Yes, the women on subs should be concubines!

4/29/2010 4:49:57 PM

That's what the ship's cat is for.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 4:57 PM. Reason : or the shipmates! Heyoooooooooooooooooooh!]

4/29/2010 4:56:36 PM

lol

4/29/2010 4:59:56 PM

Quote :

"hanging out on a nude beach != taking a shit/piss in front of some random member of the opposite sex. "

Either way, it's irrelevant. Right or wrong, good or bad, you have lost your fucking mind if you think they're going to have unisex berths and heads on a USN vessel. It's not an option on the table...there's no point in discussing it in this thread.


Also, as far as having the chicks around to get it on with, I've never been deployed on a ship, but if it's like any other deployment I've been on, you aren't allowed to bone down. It happens, but you get in trouble if you get caught. Fuck, I even saw a MARRIED WOMAN get sent home from deployment and effectively kicked out of her squadron for spending the night with her OWN HUSBAND on deployment (the husband fared better, as his CO wasn't a total asshole)

4/29/2010 5:22:27 PM

^ that's fucking stupid (the wife getting sent home thing)

4/29/2010 5:27:50 PM

oh yeah, beyond retarded.

The dumbest thing of all was that the base/CENTCOM order even specifically makes a provision for married couples--her CO flipped out because they didn't arrange through official channels to share living accomodations or something stupid like that...I don't remember the exact details.

They were both Marine Prowler aviators back when the deployment schedule was 6 months on, 6 months off...they were on opposing schedules, so they went for, like, a year or 18 months and barely saw each other. Finally, common sense prevailed and they made arrangements to get them into squadrons on the same deployment schedule so they'd be at Al Asad together and home together, and then her CO fucked it all up by being a complete idiot. I think they did violate some minor technicality, but that paled in comparison to the idiocy displayed by someone supposedly paid for his solid judgement. It pretty much made the entire Prowler community pissed off.

(and at least temporarily scored her a new callsign: "Ronery"...she was of asian descent, and Team America: World Police had recently been released. I don't know if that ever stuck...I haven't seen her in a while).

4/29/2010 5:41:39 PM

They should have separate subs for women. They'll be big underwater kitchens. They can torpedo the food to the sailors on other subs.

4/29/2010 6:02:29 PM

When the Navy changes something, whether it's uniforms or promotions or whatever, people get riled up and the Navy Times gets 5,000 angry letters and everyone acts like it's the end of the world. But eventually things die down and now nobody cares that you can't wear Dungarees anymore.

I work with several submariners and this has been a hot topic lately, but the reactions I've heard have been much more subdued. Only one guy was against it because of pregnancy. (small crews mean losing a body makes it hard on everyone) But a guy from the surface fleet responded that pregnancy doesn't happen any more often than all the other random mishaps that send people home.

Most people don't know this, but some women have served on subs here in America. They were engineers who went on short deployments to earn a special type of qualification. Sure it's not the real thing but it at least shows that integration is possible.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/usw_summer_09/q&a.html

And Duke, posting the story about Graff is just tacky. The CO of my base just got relieved of command for picking up a prostitute. Maybe we should stop promoting men because they're more likely to screw up and solicit a hooker.

4/29/2010 7:30:47 PM

Quote :

"And Duke, posting the story about Graff is just tacky."

Why is that tacky? Because its a woman or because he's outing a bad leader regardless of gender?

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 7:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/29/2010 7:40:23 PM

Quote :

"Either way, it's irrelevant. Right or wrong, good or bad, you have lost your fucking mind if you think they're going to have unisex berths and heads on a USN vessel. It's not an option on the table...there's no point in discussing it in this thread."

This is like the tenth time you've said this, and you still haven't provided a reason besides "no fucking way" or "you're out of your fucking mind."

This isn't sarcasm speaking here, can you just give me a few specific reasons why there's "no fucking way" this would work?

4/29/2010 8:36:50 PM

4/29/2010 10:48:31 PM

^^ Probably because a significant portion of the crew would be very uncomfortable with the arrangement.

4/30/2010 12:08:28 AM

Quote :

"And Duke, posting the story about Graff is just tacky. The CO of my base just got relieved of command for picking up a prostitute. Maybe we should stop promoting men because they're more likely to screw up and solicit a hooker."

