|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment.
Military sailors are not quite the same people than arctic scientists and astronauts, though.
|
On April 21 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment. You understand that I'm not saying no women on nuclear submarines, I'm saying no fucking on nuclear submarines, right? That's there with a bunch of other things that I would be fine with people doing in the arctic, such as getting drunk in the evenings, but which suddenly don't seem quite such a good idea when combined with the words nuclear submarine. I get that I'm expecting a very exacting level of 24/7 professionalism from these people that is higher than the level of professionalism expected elsewhere and I'm perfectly fine if that involves increasing their compensation to reflect it but, call me old fashioned if you will, professionalism is one of the things I look for in a nuclear deterrent.
I did go back and re-read your arguments and this point was less than clear. Fucking isn't allowed and is against the rules. Of course it will happen, but it isn't like some new issues we as humans cannot deal with and mitigated.
|
On April 21 2017 02:02 opisska wrote:
Are we sure at this point that an army of mixed genders with an open culture of free sex without commitment wouldn't be more efficient? Surely any relationships are a recipe for disaster, no doubt about that, but what about some good old fucking around? Probably the biggest issue would be to make sure everyone is on the same page here ...
This is probably the least successful relationship dynamic in human history.
On April 21 2017 02:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment. Military sailors are not quite the same people than arctic scientists and astronauts, though.
This is important to recognize. "Support the troops" "they're heroes!!111" etc is great, but lets not pretend demographic issues don't exist.
|
Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the misogyny present in gaming culture.
|
On April 21 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:
You understand that I'm not saying no women on nuclear submarines, I'm saying no fucking on nuclear submarines, right? That's there with a bunch of other things that I would be fine with people doing in the arctic, such as getting drunk in the evenings, but which suddenly don't seem quite such a good idea when combined with the words nuclear submarine.
I get that I'm expecting a very exacting level of 24/7 professionalism from these people that is higher than the level of professionalism expected elsewhere and I'm perfectly fine if that involves increasing their compensation to reflect it but, call me old fashioned if you will, professionalism is one of the things I look for in a nuclear deterrent.
I think the main issue is that your standard of professionalism can only really be solved by not having nuclear subs at all.
Which you may be okay with, but still, point stands.
|
On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation.
You say "introducing sex", I say "it will happen anyway, and there's no way to forbid it". So either you forbid women from joining navy submarine crews (sexist), or you find a way to manage the consequences. As others have said, if oil rigs and ICC personnel manage, I'm sure submarine crews can manage. Especially as they already do with gay crew members, and given that approximately 10% of the population is gay (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics), and a nuclear submarine is crewd by ~150 people, that's on average 15 people who are open to having sex. Moreover, other countries already have female crewmembers (and in fact, the US has had female crews since 2010, it's just that they're now designing their subs to make their lives easier), and insofar as I know no nukes have been fired because of sexual tension.
|
On April 21 2017 02:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment. Military sailors are not quite the same people than arctic scientists and astronauts, though.
I don't really find this line of reasoning compelling. Women have served on aircraft carriers and other ships since the 1990s. We figured out how to have people avoid fucking and destroying the mission in the close quarters of space, just apply those lessons to subs along with all the stuff we learned from the last 20 years.
|
On April 21 2017 02:15 Eridanus wrote:
Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the masochism present in gaming culture.
It is this weird debate where the argument revolves around people having romantic feelings being this unsolvable problem for the military. The same military that we expect to deal with complex, nuanced conflicts all over the world, sometimes without limited input from the US directly. But a man and a woman fucking on a sub will will somehow be more challenging to deal with than alcoholism or something.
|
On April 21 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment. You understand that I'm not saying no women on nuclear submarines, I'm saying no fucking on nuclear submarines, right? That's there with a bunch of other things that I would be fine with people doing in the arctic, such as getting drunk in the evenings, but which suddenly don't seem quite such a good idea when combined with the words nuclear submarine. I get that I'm expecting a very exacting level of 24/7 professionalism from these people that is higher than the level of professionalism expected elsewhere and I'm perfectly fine if that involves increasing their compensation to reflect it but, call me old fashioned if you will, professionalism is one of the things I look for in a nuclear deterrent.
