RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/10/2009 3:57:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983
The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy also acts to protect homosexuals in the armed forces. If someone comes out, there is a very real fear that someone in their unit will have a big enough problem to do something against that person.


That's really quite an offensive argument. It's akin to the idea that women who dress provocatively are inviting rape. Shouldn't the focus be on changing the behavior of the folks who are likely to commit violence rather than on restricting the behavior of those they're likely to victimize? The military is the ultimate in top-down organization and has a lot of control over behavior, and much latitude in how they go about enforcing their policies. They could change this situation if they had any interest in doing so.




lazarus1983 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/10/2009 6:00:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983
The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy also acts to protect homosexuals in the armed forces. If someone comes out, there is a very real fear that someone in their unit will have a big enough problem to do something against that person.


That's really quite an offensive argument. It's akin to the idea that women who dress provocatively are inviting rape. Shouldn't the focus be on changing the behavior of the folks who are likely to commit violence rather than on restricting the behavior of those they're likely to victimize? The military is the ultimate in top-down organization and has a lot of control over behavior, and much latitude in how they go about enforcing their policies. They could change this situation if they had any interest in doing so.


Who am I offending? You? If I am, well, I don't give a shit, and also you're not a gay male, so stop getting offended for other people. And I'll take a guess that gay males know all too well that they live in a country where, through no fault of their own, there ARE wrong places to be openly gay. They're probably not offended to know that. Considering I've had this discussion with gay friends before and they weren't offended, go find something else to get offended at.

Now explain to me how "they" could change the situation. What exactly can the armed forces do? I want you to tell me. Because you sound like you've served and know what you're talking about. Explain to me in detail what policies they can enact and how they can use their "much latitude" to enforce these policies?

And if you'll go back and read my post, you'll see that I point out the problem is with society and the still-prevalent homophobia throughout much of the country. I'm not blaming gay people, I'm not saying that they are in the wrong for wanting to be open about their lifestyle. Hell, I even say, in so many words, that what needs to change are the beliefs and values instilled into people. So no, my statement is not akin to yours.

And on top of all that, at no time did I say that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is right and is the correct answer. It's imperfect, but it's all we have until society changes.

However I will agree with you on one point, that there isn't much action within the armed forces to change the policy. It provides much needed legal protection from the bajillion lawsuits that could be brought against the military for sexual harassment and the like.




MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/10/2009 7:33:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983
Who am I offending? You? If I am, well, I don't give a shit, and also you're not a gay male, so stop getting offended for other people. And I'll take a guess that gay males know all too well that they live in a country where, through no fault of their own, there ARE wrong places to be openly gay. They're probably not offended to know that. Considering I've had this discussion with gay friends before and they weren't offended, go find something else to get offended at.


Well, aren't you just the charmer?

Your post looks to me like "blame the victim". You're saying that gay military folk need to stay in the closet to avoid violence. You're basically giving the perpetrators an excuse and a pass for their behavior and putting the blame on their victims for provoking them. You're saying it in a sympathetic way and acknowledging that it's wrong and that you don't agree with it, but you're still putting it out there. I think that my comparison to the idea that women who dress provocatively are inviting rape is very apt. I'm old enough to remember when a woman's choice of outfit or sexual history could mean that her attacker would go free or perhaps not even be charged. The same kind of arguments were made about that. It wasn't the perpetrator's fault - they were provoked by the victim's behavior. If society felt that these women were asking for it, how can we blame some poor slob for buying into it to the point where he commits violence? These same arguments have also been made about attacks on members of racial and religious minorities.

It seems to me that anyone with a half-developed sense of right and wrong would find such arguments contemptible, regardless of whether or not they're a member of the group being shat upon.

quote:

Now explain to me how "they" could change the situation. What exactly can the armed forces do? I want you to tell me. Because you sound like you've served and know what you're talking about. Explain to me in detail what policies they can enact and how they can use their "much latitude" to enforce these policies?


That's pretty simple. They could add "sexual orientation" to their existing diversity/anti-discrimination policies that cover race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. and enforce the policy.

It's not an unprecedented thing to do - many businesses and organizations have added sexual orientation to their diversity policies. If I were to make gay-bashing comments at work, I'd be disciplined, possibly fired. If my grandson made gay-bashing comments at his elementary school he'd be suspended. The military has a lot more control over the behavior of their troops than my employer has over my behavior or my grandson's school has over his behavior, and a lot more lattitude when it comes to discipline. The UCMJ outlines a slew of options that are available to deal with actions that are in violation of policy.

The means to deal with this already exist, what's lacking is the will to deal with it.

quote:

And if you'll go back and read my post, you'll see that I point out the problem is with society and the still-prevalent homophobia throughout much of the country.


In 1993 when Don't Ask Don't Tell was passed, fewer than 40% of Americans considered homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle. According to recent Gallup polls, 57% of Americans - in the 18-34 age group, it's 75% - consider homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle. 69% of Americans feel that openly gay people should be able to serve in the military. Society's attitudes have changed substantially, it's the military that's way behind the curve.










Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/10/2009 7:49:05 PM)

Even if President Obama changed the Don' ask... policy, openly gay men and women would be open to charges under the UCMJ.  A change to the UCMJ requires an act of Congress (if I remember correctly) and getting them to agree on any sort of change would take a whole lot.  Article 125 of the UCMJ applies to sodomy and states:

quote:


“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”


Courtmartials have found that consent is not a mitigating factor for part (a).

Indeed, it is outdated; however I just can't see Congress moving to change it any time soon.  Perhaps, as the demographic that you pointed to becomes the power block (get elected or just outlive the older generations) of the country, things will move.

Back to the first part of this story, even though it was a campaign promise to get rid of the policy, the current administration provided a brief in support of the current policy.




lazarus1983 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/10/2009 8:08:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983
Who am I offending? You? If I am, well, I don't give a shit, and also you're not a gay male, so stop getting offended for other people. And I'll take a guess that gay males know all too well that they live in a country where, through no fault of their own, there ARE wrong places to be openly gay. They're probably not offended to know that. Considering I've had this discussion with gay friends before and they weren't offended, go find something else to get offended at.


Well, aren't you just the charmer?

Your post looks to me like "blame the victim". You're saying that gay military folk need to stay in the closet to avoid violence. You're basically giving the perpetrators an excuse and a pass for their behavior and putting the blame on their victims for provoking them. You're saying it in a sympathetic way and acknowledging that it's wrong and that you don't agree with it, but you're still putting it out there. I think that my comparison to the idea that women who dress provocatively are inviting rape is very apt. I'm old enough to remember when a woman's choice of outfit or sexual history could mean that her attacker would go free or perhaps not even be charged. The same kind of arguments were made about that. It wasn't the perpetrator's fault - they were provoked by the victim's behavior. If society felt that these women were asking for it, how can we blame some poor slob for buying into it to the point where he commits violence? These same arguments have also been made about attacks on members of racial and religious minorities.

It seems to me that anyone with a half-developed sense of right and wrong would find such arguments contemptible, regardless of whether or not they're a member of the group being shat upon.

quote:

Now explain to me how "they" could change the situation. What exactly can the armed forces do? I want you to tell me. Because you sound like you've served and know what you're talking about. Explain to me in detail what policies they can enact and how they can use their "much latitude" to enforce these policies?


That's pretty simple. They could add "sexual orientation" to their existing diversity/anti-discrimination policies that cover race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. and enforce the policy.

It's not an unprecedented thing to do - many businesses and organizations have added sexual orientation to their diversity policies. If I were to make gay-bashing comments at work, I'd be disciplined, possibly fired. If my grandson made gay-bashing comments at his elementary school he'd be suspended. The military has a lot more control over the behavior of their troops than my employer has over my behavior or my grandson's school has over his behavior, and a lot more lattitude when it comes to discipline. The UCMJ outlines a slew of options that are available to deal with actions that are in violation of policy.

The means to deal with this already exist, what's lacking is the will to deal with it.

quote:

And if you'll go back and read my post, you'll see that I point out the problem is with society and the still-prevalent homophobia throughout much of the country.


In 1993 when Don't Ask Don't Tell was passed, fewer than 40% of Americans considered homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle. According to recent Gallup polls, 57% of Americans - in the 18-34 age group, it's 75% - consider homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle. 69% of Americans feel that openly gay people should be able to serve in the military. Society's attitudes have changed substantially, it's the military that's way behind the curve.




Well, your perception of my argument is hilariously incorrect. Once again, I'm not blaming the victim. I'm stating a fact that I know from experience. I've met several individuals that would kill an openly homosexual male if they found out they were serving with one. By stating a fact, I am not condoning anything. That's like accusing me of condoning the genocide in Rwanda when I say, "Hey, it's wrong, and I don't agree with it, but it's still happening."

Yes, let's add sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination/diversity policies. Because that's worked so well in the civilian world. We can make all kinds of laws that essentially makes racism and sexism and any kind of "-ism" illegal, and all that will do is drive the hate below the surface. The gay basher that's fired for making anti-gay comments is still a gay basher. And again, you exaggerate the "control" that the armed forces has over the thinking processes of its soldiers.

We're essentially on the same side of this argument, you're just blaming the military, and I'm placing the blame on the parents and communities that instilled the anti-homosexual beliefs into people.




Starbuck09 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/10/2009 8:11:40 PM)

 I have to say I think Lazarus is making a fair point here MmeGigs. The military has a responsibility to train the men it commands to perform their job, but it is not within it's mandate [nor should it be] to teach and dictate what it's soldiers think. Prejudice needs to be stamped out in the community at large not an institution where people's beliefs have already crystalised.




Arpig -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/10/2009 9:32:43 PM)

And yet, in other countries, they seem to be able to overcome this problem....or are you seriously saying Argentina's population is more accepting of gays than the US?




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/10/2009 9:37:17 PM)

In some areas yes, and in other areas no. This is what was pointed out before. There are still very rural, and not so politcally correct or accepting areas in the US. It was just 15 years ago that I was walking with two friends, and we got jumped by some hillbillies that were out gay bashing. Only one of my friends were gay, we were just walking back from a party together, and they jumped all of us. Ever had your nose crushed with a baseball bat? There are still many that think like that. Is it right? No, but it just is.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

And yet, in other countries, they seem to be able to overcome this problem....or are you seriously saying Argentina's population is more accepting of gays than the US?




MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/11/2009 4:01:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Even if President Obama changed the Don' ask... policy, openly gay men and women would be open to charges under the UCMJ. 
quote:


“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.



That doesn't seem to apply just to gay folks.




lazarus1983 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/11/2009 4:18:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Even if President Obama changed the Don' ask... policy, openly gay men and women would be open to charges under the UCMJ. 
quote:


“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.



That doesn't seem to apply just to gay folks.


Nope, sure doesn't. It applies to everyone. What's your point?




MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/11/2009 4:41:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983
Well, your perception of my argument is hilariously incorrect. Once again, I'm not blaming the victim. I'm stating a fact that I know from experience. I've met several individuals that would kill an openly homosexual male if they found out they were serving with one. By stating a fact, I am not condoning anything. That's like accusing me of condoning the genocide in Rwanda when I say, "Hey, it's wrong, and I don't agree with it, but it's still happening."

Yes, let's add sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination/diversity policies. Because that's worked so well in the civilian world. We can make all kinds of laws that essentially makes racism and sexism and any kind of "-ism" illegal, and all that will do is drive the hate below the surface. The gay basher that's fired for making anti-gay comments is still a gay basher. And again, you exaggerate the "control" that the armed forces has over the thinking processes of its soldiers.


These are the same sort of arguments that were made regarding laws and policies against other sorts of discrimination. We still put the policies in place because it was the right thing to do - we understood that we couldn't keep telling the folks being shat upon that while we were sympathetic to their situation, they'd have to keep sucking it up until society's attitude toward them changed.

Anti-discrimination policies aren't about changing the way people think, they're about changing the way they behave. The gay-basher who lost the job is going to think twice about shooting its mouth off at it's next job, no? Other gay-bashers at that workplace are more likely to keep their opinions on homosexuals to themselves when they see that they could get fired for expressing them.

The military may not be able to change the way its soldiers think, but it has a heck of a lot of control over the way they behave.

quote:

We're essentially on the same side of this argument, you're just blaming the military, and I'm placing the blame on the parents and communities that instilled the anti-homosexual beliefs into people.


I'm not blaming the military, I'm blaming the people who are committing the violence. I feel that the military should do the same.




MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/11/2009 4:50:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983
quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
That doesn't seem to apply just to gay folks.

Nope, sure doesn't. It applies to everyone. What's your point?


That is isn't only gay folks who could be charged under that regulation. Het folks engage in the same sorts of "unnatural carnal copulation" that gay folks do. It appears that the military doesn't want anyone to have butt-sex. Or fuck animals.





lazarus1983 -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/11/2009 6:01:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983
Well, your perception of my argument is hilariously incorrect. Once again, I'm not blaming the victim. I'm stating a fact that I know from experience. I've met several individuals that would kill an openly homosexual male if they found out they were serving with one. By stating a fact, I am not condoning anything. That's like accusing me of condoning the genocide in Rwanda when I say, "Hey, it's wrong, and I don't agree with it, but it's still happening."

Yes, let's add sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination/diversity policies. Because that's worked so well in the civilian world. We can make all kinds of laws that essentially makes racism and sexism and any kind of "-ism" illegal, and all that will do is drive the hate below the surface. The gay basher that's fired for making anti-gay comments is still a gay basher. And again, you exaggerate the "control" that the armed forces has over the thinking processes of its soldiers.


These are the same sort of arguments that were made regarding laws and policies against other sorts of discrimination. We still put the policies in place because it was the right thing to do - we understood that we couldn't keep telling the folks being shat upon that while we were sympathetic to their situation, they'd have to keep sucking it up until society's attitude toward them changed.

Anti-discrimination policies aren't about changing the way people think, they're about changing the way they behave. The gay-basher who lost the job is going to think twice about shooting its mouth off at it's next job, no? Other gay-bashers at that workplace are more likely to keep their opinions on homosexuals to themselves when they see that they could get fired for expressing them.

The military may not be able to change the way its soldiers think, but it has a heck of a lot of control over the way they behave.

quote:

We're essentially on the same side of this argument, you're just blaming the military, and I'm placing the blame on the parents and communities that instilled the anti-homosexual beliefs into people.


I'm not blaming the military, I'm blaming the people who are committing the violence. I feel that the military should do the same.


Explain to me how they're not. The military isn't using this policy to protect would be homophobes, it's to protect and allow to serve homosexuals while giving them some kind of protection. So again, explain to me how the military is NOT blaming people that commit acts of violence against open homosexuals.

And you seem surprised about the UCMJ guidelines against sodomy. I thought you would be aware of that, before throwing around your vast knowledge of how the military can use the UCMJ to curb homophobia.




MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/12/2009 8:11:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983
quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
I'm not blaming the military, I'm blaming the people who are committing the violence. I feel that the military should do the same.


Explain to me how they're not. The military isn't using this policy to protect would be homophobes, it's to protect and allow to serve homosexuals while giving them some kind of protection. So again, explain to me how the military is NOT blaming people that commit acts of violence against open homosexuals.


Here you go - http://repositories.cdlib.org/isber/cssmm/cssmm09/ The military is demonstrably NOT using DADT to protect gay service members - open or closeted - and allow them to serve. Some snippets from the report.

quote:

Although each of the Services developed training plans regarding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in late 1999 or early 2000, a review by SLDN (Servicemembers Legal Defense Network) found that the training “rarely meets the standards set forth by the AHAP. The Army has come closest to meeting those guidelines. The Marine Corps openly acknowledged its training is inadequate. The Navy and Air Force have blatantly failed to meet the requirements altogether."

Moreover, according to SLDN, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell training often is conducted in a manner offensive to gay and lesbian service members. For instance,
• In Late August 1999, following the murder of Private Winchell, a Fort Campbell Army sergeant conducted a class on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Sergeant called the class a “fag briefing” and referred to gay soldiers as “fags.”
• During an Army equal opportunity training session in January 2003, instructors told anti-gay jokes, after which the unit commander asked “anyone who is gay to raise their hand if they felt offended by the jokes.”
• Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell training at the Judge Advocate General School in 2001 contained video clips demeaning gay people and including the word “faggot.”


quote:

Following the murder [of Private Winchell], Major General Robert Clark, the top of the chain of command at Fort Campbell, failed to hold accountable any person who engaged in or tolerated anti-gay harassment. One of the non-commissioned officers in Winchell’s unit whom the Pentagon labeled as “abusive” was merely “counseled” about “what was wrong with this leadership style,” given an opportunity to correct his behavior, and when he did not, was administratively transferred.

A climate of anti-gay hostility persisted after Winchell was killed. Graffiti featuring a picture of a baseball bat with the caption, “fag-whacker,” appeared in public places, a sergeant taught a class on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which he called a
“fag briefing,” and another sergeant forced soldiers to march to an anti-gay chant: “Faggot, faggot, down the street. Shot him, shot him, til he retreats.” The number of discharges under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy following Winchell’s murder increased
exponentially: In 2000 and 2001, respectively, 160 and 222 people were discharged from Fort Campbell under the policy, compared to 17 people in 1999.159 According to SLDN, “service members fled the base in an attempt to escape the environment Clark had created. They were literally running for their lives.”


quote:

The argument that the military’s policy is coherent because harassment is targeted as a violation of Don’t Ask might be persuasive if the military actually enforced violations of Don’t Ask or Don’t Harass. But the record is bare of evidence that Don’t Ask violations are punished, and as is demonstrated above, the same is true with respect to violations of Don’t Harass. Meanwhile, the military vigorously enforces violations of Don’t Tell, by discharging gay people from the military as soon as they reveal their sexual orientation. Nearly 10,000 people have been discharged in ten years of enforcing the policy, and the vast majority of these service members were fired because they stated they were gay. Thus, although the military might assert that it prohibits anti-gay harassment because such conduct constitutes hostile “asking” and/or leads to “telling,” the fact that the military only punishes the telling, and not the asking or the harassing that leads to the telling, undermines this claim.


This was in there, too -
quote:

In addition to impeding effective enforcement of the ban on anti-gay harassment, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy also hinders enforcement of the military’s prohibition on sexual harassment. Evidence indicates that the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy
excluding homosexual service members aggravates the incidence of sexual harassment because of “lesbian-baiting”; that is, the reporting of woman as lesbian if they refuse a harasser’s sexual advances or report sexual harassment. Commentators have suggested that lesbian-baiting, a form of sexual and sexual orientation harassment, explains why women are disproportionately targeted under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.


Whatever the intentions of DADT may have been, in practice it encourages discrimination and harassment.




LadyEllen -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/12/2009 8:46:22 AM)

Returning to the Sacred Band Of Thebes;

what do we think to the idea of a regiment or even a whole corps that was exclusively LGBT, rather than mixing people in as one?

it would then be obvious who was and who wasnt, and should a member of such a unit come to grief, he/she would have the support of many more from that unit, which must to some extent be a deterrent to homophobes?

it would then also be possible, through no doubt distinguished service in the field by such a unit, for the misperceptions about LGBT people to be shown to be false. in my view, soldiers et al being a rough bunch they would have to come to respect this unit, even if they didnt abandon entirely their views.

now I accept this is segregation - a touchy subject I realise, but going down that path - how did African Americans come to be in what were "whites only" front line units and how did the racism that was rife come to be resolved in that scenario? From what I recall reading of US units in WW2, black enlisted men were made up in their own units - providing the logistical side of things.

E




MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/12/2009 1:06:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
what do we think to the idea of a regiment or even a whole corps that was exclusively LGBT, rather than mixing people in as one?


I don't think that there's any situation to which "separate but equal" has been applied where things have actually worked out that way.

quote:

it would then also be possible, through no doubt distinguished service in the field by such a unit, for the misperceptions about LGBT people to be shown to be false. in my view, soldiers et al being a rough bunch they would have to come to respect this unit, even if they didnt abandon entirely their views.

now I accept this is segregation - a touchy subject I realise, but going down that path - how did African Americans come to be in what were "whites only" front line units and how did the racism that was rife come to be resolved in that scenario? From what I recall reading of US units in WW2, black enlisted men were made up in their own units - providing the logistical side of things.


It was 85 years between the formation of the first black regiment during the Civil War in 1863 and the racial integration of the armed forces in 1948. That first black regiment served with amazing valor, but black soldiers didn't become respected members of the military in those intervening years. Only 26% of Americans supported Truman's decision to integrate the military.

Segregation has never been a path to acceptance and respect.





rulemylife -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/12/2009 1:25:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

It appears that the military doesn't want anyone to have butt-sex. Or fuck animals.




Oh damn!

There goes my love life.

And Besse and I were engaged. 

She's the most beautiful hereford in the world.




MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (6/12/2009 1:41:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
It appears that the military doesn't want anyone to have butt-sex. Or fuck animals.


Oh damn!

There goes my love life.

And Besse and I were engaged. 


You can still love her, but it will have to be platonic.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875