NATION

PASSWORD

Kill the women first.

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Remove ads

User avatar
The Norse Hordes
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1269
Founded: Sep 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Norse Hordes » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:11 am

Anti-Social Darwinism wrote:
The Norse Hordes wrote:FFS people. Research the Soviet army. Some of their all women units kicked Nazi ass.


I already posted something about female tank drivers in the Soviet Army in WWII. It was dismissed as irrelevant. I am, however, particularly fond of the "Night Witches" - possibly my favorite group of Fighter Aces.



That, and the soviets had whole cadres of women snipers.
Neesika wrote:Spongebob Squarepants turned my daughters into faggots.

Economic Left/Right: -9.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

User avatar
Czardas
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6702
Founded: Feb 25, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Czardas » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:13 am

I have heard from an ex-Marine that some of the best marines under his command were women.

He went on to add that the main problem wasn't that they were weaker than the men or that men acted irrationally around them, but that the men got jealous because the women were taken back to headquarters for showers something like every few weeks (don't remember exactly how many) while the men had to go without.

This is purely anecdotal obviously, but it sounds like it makes sense.

User avatar
Callisdrun
Senator
 
Posts: 4036
Founded: Feb 20, 2004
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Callisdrun » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:14 am

Virtud Tierra wrote:If it of any consideration I can personally attest to the idea that you need a penis to be a combat soldier, at least reguarding to tanks.

See, its hot inside of a tank, like 140+ degrees inside because it is a metal box sitting the the sun with hot hydralics and machines running inside. So you drink water so you don't die. Bottles and bottles of water, a 3 quarts an hour. Well, that water has to go somewhere and its ultimately back into one the bottles you drank from.

Laying reclined or sitting down inside of a tank, I imagine it would be impossible to piss into an empty waterbottle without the dynamic, point-anywhere utility of a penis. Zip down the fly, point and shoot, all the while looking through the optics.

Like to see a woman do that. They'd have to stand up, almost completely undo their nomex uniform and piss in front of two other dudes inside the tank's crew compartment. Or they could, you know, squat outside of the tank and get shot, or die of dehydration.

There you go. You need a penis to operate a tank. Any other former 19Ks have an alternative hypothesis?


A bit behind the times, aren't we?
On the fast track to perma-ban!
Rhodmhire wrote:So because I live in an area heavily populated by obese men, I get the pleasure of staring at a plethora of man-tits all day, but not tit-tits?

That doesn't seem very fair.
Rhodmhire's compelling argument for the legalization of public female toplessness.

User avatar
Czardas
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6702
Founded: Feb 25, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Czardas » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:21 am

Virtud Tierra wrote:If it of any consideration I can personally attest to the idea that you need a penis to be a combat soldier, at least reguarding to tanks.

See, its hot inside of a tank, like 140+ degrees inside because it is a metal box sitting the the sun with hot hydralics and machines running inside. So you drink water so you don't die. Bottles and bottles of water, a 3 quarts an hour. Well, that water has to go somewhere and its ultimately back into one the bottles you drank from.

Laying reclined or sitting down inside of a tank, I imagine it would be impossible to piss into an empty waterbottle without the dynamic, point-anywhere utility of a penis. Zip down the fly, point and shoot, all the while looking through the optics.

Like to see a woman do that. They'd have to stand up, almost completely undo their nomex uniform and piss in front of two other dudes inside the tank's crew compartment. Or they could, you know, squat outside of the tank and get shot, or die of dehydration.

There you go. You need a penis to operate a tank. Any other former 19Ks have an alternative hypothesis?

Also, you need a penis to be a combat soldier because it's the only way to unlock the safety on modern automatic rifles.

Most soldiers are adept at this by now already: load rifle, insert penis into penis recognition slot to unlock, start shooting, in under four seconds. But give the rifle to a woman? She'd have to load it, then find a guy to unlock the safety -- or always carry a penis around with her. I mean, who wants that kind of trouble? Clearly we must ban women from the military my logic is impeccable

User avatar
Callisdrun
Senator
 
Posts: 4036
Founded: Feb 20, 2004
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Callisdrun » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:35 am

Anti-Social Darwinism wrote:
Callisdrun wrote:
KaIashnikov wrote:Yes, How do you prepare High School females to go from nails and pursues to bullets and hand grenades?