Yeah, I think the Navy relieved about a half dozen COs that year, and she might've been the only female in the mix--I'd say that's likely. The point of the article (if I posted the one I intended...I didn't actually read it through) wasn't to say that women can't do the job or whatever. It was to say "if you're going to do this, make sure we're not sacrificing combat effectiveness in the name of political correctness".

Graf wasn't an incompetent bitch because she was a woman. The point of the article--and others I've read--is that, at least back when she was coming up through the ranks, her gender enabled her promotion and/or placement into billets for which she really had no business being in, at least not yet.

This problem gets better as the door stays open longer and there's less to "prove" ("hey, look at us, we made a female aviator/CO/whatever"), but it can linger for a while. Again, I'm not saying that women should be barred from being bubbleheads, aviators, or COs--I'm just saying that we need to be smart about it. I've seen females pushed through in flight school when they would've been attrited for sure otherwise. In my initial ground school, the policy was "3 test failures and you're done." Every dude I saw fail 3 tests went to see the CO and was attrited. However, every female got 4, and one got 5. It wasn't a policy on paper anywhere, but it might as well have been.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 1:22 AM. Reason : THAT'S what I don't want to see.]

4/30/2010 1:14:12 AM

Quote :

"his isn't sarcasm speaking here, can you just give me a few specific reasons why there's "no fucking way" this would work?"

You're still missing the point. I'm not even bothering to argue whether it would work, and anyone who does is wasting keystrokes. It's a no-factor, because the Navy isn't going to do it.

4/30/2010 1:27:44 AM

I freely admit that I haven't read every post in here, so I can't argue with you if you don't read mine.

But my thought is that the military has undergone unpleasant transitions before and turned out better for it. I would rather risk a period of uncomfortability with our sailors than ignore the potential contributions of females who would otherwise make us better off. This isn't me being PC. This is me having dealt with military women who were (as far as I was concerned at the time) disturbingly competent, to the point of genius.

The military is good at punishing people. Let them continue to punish fraternization. Not like it'll be the first time.

Quote :

" You're still missing the point. I'm not even bothering to argue whether it would work, and anyone who does is wasting keystrokes. It's a no-factor, because the Navy isn't going to do it."

Two very separate things here. Anyone with half a mind to history knows it will happen sooner or later. More importantly, it's not whether it will happen, but whether it should.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 3:16 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2010 3:14:34 AM

Quote :

"^^ Probably because a significant portion of the crew would be very uncomfortable with the arrangement."

Sounds like the "unit cohesion" argument against gays in the military to me. There are plenty of things that can make some troops uncomfortable. Cramped quarters, fear of death, etc. Are nude women really at the top of that list?

4/30/2010 8:40:00 AM

So theDuke866 is pretty much coming off as a fucking moron who can't actually engage God, who has a perfectly valid question that hasn't been addressed to my satisfaction, at any rate.

Also:

Quote :

"They didn't need duplicate facilities on Galactica. They don't need 'em here."

That was fucking hilarious.

4/30/2010 8:45:22 AM

The trolls are in full force ITT.

4/30/2010 8:49:58 AM

I'm not trolling. Shit, I'm not even taking a stand. One dude asked a legit question, other dude is dodging it in a way that paints him in an awful light.

4/30/2010 8:51:06 AM

Humanity's taboo against sexuality has not yet been broken to the point where the majority of women and men would even agree to have co-ed showering/bathing/shitting facilities.

The first major problem is that the enlisted wouldn't even agree to it. There would be lawsuits, mass exodus (mostly of women) from the military.

Then you'd have the inevitable cases of sexual assault/harassment to deal with. More women leaving the military. Probably men too when they get locked up for coping a feel or staring too long.

So in Present Day Earth, the only solution is separate facilities. Which is pretty fucking difficult on a submarine.

Honestly, the fact that this has to be spelled out means that God, and apparently Froshkiller are kindergarteners.

But like I said, give it 500 years. Once we get organized religion out of the way people will get over themselves.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 8:59 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2010 8:57:42 AM

Quote :

"Humanity's taboo against sexuality"

Quote :

"The first major problem is that the enlisted wouldn't even agree to it."

Quote :

"inevitable cases of sexual assault/harassment"

Quote :

"More women leaving the military."

Quote :

"Probably men to when they get locked up for coping a feel or staring too long."

Quote :

"the only solution"

If I were a troll, I'd post something like "citation needed" or "only the Sith deal in absolutes" or something. But really, all that kinda fucking stupid stuff I just quoted sorta speaks for itself.

4/30/2010 9:00:55 AM

Quote :

"I'm not trolling. Shit, I'm not even taking a stand. One dude asked a legit question, other dude is dodging it in a way that paints him in an awful light."

Ok, so why don't we address his question. Why do we have separate bathrooms for men and women everywhere? It seems like an awful lot of wasted space. Just think about how many extra rooms you could fit in each dorm on college campuses across the nation if we did away with separate bathrooms for men and women.

I, for one, fully support this! Fuck submarines, I say start with college campuses.

4/30/2010 9:02:10 AM

You're doing, like, the same thing. You're not answering the question. You're trying to make the question seem ridiculous by taking it down a ridiculous tangent.

You guys are coming off so fucking dumb. Like, "I wish you'd drink and drive" dumb.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 9:03 AM. Reason : Post #45,666.]

4/30/2010 9:03:43 AM

Plenty of businesses have unisex bathrooms.

4/30/2010 9:04:49 AM

My last job had unisex bathrooms! And it wasn't even weird.

4/30/2010 9:05:43 AM

unisex showers? Also, in your businesses, were there men and women in the bathroom at the same time?

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 9:06 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2010 9:06:16 AM

Quote :

"You're doing, like, the same thing. You're not answering the question. You're trying to make the question seem ridiculous by taking it down a ridiculous tangent. "

Why is that any more ridiculous? The issue here is WHY men and women can't share the same sleeping quarters and bathroom facilities.

Quote :

"My last job had unisex bathrooms! And it wasn't even weird."

As in a bathroom that contains one stall?


[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 9:07 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2010 9:06:35 AM

We didn't have shower facilities. But our closest competitor in Durham had unisex shower facilities. I'm pretty sure no one got raped or whatever.

In the interest of full disclosure, we had very few employees to begin with, so often, there wouldn't be more than one person in a restroom at any given moment. We had one restroom up in the admin side of the building with two stalls and one restroom in the back with a single toilet.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM. Reason : ...]

4/30/2010 9:07:17 AM

Showering at the same time?

^^^^DING DING DING

So do you think that having single bathroom facilities where only one gender is allowed in at certain times is a viable solution? On a submarine, I mean.


[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 9:09 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2010 9:08:10 AM

Where did you work that had this?

nvm...

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 9:09 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2010 9:08:33 AM

I don't know the details of their showering practices since I didn't work there. I imagine it'd be a matter of personal preference in private enterprise! I imagine that kind of thing is not relevant to military service.

Seriously. Morons. I'm done being nice and only saying you sound dumb. You are dumb. You are so hardcore dumb.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 9:10 AM. Reason : ...]

4/30/2010 9:09:28 AM

Well, I'm not the one comparing your tiny office to a submarine. You tell me if the bathroom system at your comfy office would work fine on a submarine submerged for weeks at a time.

Sorry gents, can't go in, women are in there.

4/30/2010 9:10:44 AM

Also, the business on the other half of the building had a unisex bathroom with two urinals and three stalls.

Point being I'm not comparing the bathrooms to the submarine. You guys strayed from the issue at hand to begin with, what with your ridiculous "WHY DON'T WE ALL USE THE SAME PISSER EVERYWHERE" tangent.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 9:12 AM. Reason : ...]

4/30/2010 9:11:20 AM

man, if frosh calls you dumb...doesn't sting much worse than that.

4/30/2010 9:11:41 AM

Maybe you'd prefer I call you a cocksucker.

4/30/2010 9:12:37 AM

You can call me whatever you like, pumpkin.

4/30/2010 9:13:13 AM

And for that matter, why don't we all carry M4A1 assault rifles EVERYWHERE?! Afterall, this is what they do in the military, and I can continue this stupid analogy.

And for THAT MATTER, why can't I drive a tank on Interstate 40?

4/30/2010 9:16:18 AM

Frosh and gronke dodge questions ITT.

4/30/2010 9:17:46 AM

pretty sure i answered every question you guys asked me except the one you retracted

4/30/2010 9:19:59 AM

Quote :

"Why do we have separate bathrooms for men and women everywhere?"

