Posted on 07/07/2009 3:46:37 PM PDT by naturalman1975
THE navy is shocked - shocked! - that healthy young men cooped up on its ships look at the healthy young women by their side and want to, er, rock their boats.
In fact, so shocked is the navy, apparently run by old and devoutly Christian aesthetes who still undress in the dark, that four sailors from HMAS Success have been removed from their ship at Singapore.
Their crime? To have run a contest to sleep with the most women on board.
Yes, stifle your gasps. You've never seen anything so horrific since the last time you went to a disco or office party. Or last watched Channel Nine's sex-on-the-sea show, Sea Patrol.
Anyway, this contest had a few rules that's been deliciously eye-popping for the kind of people who love to drool and damn at the same time.
Sleeping with an officer or a lesbian won extra points, and the sailors kept score in a book known as the ledger, with dollar amounts written next to the name of each woman.
Which is where I start wondering where the navy got so old-fashioned, albeit in an almost refreshing way.
How many of these women actually slept with the bounty hunters?
None, I'd bet. In which case, why all this fuss?
Or is the answer "plenty"? And then we must ask: why haven't those women been sent home, too?
Doesn't this just confirm what rugby league star Matthew Johns found after the ABC outed him as a beast for having had group sex with a willing fan - that a woman's yes no longer means yes?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
I like Bolt - he's one of Australia's few prominent conservative columnists - and I think he makes a lot of sense here. However as a retired officer of the RAN, it is a disciplined service and what these sailors were reported as doing was prejudicial to that discipline and they should have known it wasn't appropriate. They deserve to be sanctioned for that, in my view - although they should be sanctioned for what they did, not because the media and certain politicians are trying to talk it up into something worse than it probably was.
The US Navy has similar issues, in spite of being, overall, a pretty successful military service. “Where did the babies come from?!? We told them not to have sex on the ship!!!”
I heard of several young women who joined the Army because they really, really liked sex with guys. Heard it from my fellow troops - do women think guys don't talk?
What on earth does that mean?
I was a reserve on North Island in Corona. Without fail, whenever a carrier returned at least one (oftentimes more) women came off preggers.
These were sometimes 10 month deployments.
First one o’ you suckahs sez he didn’t know sailors are heterosexual is gettin’ it right upside the head with my purse.
Stories like these are why libertarian leaning retired military veterans like myself say “Bring back the paid company hookers.” Boys will be boys and it’s best to just deal with the fact and move on. My flame suit is on so flame away.
Or maybe we could just move to an all gay military and let them do what they do. It worked for the royal navy for centuries.
None, I'd bet. In which case, why all this fuss?
Or is the answer "plenty"? And then we must ask: why haven't those women been sent home, too?
Well, these guys deploy on ships too! It could be them!
Semper Fi,
TS
Snort !!!
A clear front runner for stupidest post of the day.
In 1991 one of the submarine tenders in Norfolk was given orders to prepare for deployment to the gulf. For those that don’t know, sub tenders are normally concreted to the pier and the crews have been integrated for decades since they are not combat vessels. Surprisingly, 300 women on board got pregnant. The captain, preparing to deploy to a war zone, was suddenly down 10% of his crew.
The sailors of the age of sail had it right. Women have no place on ocean going warships. The captain of a military ship has more important things to worry about than who is sleeping with who, who has an STD, who got pregnant, who filed sexual harassment charges.
And if you have women filling the shore billets in the Navy, as they used to in the nuclear power program, it means that the men must go from sea command to sea command with fewer shore duties available. Quality of life goes down. Retention rates go down. Morale goes down.
I’m fine with your first statement.
The second one, not so much.
Now, without these comments intended to fuel the fires over “gays” in the military, my sense of it believes that before women were common aboard ship, this sort of thing, in a different manner, was not totally absent among some members of the all male fleet, and, at that time, no was “shocked” to the point of wanting to make a public stink about it (what happened in the Navy stayed in the Navy?).
And that is what really gets me now - how, why, on what hypocritical, ignorant, foolish basis is any one in command “shocked”?
We can be morally “shocked” either way. But as far as the institution goes, for it to be shocked can only mean too many in command walk around, intentionally, with blinders on until a crisis publicly reveals that’s what their doing; and until the crisis abates and they go back to doing it. We can argue whether or not wearing the blinders temporarily, or even ultimately, aids morale; I just think that no matter what the institutional “shock” is a farce.
She’s a MAN BABY!
Knowing Commander Daetz, she’d probably take that as a compliment. She’s spent her career breaking the gender barriers - first woman to command an RAN ship among other things and worthy of respect.
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.