Do you honestly think that the girls obsessed with manicures and fancy purses would be the ones joining up to go shoot at people? Really? You can't possibly be that dense, can you?


You obviously haven't met the most vicious infighters alive - college sorority girls fighting over the same dress. Anyone who thinks that girly girls can't fight and can't learn to function and function well in military situations hasn't been around many girls.


My younger sister plays rugby. Chiefly because of its violence. She's actually knocked a guy out before (he was harassing one of her friends). And that was a different time than she broke a guy's nose with a small crowbar that she carries in her purse when he accosted her at night near the subway station (she had inadvertently walked right by a drug deal and they didn't like that so they sent a guy after her).

The worst fight I've seen in college was between a male friend and a female friend. The female friend won. Despite the fact that she weighed about 115 lbs.

Anyone who tells me that girls can't be bloodthirsty and good at fighting I dismiss as woefully naive.

Perhaps the military should look into these sorority girls, truly an untapped resource.
On the fast track to perma-ban!
Rhodmhire wrote:So because I live in an area heavily populated by obese men, I get the pleasure of staring at a plethora of man-tits all day, but not tit-tits?

That doesn't seem very fair.
Rhodmhire's compelling argument for the legalization of public female toplessness.

User avatar
Dark Side Messiahs
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1105
Founded: May 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Dark Side Messiahs » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:47 am

My opinion-

If a woman has a gun and is pointing it at me, I don't care if its the virgin Mary, I would put her down right quick.
Yep, I'm a Geek. I'm also a left-wing, anti-illegal, pro-life, gun loving, white, college educated, politically informed, socially abrasive, conservatively liberal male with a big mouth...deal with it.
!!!WARNING!!!
I give it a 1 in 4 chance you will not like my view on certain things,
you might find my opinion off kilter or even offensive.
I don't give a flying fuck how my position makes you feel,
it's my opinion and you won't change my mind.
So save yourself a lot of wasted time trying to argue with me,
don't compile a list of of my posts so you can try to point out the flaws in my beliefs,
you will not win.

User avatar
Anti-Social Darwinism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1282
Founded: Dec 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Anti-Social Darwinism » Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:08 am

Callisdrun wrote:
Anti-Social Darwinism wrote:
Callisdrun wrote:
KaIashnikov wrote:Yes, How do you prepare High School females to go from nails and pursues to bullets and hand grenades?


Do you honestly think that the girls obsessed with manicures and fancy purses would be the ones joining up to go shoot at people? Really? You can't possibly be that dense, can you?


You obviously haven't met the most vicious infighters alive - college sorority girls fighting over the same dress. Anyone who thinks that girly girls can't fight and can't learn to function and function well in military situations hasn't been around many girls.


My younger sister plays rugby. Chiefly because of its violence. She's actually knocked a guy out before (he was harassing one of her friends). And that was a different time than she broke a guy's nose with a small crowbar that she carries in her purse when he accosted her at night near the subway station (she had inadvertently walked right by a drug deal and they didn't like that so they sent a guy after her).

The worst fight I've seen in college was between a male friend and a female friend. The female friend won. Despite the fact that she weighed about 115 lbs.

Anyone who tells me that girls can't be bloodthirsty and good at fighting I dismiss as woefully naive.

Perhaps the military should look into these sorority girls, truly an untapped resource.


Ah, fond memories. I liked field hockey for much the same reason.

You reminded me of an incident with my daughter when she was six. A nine-year old boy was trying to push her down and lift up her skirt. She was a tiny thing, frail-appearing, he was big for his age, she gave him a bloody nose and a black eye. He very seldom appeared in public after that. She continued on in life, never starting fights but always finishing them. She just turned 39, she's an officer in the Air Force. Before that, she was an NCO in the Navy. Her favorite game growing up was something they called "smear the queer" - some sort of variation on football. She's still tiny - 5'3", 105 lbs.
Last edited by Anti-Social Darwinism on Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
NSG's resident curmudgeon.

Add 6,771 posts from the old NSG.

User avatar
Callisdrun
Senator
 
Posts: 4036
Founded: Feb 20, 2004
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Callisdrun » Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:18 am

Anti-Social Darwinism wrote:
Callisdrun wrote:
Anti-Social Darwinism wrote:
Callisdrun wrote:
KaIashnikov wrote:Yes, How do you prepare High School females to go from nails and pursues to bullets and hand grenades?


