it, too. They'll live; they're built of sterner stuff.
And it's equally possible that some wonderful, lifelong marriages may also result. That, too, has happened before.
Some may, but that doesn't make it right. Especially this anonymous form of complimentary prostitution.
They do it for fun.
Many soldiers on their way to war do it because they are scared and lonely.
Not all that many people are virgins at marriage.
Guys who whore around with tramps like these tend to end up marrying them, and then divorcing them.
It doesn't automatically make them "whores" or "whoremongers".
You must have some unconventional definitions. These women are nothing more than prostitutes offering free tricks to strangers.
Your post is itself a weak attempt.
You certainly haven't refuted any of it.
..at disguising your conclusion that Soldiers and Sailors are some kind of children, needing your "protection" of their "morals".
I'm just calling a slut a slut.
Doubtless, some may get their hearts broken.
I care too much about our soldiers to wish this on them.
People get that every day regardless of the circumstances, and sometimes, sweet, innocent girls do it, too.
It happens a great deal more often with hyper-whores like these.
They'll live; they're built of sterner stuff.
But why advocate that they go through it? They are better than these whores. Not every free meal is worth eating.
And it's equally possible that some wonderful, lifelong marriages may also result.
You'd have the same luck making a marriage proposal in a brothel. Once a slut...
That, too, has happened before.
I won't ask you whether you are speaking from personal experience, but I will reiterate my hope that those who defend the behavior of these cavernous tramps will end up marrying women just like them.
Very well stated, and thank you and all of our troops for your sacrifices and service.
But when Nina Burleigh says she wants to fellate Bill Clinton because he's kept abortion legal, that's completely different.
Oh, so those who have sex before marriage end up always divorcing, eh? Then explain why a state in the BIBLE BELT has one of the highest rates of divorce.
And I did get to see your post 240, in my "My Comments" section, even though it was pulled here.
You must be living in a world that never existed. Our fighting men have never been monks.
Or Jimmy Swaggert????
The state was Oklahoma, and your stats are just as anecdotal as you claim mine to be.
You just do not like the fact that because we live in a society that is free, and not under some Islamic Vice and Virtue police, or the Vatican, or the Southern Baptist doctrine, people will do what they want. It must just annoy you beyond words that people can have fun that you don't approve of, and that will never change.
I noticed you are yet another who only faults the women in this article, not the men who are having sex with them.
The statistics I've seen were from cross-state and cross-country research. If you have a study that shows that there is an opposite effect in Oklahoma, I would be very interested in seeing it. Although it is possible that there could be statistical aberrations from the overall effect, such a large one would be very unlikely. But again, there is a big difference between "sex before marriage" and this subset of wholesale sluttery. Even defending the first case wouldn't do anything to improve the level of hope one could have for the futures of these train-tunnel-tramps.
You just do not like the fact that because we live in a society that is free, and not under some Islamic Vice and Virtue police, or the Vatican, or the Southern Baptist doctrine, people will do what they want.
Your straw-man argument that I would prefer to live under religious law is both factually wrong and logically inept. Nowhere in this thread have I stated anything about law or religion. The behavior these tramps are advocating is morally wrong, it's that simple. Even an atheist can call this whorish behavior for what it is. Fraudulently misstating my motivations and then attacking them rather than critiquing the actual statements I've made undermines both your defense of these snot dumpsters and your own credibility.
It must just annoy you beyond words that people can have fun that you don't approve of, and that will never change.
Actually, it saddens me to see people like this hurt themselves and others with this whorish self-destruction. Most people deeply regret anonymous sex with strangers, it's those who don't who deserve the most pity.
I noticed you are yet another who only faults the women in this article, not the men who are having sex with them.
I've called them for what they are, but it isn't their promiscuity that I am fundamentally attacking. By creating this organization and publicizing it on a website, they are attempting to defend and ultimately recruit others into their downward spiral of loveless sex with strangers. As I keep saying, these pathetic women were sluts long before the war and they almost certainly will be sluts long after the war. To publicly defend this depraved form of complimentary prostitution as being a valid form of patriotism is an offense to everyone who truly served their country.
First of all, Pollyanna, get over your terms. Not all sex is about flowers, hearts, puppy dogs, and making adorable wittle babies. Even married people have sex that has nada to do with love and everything to do with lust.
Although it is possible that there could be statistical aberrations from the overall effect, such a large one would be very unlikely.
It could also be that they are feeling as though they must marry, because of religious beliefs, and then discovering marriage was not all its cracked up to be.
The behavior these tramps are advocating is morally wrong, it's that simple
Morally wrong to you. You keep forgetting that part. Not everyone shares your morals, and only those that advocate religious law seem to think their morals should be shared by everyone.
As I keep saying, these pathetic women were sluts long before the war and they almost certainly will be sluts long after the war.
Guess the guys will be pigs too, right?
