MILF Drill Sargeant discharged after posing for playboy

Post Reply New Topic

What's with the necro? Check the dates people, especially if you're going to take issue with a months or years old post that someone probably doesn't even remember making.

Any woman who can meet the physical requirements of the service occupation and is otherwise fit to serve is capable of performing the job. There are a myriad women who are better able than I to serve. Perhaps there are a larger number of men than women who can meet that requirement, but that does not justify the decision about whether or not any given individual is capable.

In contrast, however, anyone who lacks the emotional and cognitive capacity to perform at the highest level in the presence of a member of the opposite sex (or of a different sexuality, for that matter) has no business performing in a combat role. If you can't focus on the job, then you aren't fit for it.

The reality is that any person who can cope with AIT is perfectly capable of performing a combat infantry role, regardless of that person's sex or sexuality. And the secondary reality is that any person who has successfully completed AIT knows it. The dinosaurs tend to wash out.

For all the harping we do in this country about how great the men in our armed forces are, it sure seems like a lot of people underestimate them. They're professionals who put their life out on the line everyday, I think they have bigger concerns than other member's sexuality or genitals.

Now I don't think the physical requirements should be any difference between men and women though like it is now. If you're not physically able to do something then you shouldn't, man or woman.

People are always asking for opinions on when, and when not to, bring back old threads, given that we do have a "don't create duplicate threads" TOS.

Here's a new guideline, just my person opinion, given that this thread was started to discuss a news article:

Specifically for threads started to discuss news articles: If both the original post and the news article it talks about are more than a month old, and the article is not on the first page of the forum, don't post on it. If you want to bring back the underlying topic (as v. the article), start a new thread and, if you wish, link to the old one.

Members get really annoyed - and, more importantly, confused - when old threads are re-born, especially when they are a year old or more.

In this case, the thread is over an year old and the news article is actually more than THREE years old.

I think I'll lock. If there are objections, pm me. As always.