Do you allow them to eat and shit? Why not sex then? Isn't it just your personal preconception, that a given bodily function is "less professional"? This shouldn't really be about "what looks more professional" but what yields higher efficiency. That well-being of workers increases their efficiency is widely accepted across many fields, why should it be different in the army? I admit that I am not sure that having unhinged sex actually increases happiness of the typical marine, but I also don't know for sure that it doesn't. Are there any actual studies? Has it been even tried in an at least remotely relevant setting? In general, I would just expect more fact-based argument from you in particular than this essential "it doesn't feel right".
|
On April 21 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment. Military sailors are not quite the same people than arctic scientists and astronauts, though. I don't really find this line of reasoning compelling. Women have served on aircraft carriers and other ships since the 1990s. We figured out how to have people avoid fucking and destroying the mission in the close quarters of space, just apply those lessons to subs along with all the stuff we learned from the last 20 years.
Yes, that makes sense, but I don't think the level of confinement, absence of privacy and social tension is neatly comparable on a carrier and in a sub.
And also, I maintain that it's not because it works with 5 extremely educated top scientists in space that it will work with 140 army people in a submarine.
Look, I actually agree with you and I'm mainly being the devil's advocate. It's just I also understand Kwark's pow, and I don't think it's that simple.
|
United States43929 Posts
On April 21 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:15 Eridanus wrote:
Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the masochism present in gaming culture. It is this weird debate where the argument revolves around people having romantic feelings being this unsolvable problem for the military. The same military that we expect to deal with complex, nuanced conflicts all over the world, sometimes without limited input from the US directly. But a man and a woman fucking on a sub will will somehow be more challenging to deal with than alcoholism or something.
Can't we be opposed to both alcoholism and interpersonal drama on our nuclear submarines? It's not like anyone here is saying that we're fine with alcoholism on a nuclear submarine but against fucking.
I don't think this is really all that complex. There are a few jobs in which you're expected to change your entire life and be a 24/7 professional while you occupy them. This is one of them. It doesn't mean nobody in the military can fuck. It doesn't mean women or gays can't be in the military. It just means that if you're currently stationed on a nuclear submarine then be a sailor first. That's all. It's the same with mind altering substances, gambling and a bunch of other things we ask them not to do.
|
United States43929 Posts
On April 21 2017 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships.
A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants.
The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment. Military sailors are not quite the same people than arctic scientists and astronauts, though. I don't really find this line of reasoning compelling. Women have served on aircraft carriers and other ships since the 1990s. We figured out how to have people avoid fucking and destroying the mission in the close quarters of space, just apply those lessons to subs along with all the stuff we learned from the last 20 years. Yes, that makes sense, but I don't think the level of confinement, absence of privacy and social tension is neatly comparable on a carrier and in a sub. And also, I maintain that it's not because it works with 5 extremely educated top scientists in space that it will work with 140 army people in a submarine. Look, I actually agree with you and I'm mainly being the devil's advocate. It's just I also understand Kwark's pow, and I don't think it's that simple.
I'm saying that it should work exactly the same way on a nuclear submarine as it does on the international space station. We expect astronauts of different genders to work together and be professional without launching into an incestuous MTV spinoff with zero gravity fucking, fighting, throwing shit and projectile vomiting. And they're perfectly capable of it and that's great. I expect the same on my nuclear submarines.
|
On April 21 2017 02:22 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment. You understand that I'm not saying no women on nuclear submarines, I'm saying no fucking on nuclear submarines, right? That's there with a bunch of other things that I would be fine with people doing in the arctic, such as getting drunk in the evenings, but which suddenly don't seem quite such a good idea when combined with the words nuclear submarine. I get that I'm expecting a very exacting level of 24/7 professionalism from these people that is higher than the level of professionalism expected elsewhere and I'm perfectly fine if that involves increasing their compensation to reflect it but, call me old fashioned if you will, professionalism is one of the things I look for in a nuclear deterrent. Do you allow them to eat and shit? Why not sex then? Isn't it just your personal preconception, that a given bodily function is "less professional"? This shouldn't really be about "what looks more professional" but what yields higher efficiency. That well-being of workers increases their efficiency is widely accepted across many fields, why should it be different in the army? I admit that I am not sure that having unhinged sex actually increases happiness of the typical marine, but I also don't know for sure that it doesn't. Are there any actual studies? Has it been even tried in an at least remotely relevant setting? In general, I would just expect more fact-based argument from you in particular than this essential "it doesn't feel right".
Sex and sexuality is way more than a bodily function. It's a catalyst of extraordinarily intense human interraction. The way you put it, people just fuck like they go to pee and it changes nothing to how they interract. We don't function like that. Luckily.
|
On April 21 2017 02:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:15 Eridanus wrote:
Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the masochism present in gaming culture. It is this weird debate where the argument revolves around people having romantic feelings being this unsolvable problem for the military. The same military that we expect to deal with complex, nuanced conflicts all over the world, sometimes without limited input from the US directly. But a man and a woman fucking on a sub will will somehow be more challenging to deal with than alcoholism or something. Can't we be opposed to both alcoholism and interpersonal drama on our nuclear submarines? It's not like anyone here is saying that we're fine with alcoholism on a nuclear submarine but against fucking. I don't think this is really all that complex. There are a few jobs in which you're expected to change your entire life and be a 24/7 professional while you occupy them. This is one of them. It doesn't mean nobody in the military can fuck. It doesn't mean women or gays can't be in the military. It just means that if you're currently stationed on a nuclear submarine then be a sailor first. That's all. It's the same with mind altering substances, gambling and a bunch of other things we ask them not to do.
Edit: My mistake. I should read twice, then post.
|
On April 21 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment. Military sailors are not quite the same people than arctic scientists and astronauts, though. I don't really find this line of reasoning compelling. Women have served on aircraft carriers and other ships since the 1990s. We figured out how to have people avoid fucking and destroying the mission in the close quarters of space, just apply those lessons to subs along with all the stuff we learned from the last 20 years. Yes, that makes sense, but I don't think the level of confinement, absence of privacy and social tension is neatly comparable on a carrier and in a sub. And also, I maintain that it's not because it works with 5 extremely educated top scientists in space that it will work with 140 army people in a submarine. Look, I actually agree with you and I'm mainly being the devil's advocate. It's just I also understand Kwark's pow, and I don't think it's that simple. I'm saying that it should work exactly the same way on a nuclear submarine as it does on the international space station. We expect astronauts of different genders to work together and be professional without launching into an incestuous MTV spinoff with zero gravity fucking, fighting, throwing shit and projectile vomiting. And they're perfectly capable of it and that's great. I expect the same on my nuclear submarines.
I'm quite certain that if one day two astronauts end up having sex on the ISS, no one will care and it won't compromise their mission.
You can have a relationship (or even only sex) without fighting and projectile vomiting. I mean, I hope? 
|
United States43929 Posts
On April 21 2017 02:22 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment. You understand that I'm not saying no women on nuclear submarines, I'm saying no fucking on nuclear submarines, right? That's there with a bunch of other things that I would be fine with people doing in the arctic, such as getting drunk in the evenings, but which suddenly don't seem quite such a good idea when combined with the words nuclear submarine. I get that I'm expecting a very exacting level of 24/7 professionalism from these people that is higher than the level of professionalism expected elsewhere and I'm perfectly fine if that involves increasing their compensation to reflect it but, call me old fashioned if you will, professionalism is one of the things I look for in a nuclear deterrent. Do you allow them to eat and shit? Why not sex then? Isn't it just your personal preconception, that a given bodily function is "less professional"? This shouldn't really be about "what looks more professional" but what yields higher efficiency. That well-being of workers increases their efficiency is widely accepted across many fields, why should it be different in the army? I admit that I am not sure that having unhinged sex actually increases happiness of the typical marine, but I also don't know for sure that it doesn't. Are there any actual studies? Has it been even tried in an at least remotely relevant setting? In general, I would just expect more fact-based argument from you in particular than this essential "it doesn't feel right".
I simply disagree with your starting premise. If I accepted your premise that introducing sex into a small group of people confined together actually made the group more functional then I'd be all for it. But I don't. We're both making the same argument, that functionality and rationality is important when it comes to nuclear submarines. Where we differ is simply whether sexual competition within an isolated group makes things better.
|
On April 20 2017 23:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I'll be surprised if the US isn't globally isolated because of this dipshit in 4 years. Show nested quote +South Korea’s government wants to know whether Chinese President Xi Jinping gave alternative facts on the nation’s history to Donald Trump.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, Trump said Xi told him during a recent summit that “Korea actually used to be a part of China.” The comments sparked outrage in Seoul and became an issue in South Korea’s presidential race, prompting the foreign ministry to seek to verify what Xi actually said.
“It’s a clear fact acknowledged by the international community that, for thousands of years in history, Korea has never been part of China,” foreign ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck said at a briefing in Seoul on Thursday.
Trump has sought to get China -- North Korea’s main ally and benefactor -- to do more to persuade dictator Kim Jong Un to stop conducting nuclear and missile tests. Xi’s explanation of the historical relationship made Trump realize that it’s “not so easy” for China to influence North Korea to give up its nuclear program, the newspaper quoted the U.S. president as saying.
Candidates for South Korea’s May 9 presidential election weighed in on the issue, which comes as the nation’s relations with China are already strained over moves to deploy a U.S. missile defense system on its soil.