Do you honestly think that the girls obsessed with manicures and fancy purses would be the ones joining up to go shoot at people? Really? You can't possibly be that dense, can you?


You obviously haven't met the most vicious infighters alive - college sorority girls fighting over the same dress. Anyone who thinks that girly girls can't fight and can't learn to function and function well in military situations hasn't been around many girls.


My younger sister plays rugby. Chiefly because of its violence. She's actually knocked a guy out before (he was harassing one of her friends). And that was a different time than she broke a guy's nose with a small crowbar that she carries in her purse when he accosted her at night near the subway station (she had inadvertently walked right by a drug deal and they didn't like that so they sent a guy after her).

The worst fight I've seen in college was between a male friend and a female friend. The female friend won. Despite the fact that she weighed about 115 lbs.

Anyone who tells me that girls can't be bloodthirsty and good at fighting I dismiss as woefully naive.

Perhaps the military should look into these sorority girls, truly an untapped resource.


Ah, fond memories. I liked field hockey for much the same reason.

You reminded me of an incident with my daughter when she was six. A nine-year old boy was trying to push her down and lift up her skirt. She was a tiny thing, frail-appearing, he was big for his age, she gave him a bloody nose and a black eye. He very seldom appeared in public after that. She continued on in life, never starting fights but always finishing them. She just turned 39, she's an officer in the Air Force. Before that, she was an NCO in the Navy. Her favorite game growing up was something they called "smear the queer" - some sort of variation on football. She's still tiny - 5'3", 105 lbs.


Kudos to your daughter. Just because someone's small doesn't mean she can't kick ass.

Someone posted about pain tolerances and women "not being able to handle it" or some crap earlier. A while ago, my girlfriend, who has a medical condition I won't go into, was bored and calculated out the percentage of each month she spends in pain. It was something like half. So what does she do? Calls me and laughs about it, that's what.
Last edited by Callisdrun on Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
On the fast track to perma-ban!
Rhodmhire wrote:So because I live in an area heavily populated by obese men, I get the pleasure of staring at a plethora of man-tits all day, but not tit-tits?

That doesn't seem very fair.
Rhodmhire's compelling argument for the legalization of public female toplessness.

User avatar
Skibereen
Minister
 
Posts: 2724
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Skibereen » Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:20 am

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

So you are 70% stronger then all women in upper body strength? As well as 33% stronger then all women in lower body strength? As to the "chivalry" factor that is nonsense. My sister-in-law has been in combat...luckily in the non-front line role, though some how she still manages to be shot at and be forced to return said treatment on a consistent basis. During these moments where the enemy doesnt have the courtesy to respect the fact that she isnt suppoed to really be involved in firing her rifle at living bodies ...why it was issued I have no idea... I gather the distinct impression from her that the general feeling of the guys around her split-tail are far more concerned with removing the genitals of the enemy by means of overwhelming fire rather then what she may or may not tucked between her legs.

With regards to the OP, I have heard for years that when dealing with insurgents/freedom fighters/combatants by any other name you always shoot the women first, because they are indeed the most dangerous and interestingly enough it seems they are less prone to hesitate on the trigger then men are--even when men are making the choice to kill other men--women do not lack killing gene.
argumentum ad logicam, seriously think about it.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
First in line for the pie in the sky

User avatar
Lucky Bicycle Works
Diplomat
 
Posts: 884
Founded: Jul 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Lucky Bicycle Works » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:36 am

The dust settles, and the contenders standing proudly display the blood on them as their own.

Those with a lot to say, who reply at length and in detail, all makes their plays now, all take the stage to prance and gloat at the inevitable downing of the wrong opinion.

Once again, the literate minority in the real world, talk down the less literate minority of NSG. Because here words rule, here words are safe from the spears and goads of real life.

I give credit to New Nicksylvannia, a most noble bull. A spirited and fit bull, yet taken down by matadors and their banderilleros.

I am shamed by my participation in this spectacle. While many have fought nobly, I have not.

