(Insert title here)
Codanblad said:
i wasn't suggesting that armies are made of rapists (though some are made of criminals), just that men at war, with restricted access to women, might behave a little less appropriately. i do not know why its a slap in the face of every commander, their job is to oversee an effective combat unit, not ensure the moral integrity of every man under them.
The deeper question that invites is perhaps a digression, but is the moral integrity of the soldiers in any given combat unit irrelevant to their efficacy?
Nonetheless, the suggestion—especially in the middle of a massive war like that—that any soldier could be a rapist reflects poorly on the entire service. Indeed, men at war might behave a little less appropriately, and not just with women. Of course, these are also the times when we as citizens and the soldiers as individuals and a unit need the absolute best performance they can muster.
the point of "would you pressure her into it" wasn't irrelevant, because the risk of rape is arguably a good reason not to support the army in such a fashion.
Just ...
imagine World War II without USO or NAAFI girls. To support the war effort in such ways was often considered a matter of civic virtue.
i'm not asking her to turn nazi, find another way to support them
Such as? I mean, on the American side, there were victory gardens to be raised, and job openings in the workforce. And women could
enter the service. But I'm not sure how that worked in England.
is it unfair to deny men the eye candy just cos they're at war?
Actually, it is.
Eye candy is not an inalienable right, nor a mandatory privilege of armed service.
this would hinge on the number of rapes occurring at such events, the gran didn't tell anyone, how many other women acted similarly? i'm not suggesting this was a great or tiny number, just noting that the answer to it is important.
Whether or not men
deserve eye candy for being at war does not hinge on anything.
the basis for the argument was i thought sniffy was suggesting precautions are useless, when in fact perhaps she means minor precautions can be ineffective. i also think these tear jerkers, while interesting and relevant, are affecting some people's opinions more than facts are.
I think you're overstating the issue in order to accommodate your dismissal. It seems to me that earlier in the discussion, certain people were making the emotional appeal that if taking precautions prevents even
one rape, is it worth it? Talk about a tear-jerker.
In the end, the obvious precaution—don't attend NAAFI dances—would have had a tremendous negative impact on the morale of the soldiers. Maybe it's just that short, attractive women shouldn't support the troops like that. Maybe the only "eye candy" the soldiers should have are stereotypical, unshaved butch dykes who can kick their asses.
All of this, apparently, because men shouldn't have to behave themselves? Because it is too much to ask that men exercise dignity, restraint, and self-control? That respect for their fellow human beings—but it's just
women, right?—is too much to ask?
Look, separate out the sociopaths and those we might deem psychiatrically incompetent. What remains is still the vast majority of rapes, and inasmuch as these are
preventable, that prevention starts and stops with the
rapists.
• • •
Gustav said:
shilling for bush and co with that jingoistic phrase?
Oh, please. What happened to "i know i care more than most. definitely more than you, buddy"?
kinda like a daddy or big brother
wow!
should we take a gander at what is actually involved in the above propositions?
Have at it. You won't find me pretending it's a simple or easy course.