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 9:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2010 9:21:17 AM

But we don't! My business had unisex bathrooms. Not showers though, and there were never dudes and women in there at the same time.

It'll totally work on a submarine!

4/30/2010 9:23:09 AM

I, too, have a unisex bathroom in my home.

4/30/2010 9:25:07 AM

Quote :

"I imagine it'd be a matter of personal preference in private enterprise! I imagine that kind of thing is not relevant to military service."

4/30/2010 9:26:26 AM

If its no big deal, as gronke put it, why is it not widely adopted?

4/30/2010 9:30:56 AM

I used to share a bathroom/shower with women at State, but then the RA found out.

4/30/2010 9:32:40 AM

Quote :

"One dude asked a legit question,"

No he didn't. He's sitting here throwing pie-in-the-sky idealism out as a valid argument. Sure, it'd be great if we could all get along, but the fact is, we can't. We shouldn't ignore reality and fuck up things just for the sake of idealism. And yes, at this point, uni-sex berths and showers on a military vessel are idealism.

Let's throw some actual experience in the mix here. On a fast-attack sub, there is NOT a lot of space. As such, there aren't many berths, or bathrooms. There is one bathroom for the officers, one for the chiefs, and two for everyone else. One of those happens to be inside a berth. There are 2 berths for officers, 1 for the chiefs, and 2 for everyone else. Rank and rate are intentionally separated, and with good reason. For chiefs, alone, there is a problem with integrating women, even though there will NOT be female chiefs for at least 10-15 years from the inception of integration. In the beginning, there will be a ton of waste space, as there will be few women. Thus, the berthing situation for the lower-enlisted men will be aggravated, as instead of 2 guys sharing the same bunk, it would be 4 or 5. It's hard to fit 2 guys in to the same bed at the same time, if you didn't know that already... For the officers, it's not as much of a problem, as I think they could reasonably deal with uni-sex accommodations...

On a boomer, there is more space, and the berthing situation is vastly different. There are more berths, but each berth has less space. I don't recall how the chiefs were berthed, but there are several berths stuck in between the missiles, each with about six beds. This helps with the lost berthing space problem somewhat. But, there are still only two bathrooms for the enlisted personnel. Ultimately, a boomer is more hospitable to integration of women, and that is probably where it will be done.

There are other actual concerns, as well. One of those is pregnancy. In the event that a crewman is found to be pregnant, IIRC, the person is given the option of light-duty. Well, light-duty isn't possible on a Navy ship, as that reduces the number of available personnel, so usually such people are transferred off-ship. To transfer someone off of a sub requires surfacing and giving away the sub's position. That, obviously, affects the sub's combat readiness and effectiveness. Moreover, surface ships DO face the problem of women intentionally getting pregnant so they can get transferred off the ship. That is not as big of a problem on a surface ship as it would be on a sub, as there are more people to temporarily share the load and it's easier to find replacements for a surface ship.


Bottom line... Do I think there will be integration? Yes. Do I think it's a good idea long-term? Yes. Do I think we should do it haphazardly and ignore obvious problems with it in the name of naive idealism? Fuck no. Camaraderie is of major importance on a submarine. To ignore that is to be intentionally ignorant of one of the major facets of submarine life. And that's not even close to being similar to an anti-gay argument. Everyone on a sub knows who is gay and who isn't. But, everyone on a sub, at this point, knows what sex everyone else is.

4/30/2010 9:35:44 AM

Quote :

"there is NOT a lot of space."

this point has been made and ignored multiple times. Everything else in your post, although correct, will be ignored to further gronke's agenda of trolling. He will tell you that the sailors need to suck it up and get over it.

4/30/2010 9:38:56 AM

and I'll tell him that he has never served on board a submarine and that that, as wonderful as it may sound, is simply not an option on a sub. i mean, hey, why can't we all piss rainbows and shit skittles while we are at it?

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 9:42 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2010 9:40:59 AM

Quote :

"pie-in-the-sky idealism"

lol, I'll have to remember that one.

4/30/2010 9:53:43 AM

^^

Have you served on a sub? As I recall you are morbidly obese, and given the whole "there's not a lot of space" issue, I'd doubt anyone would put you on a sub, unless ballast was needed.

So you can't exactly discredit someone for not having served on a sub unless you have actually served on a sub you fat fuck.







*I have no stance on the issue.

4/30/2010 10:33:50 AM