I walk away in shame, wondering why we do this. Again, and again. Is it just tradition?
Lucky Bicycle Works, previously BunnySaurus Bugsii.
"My town is a teacher.
Oh, trucks and beers and memories
All spread out on the road.
Oh, my town is a leader of children,
To where Caution
Is a Long Wide Load"

-- Mark Seymour

User avatar
Bottle
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14985
Founded: Dec 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Bottle » Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:43 am

I see that one of the first responses trots out the old "womenz ain't got teh muscles" argument against women in combat. I also see that it was quickly shot down (good) on the grounds that modern combat doesn't necessarily favor he who has the biggest pecs.

Yes, women tend, on average, to have lower muscle mass than men. Of course, women also tend to have better stamina, higher pain thresholds, better adaptability to extreme heat or cold, better sense of smell, and greater sensitivity to the emotional state/cues of other humans. All of which can be incredibly useful in both combat and field operations. A female soldier can provide you with a brain that is just as good as a male soldier's, yet she'll require 30% less food and 20% less water.

It's always a trade-off. After all, it's not like the military says that only 6' tall, 200 pound dudes can serve, as if being physically smaller somehow made one unworthy or incapable of serving. Ability to lift heavy shit isn't really the most needed capability in the military these days, and any country that limits its forces based on that criteria is going to lose out in the long run.
"Until evolution happens like in pokemon I'll never accept your 'evidence'!" -Ifreann
"Well, excuuuuuuse me, feminist." -Ende

User avatar
Risottia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49629
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Risottia » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:07 am

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

So what?
1.It's not the XIX century. Assault rifles are quite light nowadays (about 4 kg for a FN FAL, same for the M-16, 3 kg for the AK-74). And bayonet assaults aren't commonplace.
2.Most women are weaker than men: though some women are stronger than the average men (take woman athletes). If you place sex-independent physical requirements about strength (let's say, being able to carry an fire an assault rifle), you overcome the "generally weaker" problem.


The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women.

And WHY would you want your soldiers to overpass the "leave no man behind"? That would be wrong for the morale of the troops.

Plus: Can a woman pilot warplanes? Yes she can. Can a woman drive tanks? Yes she can (also no parking problems with tanks, tee hee, sexist joke, I slap myself). So what's the problem with women in the front line?
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.

User avatar
Glorious Freedonia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1866
Founded: Jun 09, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Glorious Freedonia » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:20 am

Lacadaemon wrote:It's fine for the pongos I suppose. But nobody has yet refuted the results of a Royal Navy inquiry in 1872 that scientifically proved what people had long suspected: women are bad luck at sea.

So I would object to their presence in Her Majesty's Senior Service.


Hey I would believe it. I know a dude who is becoming a PhD in shipbuilding history or something. He told me that shipbuilding was a big deal back then. These guys probably knew what they were talking about.

User avatar
Muravyets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12755
Founded: Aug 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Muravyets » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:17 am

Gimmadonis wrote:
Muravyets wrote:
Maurepas wrote:Well, I guess yall were more creative than she was...although I hate this line of thought for making me think of that, :?

Sorry. It's just that we were city girls, Livin' in a lonely world. We took the midnight train going an-y-whereeeeee...


Fix'd.

Yeah, I really seriously hate it when people do that, especially when they do it for no fucking reason and end up just making up something really stupid and pointless.
Kick back at Cafe Muravyets
And check out my other RP, too. (Don't take others' word for it -- see for yourself. ;) )
I agree with Muravyets because she scares me. -- Verdigroth
However, I am still not the topic of this thread.

User avatar
Muravyets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12755
Founded: Aug 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Muravyets » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:20 am

Ryadn wrote:
Virtud Tierra wrote:If it of any consideration I can personally attest to the idea that you need a penis to be a combat soldier, at least reguarding to tanks.

See, its hot inside of a tank, like 140+ degrees inside because it is a metal box sitting the the sun with hot hydralics and machines running inside. So you drink water so you don't die. Bottles and bottles of water, a 3 quarts an hour. Well, that water has to go somewhere and its ultimately back into one the bottles you drank from.

Laying reclined or sitting down inside of a tank, I imagine it would be impossible to piss into an empty waterbottle without the dynamic, point-anywhere utility of a penis. Zip down the fly, point and shoot, all the while looking through the optics.

Like to see a woman do that. They'd have to stand up, almost completely undo their nomex uniform and piss in front of two other dudes inside the tank's crew compartment. Or they could, you know, squat outside of the tank and get shot, or die of dehydration.

