Shock and horror. The Infantryman 2005 magazine

#1
Just received this excellent magazine through the post and was idly browsing it when I saw something which nearly caused me to choke on my tea. In the bottom corner of page 195, there is what appears to be a superb picture of an RGBW LCpl in full battle clobber screaming out a command. However upon closer inspection the aforementioned appears to have a tongue piercing! Talk about juxtaposition.

My equilibrium was somewhat restored to see that he had an iron sight on his weapon and is, therefore, unlikely to be infantry and must be attached to the battalion.

Has anyone else noticed this?
 
#3
By jove you're right Dogmonkey, it was during a jungle ex and he is therefore, certainly infantry! Apart from the obvious medical implications, is this really the image of the modern infantry that we want to portray?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#9
I think the original post was about why said Cpl had his tongue pierced by metal, not the type of rifle sight.
 
#10
Good point AY. What is the Army policy on this, ear rings on blokes is a bit Navy! Belly Buttons and King Alberts are not normally noticed - but what about the tongue!!??
 
#11
The RN used to have a problem with pierced matelots a while back, but the Firefighting School on Horsea Island had the best approach. All students were warned that it would be a good idea to take them out. At the end of the main exercise (ie when they put you on the third floor and set fire to the bottom two), there were always a couple of blokes (and girls) who wished that they had listened to the advice. Amazing how hot those bits of metal can get in a firefighting environment. Seeing a Wren trying to get her firefighting kit off to remove a poorly-placed piercing never failed to raise a giggle.

Girlies can wear simple gold studs in their ears, that's it. Uniform Regs are pretty clear across all three Services.
 
#12
from QRs
5.366.

c. Jewellery. On formal parades, watches and jewellery (except wedding rings) are not to be worn. At other times only wedding, and/or engagement rings, and one signet ring may be worn on the hands with uniform. Women may wear a single small sleeper or stud earring in the centre of the lobe of each ear. Rings, studs etc are not to be worn through any other part of the body in uniform, or at any time during operational tours. ...
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#13
Outstanding said:
Good point AY. What is the Army policy on this, ear rings on blokes is a bit Navy! Belly Buttons and King Alberts are not normally noticed - but what about the tongue!!??

Which one was he again? I was probably off sick when this was covered as it's not ringing a bell.
 
#15
There was a LCpl in 1 HLDRS who used to pull his Prince Albert out in the pub - seeing this stud through a chap's manhood cleared the pub in seconds as males fled to throw up and girls chased after them saying 'aaah WHY won't you get one baby?'....
 
#18
Auld-Yin said:
That might be a crab biatch - but it is just so WRONG.
I wonder if it 'feels so right'.

Outstanding said:
I think (nopersonal knowledge) that this is one through the foreskin. Shudder!
Nah...the Prince Albert goes through the meaty bit of yer old fella apparently. I've never seen one in the er...flesh, but I do hear the odd apocryphal story about some Bill Oddies with them.
 
#19
I was told that you could tell a person's sexuality from the positioning of said tongue stud.

Placed near the front, as in the crab example above, the stud is ideally situated to provide stimulation
to the clitoris. Placed further back and it stimulates the 'banjo string'.

Just thought I'd share that with you all....
 
#20
Outstanding said:
I think (nopersonal knowledge) that this is one through the foreskin. Shudder!
Actually, it is through the bell-end proper. It is called a Prince Albert because he (reputedly) had one so he could anchor his old man to his leg to prevent any inappropriate lob ons showing when he wore tight trousers.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads