A brief lesson in not marrying a jerk

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by msr, Feb 9, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. msr

    msr LE

    The Pentagon is worried about rising numbers of divorces in the military. So, under the leadership of the military chaplain's office, it has introduced a scheme to save the hearts of US servicemen, called "How to avoid marrying a jerk." The marital advisory scheme devised by Dr John Van Epp is being taught at bases across the US. Here are some extracts from the introductory lesson.

  2. Good night of scrutiny? well, thats a novel way of saying get your knickers off!!
  3. How unbelievably patronising, still, its very "New labour/uber PC" isnt it, I bet Bliars kicking himself that he did'nt think of it first. :roll:
  4. Screwtiny surely!!??

    But what about the fat lasses?? Screwlarge??
  5. Patronizing? Have you ever served in the US Military? I don't know about HM Forces (though I doubt there's much difference) but 18 year old privates tend to make some truly mind-numbingly BAD decisions about marriage--decisions which will potentially haunt them the rest of their lives, and contribute to their being morale problems, hurting their productivity, and making them problem children for their Chain of Command, from their Squad Leader all the way up. 18 year olds with a stiff dick in their hands, and not much grey mush between their ears, are easily landed by chicks looking to get out of bad family situations, get a steady paycheck, and not have to see that dope they married too often. She later winds up stripping at the local "gentleman's club" while he's on deployment, spending his direct-deposited paycheck on booze, sometimes drugs, and a general "good time" with whatever guy she's interested in at the moment. Private Dumbass, deployed on operations in Iraq, hears about what his Dearly Beloved is up to, and becomes a liability on patrol, may need to take emergency leave to go home, will likely need legal counsel, may become a suicide risk, doesn't want to do his job...need I go on? Of course, if she can hang on to the poor sucker for 10 years (not that hard, esp. if he's in the Navy, he's never home to interfere with her good times anyway) she's entitled to a portion of his retirement benefits. Never mind the beeyotches who drain his bank account one day while he's away, and disappear.

    "Patronizing"???? Hell, the Chain of Command is looking out for an investment.

    The Commandant of the Marine Corps a few years back instituted a policy that the Corps would no longer accept married enlistees, and that any Marine below the rank of Corporal would be required to be counselled by their CO and/or 1st Sgt prior to getting married. Made eminent sense to me--they weren't FORBIDDEN to marry, just had to be counselled. That dipsh!t Patsy Schroeder called the Marines "Jackbooted Nazi's" and demanded the new order be rescinded, which it was. I cast my mind back to a day I sat in the pizza joint at School of Infantry, as a 26 year old Corporal, and observed a newly-minted PFC being visited by his wife and THREE KIDS...I mentally sighed and said to myself, "Now THERE is a problem child for the Marine Corps in the making." 3 kids and a wife on a PFC's pay. Even if she gets a job at the register of the local Piggly Wiggly, they're gonna be on food stamps. And he will constantly be needing to take time off. And she will be constantly demanding he come home from deployment. Ridiculous. The Commandant knew what he was doing, and Patsy Schroeder, as usual, had not a clue. Those who call this class "patronizing", have no clue either, I would submit. :roll:
  8. RTFQ


    We should start a new column: "Ask The Spam" - he can give us advice on women and foreign affairs.

    You should wander into the Naafi now and then Y_L, I sense a kindred spirit.
  9. It's the same the whole world over!
  10. On reflection, my initial post was just a knee-jerk reaction to what could be seen as an unwarranted intrusion into an individuals private life. Having actually read the article and your well reasoned arguement, I have to admit that perhaps there is some merit in the idea.
    Sadly, I'm probably a little out of touch, but I dont think we have quite the same problem in this country. Our system of state support for single mothers is so generous that young women dont need to actually marry a soldier to receive a meal ticket for life, they just need to get pregnant, and he need no longer be part of the equation.

  11. Oh, I lurk in the NAAFI from time to time...but you people scare me. :p

    And there's no percentage in giving advice, either. Whether it's heeded or not, you're always to blame when the situation goes to shiznit. All I need is some of the folks on Downing St. to read a "Dear Lurker" thread, and then *I* get the blame when some country gets nuked. *sigh* :(
  12. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    Been there done that did it at 19. got to say I do have two fantastic kids out of the deal. But have taken a huge financialand emotional kickking
  13. Is that anywhere near halfthehouseland, fcukedoverville, everythingyouvegotland?