There you go. You need a penis to operate a tank. Any other former 19Ks have an alternative hypothesis?


After reading this, I don't just disbelieve you've been a soldier---I disbelieve you've ever actually met a woman.

It's like reading one of those medieval bestiaries. They'd heard stories about lions and giraffes, but the stories were all from drunks who couldn't speak their language, and they really could not even begin to visualize what they were babbling about, so we ended up with books full of dragons and giant snakes with legs and heads in their bellies.

That's pretty much what I think of when I read VT's descriptions of how women and the military work.
Kick back at Cafe Muravyets
And check out my other RP, too. (Don't take others' word for it -- see for yourself. ;) )
I agree with Muravyets because she scares me. -- Verdigroth
However, I am still not the topic of this thread.

User avatar
Muravyets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12755
Founded: Aug 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Muravyets » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:23 am

Virtud Tierra wrote:
Muravyets wrote:Women can piss out of their clothes and into bottles just fine. Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's not possible.

Seriously, I really am tired of these arguments that are based on nothing but daydreams -- especially when the dreamers are so lacking in imagination.


Ok, Mr. Imagination, you are sitting in a tank, in a narrow seat, your legs are closed because they are pinned between the screen on the left with the maingun and the screen of the turret basket on the right. You are leaning forward in your seat to press your eye against an optical sight to look out for the enemy. It is 140 degrees in the tank and your shift is 4 hours long. You are a wearing a jump-suit/ coveralls. You are a woman and you have to take a piss, you cannot abandon your duty which means your face is pressed up against the sight. You can barely open your legs because you know, tanks are fucking cramped. You have a bottle and no penis. Your supervisor is sitting in a seat right behind you, with his legs resting on the top of your back rest.

Easier said then done.

Okay, Mr. Lack of Imagination, your fantasies do not dictate reality.
Kick back at Cafe Muravyets
And check out my other RP, too. (Don't take others' word for it -- see for yourself. ;) )
I agree with Muravyets because she scares me. -- Verdigroth
However, I am still not the topic of this thread.

User avatar
Virtud Tierra
Diplomat
 
Posts: 861
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Virtud Tierra » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:24 am

Muravyets wrote:
Ryadn wrote:
Virtud Tierra wrote:If it of any consideration I can personally attest to the idea that you need a penis to be a combat soldier, at least reguarding to tanks.

See, its hot inside of a tank, like 140+ degrees inside because it is a metal box sitting the the sun with hot hydralics and machines running inside. So you drink water so you don't die. Bottles and bottles of water, a 3 quarts an hour. Well, that water has to go somewhere and its ultimately back into one the bottles you drank from.

Laying reclined or sitting down inside of a tank, I imagine it would be impossible to piss into an empty waterbottle without the dynamic, point-anywhere utility of a penis. Zip down the fly, point and shoot, all the while looking through the optics.

Like to see a woman do that. They'd have to stand up, almost completely undo their nomex uniform and piss in front of two other dudes inside the tank's crew compartment. Or they could, you know, squat outside of the tank and get shot, or die of dehydration.

There you go. You need a penis to operate a tank. Any other former 19Ks have an alternative hypothesis?


After reading this, I don't just disbelieve you've been a soldier---I disbelieve you've ever actually met a woman.

It's like reading one of those medieval bestiaries. They'd heard stories about lions and giraffes, but the stories were all from drunks who couldn't speak their language, and they really could not even begin to visualize what they were babbling about, so we ended up with books full of dragons and giant snakes with legs and heads in their bellies.

That's pretty much what I think of when I read VT's descriptions of how women and the military work.


I can visualize the situation pretty clearly, what is so fanciful and unclear about the description?

User avatar
Muravyets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12755
Founded: Aug 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Muravyets » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:24 am

Ryadn wrote:
Virtud Tierra wrote:
Muravyets wrote:Women can piss out of their clothes and into bottles just fine. Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's not possible.

Seriously, I really am tired of these arguments that are based on nothing but daydreams -- especially when the dreamers are so lacking in imagination.


