Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

Not that I'm shocked or anything, but apparently Alma thinks that if he's having sex with a girl, and she doesn't want to anymore, he gets to just plow through 'till he's good and satisfied.

Thankfully, he'll never find himself in that situation, because no girl will bed him anyway.

What are you talking about? Both numbers are significant. I never said otherwise. I said that one of the numbers wasn't "relevant". That's not the same thing. If we were arguing about whether men or women were more likely to suffer a sexual assault, then the numbers showing that women are 20 times more likely to suffer such assaults would be relevant. When talking about whether men are more or less likely to report a sexual assault at the time it happens, then that number becomes irrelevant, and the numbers I've been talking about become relevant.

Is that really too hard for you to follow?



Not at all. Why do you think otherwise?



Yes. And it does, in conjunction with the other data I provided.



No. It assumes that the likelihood of repeat assaults is similar among men and women. Why would you assume otherwise? Given the also stated "one in three women reporting having been sexually violated while serving in the military" there just isn't enough statistical wiggle room to make the numbers work without assuming a significantly greater underreporting by men. And when there's a pretty simple and well accepted explanation for why men might report less often than women, it just seems bizarre that you'd cling to an opposing view.

Just feel like being contrary or something?

Another way to look at it is that there is some number of sexual predators in the military who will assault their fellow soldiers, and about half of their victims will be men, and half will be women (we can't say what the ratio of actual predators is though, but it would be random guessing to say one group of predators is numerically larger than another). A woman's odds of being assaulted are much higher because there are far fewer women in the military (thus fewer targets for the same number of assaults). If an equal number of men and women were serving in the military, do you think that the same ratio of women assaulted to total women serving would remain the same? Or do you think we'd still have about the same total number, now spread out over a much larger population?


While I'm just speculating, I'd guess the later. It follows typical social patterns. It's not about the number of potential victims, but the number of potential assailants which affects the result. Again, I'm unsure why you'd assume something else.

Alma's a gay male that has one or two family members in the military. I thought that was established months ago.

Oh, I have lots of experience in watching your furious backpedaling. This is nothing new


You mean, beyond the article you got the numbers from which talks about sustained and continual assaults upon women in the military?

Huh.


Well, that's the closest you'll get to admit to making stuff up, so congratulations.

Why? DADT repeal has very, very little to do with fornication while on the job in the military. Talking about one's sexual orientation & getting kicked out for it is VASTLY different than getting kicked out for ******* on the job.

Can you talk about sex without repercussions in any & all situations while in the military? Probably not. But you can come out of the closet, if you're gay, & not get kicked out for it. Isn't progress swell?

A:
1. Good question. I don't know the answer, do you?

2. Men have one standard for hair length & woman have another. Is it discrimination? Sure, but on a very small level that has more to do with traditional gender roles in our society than it does with keeping a minority down.

3. Comes with the territory (pun intended).

4 & 5. It's certainly discrimination against married homosexual couples, but should be rectified when DOMA is repealed. The military is an extension of the federal government, the fed doesn't recognize SSM, so until it does they can continue this practice. I don't like it, but it is what it is.

B- We have freedom of religion in this country & the US military does try & allow for it. Too bad for the atheists, scientoligists, & discordians. Presumably, you'd know this before signing up.

C- There are physical requirements to join the military. Does that discriminate against fat people? Sure, but it's a necessary requirement for military service. "Being straight" isn't a physical requirement, so that doesn't equate.

D- Who you are & where you come from is a deciding factor on what level of clearance you can get? Good.

Now please, focus, & tell me how heterosexual couples are openly discriminated against by DADT repeal.



We're dancing in circles here. Let's look at this, logically; When DADT was implemented, it was a compromise to allow gays to serve provided they weren't open about it & their sexual orientation would not be investigated. Literally, this translates to, "If we don't ask you if you're gay & you don't tell us, then you can serve."

Ipso facto, it is a fact the gay folks COULD serve provided DADT was followed.



It's true that in the states that allow full on SSM (Mass. may be the only one, while the others have "Civil Unions") the marriage laws & benefits apply to both hetero & **** couples equally. In every other state, at the federal level, & in the military heterosexual couples get their marriage recognized & more benefits than homosexual couples. THIS IS A FACT.

I do not know what you mean by "they are the same argument", please clarify. You're NOT saying what I'm saying as until such a time that DOMA is overturned, hetero-marriages & gay marriages are SEPARATE & UNEQUAL. Sure, DOMA doesn't discriminate by gender, but it discriminates by sexual orientation.



