Sex and the Armed Forces

#1
Thought that would attract your attention!
However, my query concerns the recognition and encouragement of gay relationships in the RN - doubtless Army and RAF will have to follow suit.
Seems a little strange that no one doubts my fighting spirit and performance if I am fighting alongside my same sex paramour but throw up their hands in horror if the idea of women in the infantry is raised? Do I throw a wobbly if a girlie girl is wounded but soldier on if my moustache-wearing wheelbarrow pushing mate is downed?
Having written this, I'm off to sit the the panic room.
 
#2
Old Red Cap,

Are you male or female?
 
#3
I don't approve of homosexuality but if a chap is that way and doesn't frighten the horses etc it's his own business.

I don't approve of encouraging it, and I approve even less of people who think they may gain brownie points (sorry no pun intended) by encouraging it.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#4
My opinion is that the 'blokes will always protect the girlies' argument is overstated and probably invalid, whilst the 'girlies generally aren't physically strong enough for combat roles' is on the money. Men have always been expected to perform in combat alongside brothers, best mates and so on, all of whom carry a weighty emotional load when dismembered or killed; noshing companions probably wouldn't be too different.
 
#5
Lets all wear pink dresses and go morris dancing in wooden clogs.

Complete and utter professionalism.......
 
#6
Concur with mushroom and chickenpunk.

Re OldRedcap's original post, prejudiced me still has reservations about new lifestyles in the forces, even though I have no problems about such choices in the general community.

mrs hackle made the point to me some time ago that with men and women often serving in such proximity now compared to when she was in the forces, what is actually different about having a gay person in your section or Corimec.
 
#8
Greg S said:
Lets all wear pink dresses and go morris dancing in wooden clogs.



Complete and utter professionalism.......
I'm up for it! can I bring a "friend"? :wink:
 
#10
OldRedCap said:
Thought that would attract your attention!
However, my query concerns the recognition and encouragement of gay relationships in the RN - doubtless Army and RAF will have to follow suit.
Seems a little strange that no one doubts my fighting spirit and performance if I am fighting alongside my same sex paramour but throw up their hands in horror if the idea of women in the infantry is raised? Do I throw a wobbly if a girlie girl is wounded but soldier on if my moustache-wearing wheelbarrow pushing mate is downed?
Having written this, I'm off to sit the the panic room.
As the Bible says: Greater love hath no man................. :lol:
 
#11
Both on this subject and the 'girlies over the trainasium' stuff, I believe that the oldredcaps and ancientwhiskybreaths should stand back and allow the yoof of today to make their own decisions. Our mindsets aren't in the bodies of those who have to suffer (or enjoy) the consequences of these cultural changes. Whether we would have tolerated them gladly is simply irrelevant now.
 
#12
The ability of gays to perform their military duties, above and beyond, is well documented and goes back to the earliest times...when such ' liaisons' were encouraged for cohesivness and esprit de corps..

to wit.. the Sacred Band of Thebes.. 375BCE.. 150 pairs of male lovers was formed into a special company which fought in the battle of Tagyra defeating a Spartan Army reportedly twice its size [ and, no slouch those Spartans -if history is to be believed -recall the battle of Thermopolae 300 held off ' innumerable Persian invaders under Xerxes ] ..

interesting...
I think I would rather have someone watching my six who lusted after my butt and thus would expend effort to save it, than have someone who was more interested in saving his at the expense of the squad...
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#14
galgenberg said:
OldRedCap said:
Thought that would attract your attention!
However, my query concerns the recognition and encouragement of gay relationships in the RN - doubtless Army and RAF will have to follow suit.
Seems a little strange that no one doubts my fighting spirit and performance if I am fighting alongside my same sex paramour but throw up their hands in horror if the idea of women in the infantry is raised? Do I throw a wobbly if a girlie girl is wounded but soldier on if my moustache-wearing wheelbarrow pushing mate is downed?
Having written this, I'm off to sit the the panic room.
As the Bible says: Greater love hath no man................. :lol:
......than the ARRSE of his Brother?
 
#15
Biscuits_AB said:
Queensman said:
Old Red Cap,

Are you male or female?
Bi - curious, so it doesn't really matter.
Male - but - as a civilian was a boss of group (telecoms) that included a fair percentage of gay and lesbian. I worked on basis that so long as they left me alone and did their job, I didn't care what their sex lives amounted to. It worked OK.
 
#16
Whiskybreath said:
Both on this subject and the 'girlies over the trainasium' stuff, I believe that the oldredcaps and ancientwhiskybreaths should stand back and allow the yoof of today to make their own decisions. .
Totally agree. My post was - I hoped - a query regarding what I saw as a anomaly rather than any condemnation. When a youngredcap I was often bollecked by my bosses for taking soft line on two in a bed cases but managed to change things when it became my turn to be a boss person.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#17
OldRedCap said:
Totally agree. My post was - I hoped - a query regarding what I saw as a anomaly rather than any condemnation. When a youngredcap I was often bollecked by my bosses for taking soft line on two in a bed cases but managed to change things when it became my turn to be a boss person.
Was your choice of words deliberate ORC ?

:lol: :lol:
 
#18
"A soft line on two in a bed cases"....
Hmmm. OK. When I went through basic there was such a case involving a Sgt and a LCpl, both of whom found themselves in the Cambridge Military for an extended period. This was IIRC, universally agreed upon as the correct line, and I have no problems with it, being unreconstructed by the mores thrust upon us by the sociologists and socialists in the last rrrr decades. When I think about the moral soup I was swimming in in the late 60s and early 70s, and how it would be objected to now - probably on the basis that it was too free and easy (I was a hippy for a very short time) all I can conclude is that it was remarkably free of both cash and sex. However, there was also a fairly clear line drawn in the sand, beyond which one trod at one's peril.

That isn't so now, and I suspect that in twenty years or so there may well be a reversal in some of our standards; sex in public, sex with animals, sex with children. Meanwhile, heterosexual, monogamous sex between consenting adults within marriage may be viewed with some suspicion. What was unthinkable twenty years ago has been made, if not compulsory now, certainly untouchable and unremarkable (in a legal sense). Whether it affects the ability of the country to defend itself will likewise become a taboo subject, as the likely enemies will be taboo to be so described in the Pan-European Social Conurbation. All of those enemies will have so effectively insinuated themselves into our societies that our laws and cultures will be dead anyway.

God I'm so depressed. More wine.
 
#20
Yesterday's Telegraph contained a report thet the Services were prepared to provide MQ's to same sex couples who had registered their 'significant other' as a long term partner. Apparantly this is in response to incoming legislation which will allow same sex couples to have a civil mariage ceremony which will give them legal status.

No doubt this will cause interesting changes in the wives club.
 

Latest Threads

Top