Ok, Mr. Imagination, you are sitting in a tank, in a narrow seat, your legs are closed because they are pinned between the screen on the left with the maingun and the screen of the turret basket on the right. You are leaning forward in your seat to press your eye against an optical sight to look out for the enemy. It is 140 degrees in the tank and your shift is 4 hours long. You are a wearing a jump-suit/ coveralls. You are a woman and you have to take a piss, you cannot abandon your duty which means your face is pressed up against the sight. You can barely open your legs because you know, tanks are fucking cramped. You have a bottle and no penis. Your supervisor is sitting in a seat right behind you, with his legs resting on the top of your back rest.

Easier said then done.


...wait, are we still talking about military service, or did you switch over to "cheesy porn set-ups"?

Please, Ryadn, he has never experience either women or the military except in cheesy porn. Isn't that obvious by now?
Kick back at Cafe Muravyets
And check out my other RP, too. (Don't take others' word for it -- see for yourself. ;) )
I agree with Muravyets because she scares me. -- Verdigroth
However, I am still not the topic of this thread.

User avatar
Muravyets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12755
Founded: Aug 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Muravyets » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:25 am

The Grand World Order wrote:
The Rifle Brigade wrote:
So, we've decided to write a letter to Parliament (the legislative body, not the band) and to ranking Staff Officers suggesting that we stop all this discriminatory twaddle and start allowing women to volunteer for front line duty. We hope you Yanks will do the same.



Well, IIRC, women DO serve frontline in the US military. Course, I could be wrong.

However, there's the whole problem with the whole Time of the Month... one thing's for sure, if you have female soldiers, you don't want them having their periods in the middle of combat.

Which obviously is not that much of a problem since, as you point out, they are already serving in front line areas. So...guess the military figured a way around that, huh?
Kick back at Cafe Muravyets
And check out my other RP, too. (Don't take others' word for it -- see for yourself. ;) )
I agree with Muravyets because she scares me. -- Verdigroth
However, I am still not the topic of this thread.

User avatar
Muravyets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12755
Founded: Aug 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Muravyets » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:29 am

Virtud Tierra wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Gimmadonis wrote:
Virtud Tierra wrote:
Gimmadonis wrote:
What if they use a bendy straw?


Good point. They have something like that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_urination_device

it does not work nearly as well as advertised from what I understand. Its basically pissing in a funnel with a hose strapped to yourself. imagine how it would work for you.


I was imagining a bendy straw duct-taped (Note: duct tape is mandatory. cuz duct-tape is awesome) to a woman's crotch, and being duct-taped to the "bottle" in question. jJst a thought.

My first thought was these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Absorbency_Garment


Ok, you also realize that you would have two uniforms to cycle through in a 2 week period, right? Pissing your pants, no matter how 'maximum" your absorbency is, is an increased chance for urinary tract infections and everything else. I don't have a vagina but I know that having a soiled rag pressed to your special lady parts for 4 hours in the 140 degree humid environes of a tank wearing the same uniform you've been wearing for 8 days already is a bad idea.

Men don't have the same risks for urinary tract infections. You know why?

Oh my frigging gods! That is the most laughable bullshit you've posted, possibly EVER. :rofl:
Kick back at Cafe Muravyets
And check out my other RP, too. (Don't take others' word for it -- see for yourself. ;) )
I agree with Muravyets because she scares me. -- Verdigroth
However, I am still not the topic of this thread.

User avatar
Virtud Tierra
Diplomat
 
Posts: 861
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Virtud Tierra » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:30 am

Whats up with this guy and his personal attacks away?

You don't have anything relevant to say for your side of the argument anymore?

User avatar
Muravyets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12755
Founded: Aug 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Muravyets » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:33 am

Virtud Tierra wrote:
Katganistan wrote:
BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

Puhleese. I've been on public transportation. You're telling me that your average can't-be-bothered-to-get-up-for-an-expectant-mother guy is going to throw his life away for a fellow soldier because she's a woman?


That asshole on the bus isn't a soldier.

I see, so soldiers are better people than civilians because they care so much for the well being of women that they wouldn't be able to do their duty around women, and that's at the same time that they can't serve with women because the mere presence of a woman would turn them all into uncontrollable fuck-bots who would abandon all their discipline for the sake of getting laid in the machine gun nest.

Your argument is like the Eiffel Tower sculpted out of bullshit.
Kick back at Cafe Muravyets
And check out my other RP, too. (Don't take others' word for it -- see for yourself. ;) )
I agree with Muravyets because she scares me. -- Verdigroth
However, I am still not the topic of this thread.