“This is clearly a distortion of history and an invasion of the Republic of Korea’s sovereignty," conservative Liberty Korea Party candidate Hong Joon-pyo said through a spokesman.
A representative for Democratic Party of Korea candidate Moon Jae-in demanded to find out the full context of Xi’s comment. Ahn Cheol-soo’s People’s Party said that, if true, it would be regrettable for China to distort history in an international diplomacy setting.
Chinese dynasties invaded the Korean Peninsula repeatedly over the centuries and demanded tributes, but South Koreans reject the idea that their ancestors were ever ruled by their neighbor. Source
I'm hoping we'll see Netanyahu lobby for the "Greater Israel" project at some point within the next year or so.
|
United States43929 Posts
On April 21 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:26 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:15 Eridanus wrote:
Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the masochism present in gaming culture. It is this weird debate where the argument revolves around people having romantic feelings being this unsolvable problem for the military. The same military that we expect to deal with complex, nuanced conflicts all over the world, sometimes without limited input from the US directly. But a man and a woman fucking on a sub will will somehow be more challenging to deal with than alcoholism or something. Can't we be opposed to both alcoholism and interpersonal drama on our nuclear submarines? It's not like anyone here is saying that we're fine with alcoholism on a nuclear submarine but against fucking. I don't think this is really all that complex. There are a few jobs in which you're expected to change your entire life and be a 24/7 professional while you occupy them. This is one of them. It doesn't mean nobody in the military can fuck. It doesn't mean women or gays can't be in the military. It just means that if you're currently stationed on a nuclear submarine then be a sailor first. That's all. It's the same with mind altering substances, gambling and a bunch of other things we ask them not to do. So what you are saying is no gays on subs either, because they might fuck? Only people who don't want to fuck each other on subs, because humans can't not fuck? It is literally out of our control. We will give these people guns and tell them "don't shoot unless we tell you to!" and its cool. But we can't have them hanging out in a underwater tube because they might bang. Like we went to the moon, rocket landed as SUV on Mars, mapped the genome and split the atom, but this shit is impossible.
Dude. Fucking read my posts. I literally said that I didn't mean no women and I didn't mean no gays. You promptly respond "so you're saying no gays as well as no women?!?!?". Stop for a moment and read what I am actually saying. It's literally "don't fuck". That's it. If you're gay, don't fuck. If you're straight, don't fuck. If you're bi, don't fuck. That's all I'm saying. I've been saying it over and over and you keep insisting I mean no women and for some reason also now no gays.
|
On April 21 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:22 opisska wrote:On April 21 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships.
A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants.
The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment. You understand that I'm not saying no women on nuclear submarines, I'm saying no fucking on nuclear submarines, right? That's there with a bunch of other things that I would be fine with people doing in the arctic, such as getting drunk in the evenings, but which suddenly don't seem quite such a good idea when combined with the words nuclear submarine. I get that I'm expecting a very exacting level of 24/7 professionalism from these people that is higher than the level of professionalism expected elsewhere and I'm perfectly fine if that involves increasing their compensation to reflect it but, call me old fashioned if you will, professionalism is one of the things I look for in a nuclear deterrent. Do you allow them to eat and shit? Why not sex then? Isn't it just your personal preconception, that a given bodily function is "less professional"? This shouldn't really be about "what looks more professional" but what yields higher efficiency. That well-being of workers increases their efficiency is widely accepted across many fields, why should it be different in the army? I admit that I am not sure that having unhinged sex actually increases happiness of the typical marine, but I also don't know for sure that it doesn't. Are there any actual studies? Has it been even tried in an at least remotely relevant setting? In general, I would just expect more fact-based argument from you in particular than this essential "it doesn't feel right". I simply disagree with your starting premise. If I accepted your premise that introducing sex into a small group of people confined together actually made the group more functional then I'd be all for it. But I don't. We're both making the same argument, that functionality and rationality is important when it comes to nuclear submarines. Where we differ is simply whether sexual competition within an isolated group makes things better.
You have a valid point but you need to balance it with the sexual repression you are advocating. It's not particularly healthy either.
Edit: i love how the us megathread has turned into the pro and cons of sexual encounters in submarines :p
|
Mere days after Justice Neil Gorsuch was seated on the Supreme Court, restoring the panel to full strength, a top Senate Republican said the court could soon be down a member once again – in turn giving President Trump another big appointment.
“I would expect a resignation this summer,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Iowa’s Muscatine Journal.
Grassley, R-Iowa, said there was a "rumored" retirement in the offing, though he wouldn't disclose which justice was considering stepping down.
www.foxnews.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
