90% of ALL Military members are CRIMINALS... DADT

[rsngonelooting]

very hard to  listen to you when you sound like a 16 year old

[Hlgh0nLlf3420]

Shit is lulz. Not that there doing this shit in the military, but your narration of it.

[electorg]

umm try to not make me think about random people doing stuff 0.0 I get it the rules aren't logical and most of them are guilty but you may have gotten a little too graphic.

[MCPOWest]

1. Thank you for your service. 2. I believe you are being generous with your % estimation. My guess is that under and according to the UCMJ; 100% of our Military could be found guilty as the 'crime' is defined. I am a retired MCPO (E-9) of the U.S. Navy. I can say for fact (you probably already know) that when a U.S. Navy ship pulls into port, especially a foreign port, that the top two items sought by the majority of ship's crew during Liberty is: ALCOHOL & SEX.

Regards,

Master Chief

[PiratedLogic]

@MCPOWest My father served in the Navy as well... Nuke subs... Although I was spared in my youth of all those wonderful stories it didn't take long to hear about them in adulthood lol. I also worked directly for the Navy while stationed in Rota Spain... I can't count how many times the Cinderella Liberty was extended to all personnel because the guys coming off the boat went a little too crazy haha...

[chaoszieg]

so any girl that's given a blowjob to a guy they are both criminals XD

[PiratedLogic]

@chaoszieg yep... it's sad. Oh how many women I could of sent to stand tall before the man... right after they made me stand tall before them kneeling.

[blackacidlizzard]

I think in the US most of us are criminals - isn't that the point of many of these laws, to make sure anyone can be "dealt with" if they become a nuisance? Something which would even be more important in the military, but these days of course the "right to be be employed" idea has spread into the military as well, so commanders don't get rid of disruptive people as often (as often as I would, at least).

[PiratedLogic]

@blackacidlizzard You would be surprised. it seems every other year they are going through a "force shaping" phase... weeding out the "undesirables". Of course this happens in the branches that can afford to lose a few thousand people... I think in some cases you can get a waver for certain felonies to join the army... and maybe the marines too.

[blackacidlizzard]

@PiratedLogic

Do they actually target problematic people during those times? Well, I've heard about times of kicking out middle enlisted people who have a bit too much seniority in their grade - so I guess I just answered part of my question - but that method still leaves in the shitbags who for whatever reason don't meet the high-decreed standard for dismissal. (and gets rid of at least a few people who have been hampered for reasons which do not impact morale / performance / cohesion)

[PiratedLogic]

@blackacidlizzard I know through my own experience while being active during some force shaping that individuals that had received article 15 were usually targeted first. i do not know how the other branches handle it but at least in the AF they went after the trouble makers... That was usually followed by fit test failures and even people with multiple LOC/R in their PIF.

[blackacidlizzard]

@PiratedLogic

Ah, yeah, that makes sense if (as it sounds) the "shaping" consists of "get rid of the ones with the most 'problems' (meaning action taken against them)" Indeed, when given the "go-ahead" this is exactly what I would expect. I had never heard of this method, but the response fits my understanding of the dynamics - the lower level command is too chickenshit to "discriminate" against the lazy, the uncooperative, and the stone stupid, but when given permission...

[blackacidlizzard]

(continued)

Perhaps I've just been in and heard tales from the wrong units, but it seems like the general trend is to leave personal discrimination based upon ones view of a well-functioning unit (the very type of caprice which making everyone a criminal is "good" for) and to simply go by the impersonal discrimination of central planners who (ostensibly) attempt to cure a plague with the thunderbolts they hurl from on high.

[RyuDarragh]

There are few laws passed in the US that can stand up against one power the citizens do have, and that is to challenge such a law. The only impediment is money. In the military, however, the "laws" are not governed by the constitution. They are "codes" and "regulations" :rollseyes:

And the sodomy laws don't cover handjobs, do they?

[PiratedLogic]

@RyuDarragh It only specified oral and anal sex... Think the handjobs are safe... for now.

[CadicusTheDamned]

One time a military doctor was lecturing me on safe sex and said, "Sometimes oral herpes get on the genitalia. We don't know how it happens." Then he winked at me. I thought he was being a goon, but I guess he was looking out for me.

[PiratedLogic]

@CadicusTheDamned Sure he wasn't hitting on you ;)

Oh shit, I just winked at you o.0

[KingHeathen]

In Georgia, we have essentially the same definition and law against sodomy. So every single person that has ever engaged in oral sex (including with their spouses) are guilty....which, let's face it, is probably everyone but the virgins.

[PiratedLogic]

@KingHeathen even some of those virgins would be guilty too I bet... depending on how you define "virgin".

[KingHeathen]

@PiratedLogic Good point...I was speaking of completely virgin...ZERO sexual activity with another person.

[bobster451]

Did you just incriminate your wife's behavior?!

[PiratedLogic]

@bobster451 ... maybe I was speaking of my own actions ;P

[NikiPaprika]

Wow, I had no idea about that law! That's hilarious!

I'm so glad I live in a country where reverse cowgirl is legal!

...speaking of which, how the hell would they be able to find out if they DID do any position other than missionary? That's just all sorts a' creepy...

[PiratedLogic]

@NikiPaprika Where would the world be if everyone banned reverse cowgirl? ;)

"how the hell would they be able to find out if they DID do any position other than missionary? "... never hung around a bunch of military types for too long have you... or men in general lol...

[NikiPaprika]

@PiratedLogic I hang around with plenty of dudes, I just tend not to discuss my personal sex life with them. 'Sides, most of them are too busy boasting about how many blowjobs they've had in their lives, that I guess they aren't interested in what lesbians get up to in their spare time. ;D

[PiratedLogic]

@NikiPaprika See... you just answered your question about how they would find out... guys talk way too much ... even if most of it is BS.

[NikiPaprika]

@PiratedLogic Well, that's what I meant. I meant how would they know if it was BS or not?

Like people who may be bragging about a ficticious girl they have supposed sex with in a very specific position.

o_O

Anyways, I would find it hilarious if they actually did end up punishing those who have had oral.

[straightd0pe]

These videos are great.  Keep it up bud!

[PiratedLogic]

@straightd0pe Thanks :) Congrats BTW :P

[JCLeSinge]

Oral sex is defined as "sodomy" by the UCMJ? Bizarre.

[PiratedLogic]

@JCLeSinge Yeppers... It doesn't surprise me... I have heard that some states define sodomy as any other sexual act other than missionary position... So much for reverse cowgirl :(

[JCLeSinge]

@PiratedLogic: Isn't that where the girl sits on top, but with her back to you? That's fun, especially if she's flexible enough to lie down; that's just all kinds of win.

The UMCJ and those states' statutes must have been written by very repressed people. It's almost certainly not a question anyone wants to raise in a meeting though; "Next item on the agenda; the statutory definition of sodomy is factually incorrect..."

[PiratedLogic]

@JCLeSinge good point lol... 

[snugsaltynutz]

@PiratedLogic no reverse cowgirl? I don't want to live in THAT world.

[PiratedLogic]

@snugsaltynutz me neither snugs... me neither.

[SpookyFan]

Good point.