User avatar
Virtud Tierra
Diplomat
 
Posts: 861
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Virtud Tierra » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:34 am

Muravyets wrote:
Ok, you also realize that you would have two uniforms to cycle through in a 2 week period, right? Pissing your pants, no matter how 'maximum" your absorbency is, is an increased chance for urinary tract infections and everything else. I don't have a vagina but I know that having a soiled rag pressed to your special lady parts for 4 hours in the 140 degree humid environes of a tank wearing the same uniform you've been wearing for 8 days already is a bad idea.

Men don't have the same risks for urinary tract infections. You know why?

Oh my frigging gods! That is the most laughable bullshit you've posted, possibly EVER. :rofl:[/quote]

Yep. sooo crazy... http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/bladde ... /a/UTI.htm

Notice you seem to be the only one that thinks women can't get urinary tract infections. Women have a shorter urethra then men which makes it easier for bacteria to reach the bladder. Surely you are aware of this, right?

User avatar
Virtud Tierra
Diplomat
 
Posts: 861
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Virtud Tierra » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:40 am

Muravyets wrote:I see, so soldiers are better people than civilians because they care so much for the well being of women that they wouldn't be able to do their duty around women, and that's at the same time that they can't serve with women because the mere presence of a woman would turn them all into uncontrollable fuck-bots who would abandon all their discipline for the sake of getting laid in the machine gun nest.

Your argument is like the Eiffel Tower sculpted out of bullshit.


Thats your strawman? I never said any of that, I said they'd be a distraction. You also seem to imply nobody would want to have sex in a machinegun nest. Fraternization happens all the time in mixed-unit genders and it can generate quite a bit of drama when soldiers are sleeping with each other. Why bring the potential for that social dynamic into the line units?

User avatar
Muravyets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12755
Founded: Aug 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Muravyets » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:45 am

Virtud Tierra wrote:
Muravyets wrote:
Ryadn wrote:
Virtud Tierra wrote:If it of any consideration I can personally attest to the idea that you need a penis to be a combat soldier, at least reguarding to tanks.

See, its hot inside of a tank, like 140+ degrees inside because it is a metal box sitting the the sun with hot hydralics and machines running inside. So you drink water so you don't die. Bottles and bottles of water, a 3 quarts an hour. Well, that water has to go somewhere and its ultimately back into one the bottles you drank from.

Laying reclined or sitting down inside of a tank, I imagine it would be impossible to piss into an empty waterbottle without the dynamic, point-anywhere utility of a penis. Zip down the fly, point and shoot, all the while looking through the optics.

Like to see a woman do that. They'd have to stand up, almost completely undo their nomex uniform and piss in front of two other dudes inside the tank's crew compartment. Or they could, you know, squat outside of the tank and get shot, or die of dehydration.

There you go. You need a penis to operate a tank. Any other former 19Ks have an alternative hypothesis?


After reading this, I don't just disbelieve you've been a soldier---I disbelieve you've ever actually met a woman.

It's like reading one of those medieval bestiaries. They'd heard stories about lions and giraffes, but the stories were all from drunks who couldn't speak their language, and they really could not even begin to visualize what they were babbling about, so we ended up with books full of dragons and giant snakes with legs and heads in their bellies.

That's pretty much what I think of when I read VT's descriptions of how women and the military work.


I can visualize the situation pretty clearly, what is so fanciful and unclear about the description?

Oh, I realize that you are able to spend countless hours imagining different situations in which you watch women urinate.

Apparently, you spend more time in those day dreams than you do reading the thread you are posting in, since your smug challenge question has already been answered, at length and even with sources, by 5 or 6 different posters over the past several pages.
Kick back at Cafe Muravyets
And check out my other RP, too. (Don't take others' word for it -- see for yourself. ;) )
I agree with Muravyets because she scares me. -- Verdigroth
However, I am still not the topic of this thread.

PreviousNext

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 36 Camera Perspective, Albrenia, Arotania, Baidu [Spider], Belp, Bing [Bot], Darussalam, Democratic Republic of Fx, Dostanuot Loj, Hoppeworld, Ispathia, Misr-Masr, North Creeper, Petrasylvania, Pilarcraft, Purpelia, Salandriagado, SD_Film Artists, Serconas, The Kang Islands, Val Halla, Vassenor, Washington Resistance Army

Remove ads