Well, you aren't hanging my mind, nor am I changing yours. I am just happy I live somewhere that holds freedom higher than a certain segment of the population's alleged morals.
What a tragically sad view. I would wager that it has been self-fulfilling for you.
Even married people have sex that has nada to do with love and everything to do with lust.
That too is a pitiful sentiment, and even if true, it wouldn't make it right. Love is the true basis for marriage, for lust alone will always fail you.
It could also be that they are feeling as though they must marry, because of religious beliefs, and then discovering marriage was not all its cracked up to be.
First, we haven't established that your "Oklahoma exception" even exists. Second, your attack of religion claiming it is a cause of divorce is as clearly off topic to this debate as is is clearly ludicrous. I am not defending religion on this thread.
Morally wrong to you.
I bet you would like to live in a universe where each of us can be our own god and make up our own morality. Although it is clearly beyond the scope of this debate and I will not pursue it further, there is an objective moral truth which is as universal as it is unchanging. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anyone's religion.
Not everyone shares your morals,
Clearly not, but the consequences of immoral behavior remain.
and only those that advocate religious law seem to think their morals should be shared by everyone.
Not true at all. The founders of this country, the first nation to codify an independence from religions law, were always consistent in pointing out the universality of the virtue of their ideals and their hope that they would ultimately be shared by the whole world. The U.S.A. has always been a beacon of hope and liberty. It is this desire to share these values that is keeping our courageous men and women fighting in Iraq right now. Otherwise we would have simply destroyed their nation and come home. Instead, we have remained there in the hope or sharing these ideals with them and creating an example for the entire region.
Guess the guys will be pigs too, right?
Perhaps, but this thread isn't about some military men who put up a website advocating that women prostitute themselves for them. If it were, I would primarily be attacking them and not the women involved.
I am just happy I live somewhere that holds freedom higher than a certain segment of the population's alleged morals.
Certainly higher than your "alleged morals".
It's not tragic or sad. You must not being doing it right.
That too is a pitiful sentiment, and even if true, it wouldn't make it right. Love is the true basis for marriage, for lust alone will always fail you.
And married couples can still love each other and have sex that is quite lustful. Unless you follow the old: must be in missionary position, lights out, Benny Hinn tapes on in the background optional, recitation of the rosary optional, no noise (unless you are moaning in disgust).
And not to pop your bubble, but not all marrieds have sex solely for the purpose of procreation.
First, we haven't established that your "Oklahoma exception" even exists.
Here you go. According to a 2002 study, Oklahoma had the second highest divorce rate in the US. From Divorce Reform's own website.
Clearly not, but the consequences of immoral behavior remain.
Yes, you must be so hurt by others having sex.
The U.S.A. has always been a beacon of hope and liberty.
The key word there is liberty. They also allowed people to be free. Period.
Perhaps,
Of course. Yet anoither who is quick to condemen the women having sex, but not the men. Please.
Certainly higher than your "alleged morals".
Mine are high enough than to call people sluts, cavernous whores, and other such lovely things. Must be more of that Christian love I hear so much about.
Have a good weekend. I know I will.
I was wondering if the females needed a boost.
You seem to enjoy this insulated world you've built for yourself, in which you can condemn as "prostitutes" and "whores" women you've never even met, and wouldn't know even if they sat across from you in church (as some fitting your definition of "sluts" doubtlessly do). I guess it satisfies your feelings of superiority to be able to toss around condemnations and judgements like that. Like casting stones. do we?
Whatever, enjoy it. The rest of us in this world called "reality" do not judge someone as a "slut" just because he or she has a healthy, normal sex drive. As the majority of the posts here reveal, even such conservatives as FReepers don't think these women are doing anything evil, and may in fact be doing something quite the opposite.
"I care too much about our soldiers to wish this on them."
What you are doing is patronizing and preaching to young, brave men, as if they were nothing more than children at risk from "evil women". I guess, in your world, it's a GOOD thing for a young man to die never having known a woman's touch, or to go to battle with no warm memories of a woman's arms around him. To those of us in "reality", that strikes us as wrong on many different levels.
The only people on this thread I've seen advocating it have probably never had the experience of "shipping out" alone.
"I won't ask you whether you are speaking from personal experience, but I will reiterate my hope that those who defend the behavior of these cavernous tramps will end up marrying women just like them."
Zip your fly, your hatred is showing.
I was wondering if the females needed a boost.
|
I'd be hard-pressed to answer that. |
My Precinct Chair is a female member of the local Christian Coalition and also one of about 70 members of the state Republican Executive Committee. She thought this was a great idea at the time and made the mistake of trying to get me to agree with her......
That really PO'd a LOT of deployed Sailors I knew.
Funny thing is, it didn't even stop the "problem". Most just got subscriptions to the mags, some of which the mags offered to military folks for free because of it.
Hell, I used to keep one or two in my flight gear...you never know when you might be shot down and have to trade with the locals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.