Another false equivalency, really?



Are you really this fucking dense? Modesty is CERTAINLY one of the reasons bathrooms are separated by gender, it is NOT & NEVER WILL BE the only reason. The plumbing in the separate facilities is CERTAINLY one of the other reasons bathrooms are still segregated by gender. Just because we're segregated by gender in the showers doesn't mean we HAVE to be separated outside of them. That's another false equivalency, you dumb fucking twat.



This would NOT be discrimination against hetero couples, like DADT WAS discrimination against homosexuals. The above scenario would be a gay man working the system. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Samira is my hero, because she doesn't talk to Alma.

Samira doesn't talk to anyone

He should be. Pencil pushers that never actually soldiered who think they know what is best for the rank and file should be honored for their atrociousness.

Learn to read? If you inferred that, then you need comprehension lessons.




?

What possibly makes you think that I don't know what I'm talking about? Why would I want to convince you to believe that I'm enlisted?

So, are you saying that I sound like your enlisted relatives, so therefore I sound "enlisted"?

You keep saying "On the job". What is that supposed to mean?



Because the military discriminates in more ways than just against homosexuals.



Small role? Once again, you can't down play everything just to meet your criteria. You may have a closeted homosexual with long hair, ear rings, certain tattoos,etc. who has absolutely no intentions of coming out of the closet. How is this guy more discriminated against? What will more than likely prevent him from joining the military?

What's not a big deal to you doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Gender roles?!?!?!? Really? You do realize that traditional gender roles say that only men and women should "court" each other right? Oh, since you support gender roles, then you must support the reinstatement of DADT, since traditional gender roles don't support homosexuality.



What territory? Name me some jobs where a boss can say "Only married couples are authorized to have sex, any violators will be disciplined and possibly fired."



But they don't have to. They are CHOOSING to. It's a choice.



We have freedom of sexuality in this country and the US military does try and allow for it. Too bad for homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders and bisexuals. Presumably, you'd know this before signing up.



How is it necessary if the "fat" person still meets all physical requirements? I guess you missed that part? I"m not talking about fat tubs of lard who can't run. I'm talking about big guys and women with a little bit of shape. They can meet the physical requirement but can still get treated like crap, even if they're under the fat% limit. Simply LOOKING fat is enough to catch havoc.

What's with you and "not equivalent"? The only thing that is equitable to discharging someone for being a homosexual is discharging someone for being a homosexual. Doing the same thing to a heterosexual is not the same. So, you're either arguing over the concept of discrimination or you're arguing specifically about homosexuality. You can't say discrimination against homosexuality is wrong simply because it's discrimination and then claim that every other form of discrimination doesn't "count" because it isn't the same.

If you're only argument is "it's discrimination", then you must also accept other forms of discrimination as equals. Having a ***** isn't a physical requirement for any task, yet you must have one to have certain jobs.



Uhhhhh...You don't have to be related to Osama to be denied. One of my classmates had her clearance suspended because of something stupid her dad did a long time ago. Is that a smart thing? Maybe, but it has absolutely nothing to do with her and her ability to do her job. What about the other stuff that you left out? Being the Commander in chief? Being chosen a certain job because of your race/nationality/skin color?



Now please, focus. Stop ignoring everything that I've told you and tell me how discriminating is ok unless it affects a specific group?

How many times do people have to point out the disconnect between what you write and your intended meaning before you realize that you have a disability?

Of course, I was being tongue-in-cheek, but you really ought to see that there's a problem with what you wrote.

Let me try to guess at where the disconnect is. If you failed at the semantic level, it's in your usage of "as opposed to." That means "Do X instead of Y", in case you were unaware. As in, "Y" shouldn't happen. As in, they shouldn't say "Women can say no at any time."

But of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "Women can say no at any time." Now, you might feel that saying "don't put yourself in a position where you might feel the need to say no" is more important, but you certainly can't argue that it should supplant the former.

And as an aside: I'd say that even if you think that the latter message is more important, you'd still be wrong. Clearly, you really need to be made to understand how important it is for a woman to be able to say no at any time, because for some reason you seem to want to diminish that major point. And I've met my fair share of idiots like you, who don't get simple boundaries.

Women can say no at any time. There are a multitude of legitimate reasons that they might want have sex, then not want to have sex anymore in the middle of it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's a damned important right to have. It should be made clear, especially to folks like yourself. I don't know why anyone would argue otherwise, unless they had a (subconscious) resentment of women.

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 4:58pm by Eske

Clergy.