Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Family Research Council says women can't serve in combat because they can't pee outdoors. No, seriously, they said that   (slate.com ) divider line
    More: Silly, Family Research Council, foreign policy  
•       •       •

9343 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jan 2013 at 3:44 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-28 04:12:22 PM  
13 votes:
Dear FRC, I peed outdoors for seven years. I also dug foxholes, shared tents with men and women (and even, occasionally, officers), got shot at, sweated and shed blood, marched countless miles with about half of my body weight on my back, gave up holidays, missed important events in loved ones' lives such as my father's 50th birthday party and funerals of several relatives, and only narrowly made it to the funeral of the grandfather with whom I lived and who raised me for several years, and due to the nature of my job, once saved an entire farking battalion because I was the only one who happened to notice the precarious situation they were about to find themselves in and quickly recommended to the COL that he consider giving orders to remove them from that situation while there was still time, before they were all slaughtered.

When you, FRC, do that as a "non-combat soldier," then you can tell me whether or not I should be serving my country in an official combat role--because news flash: we've been serving in combat for years, whether you decide to acknowledge it or not. But until you do even a fraction of what we women have done for our country in a "non-combat" role, FRC, shut the fark up you sniveling douchetards.
2013-01-28 03:24:41 PM  
9 votes:
Have these people never been to a festival?

Wait, of course they haven't.
2013-01-28 03:45:21 PM  
7 votes:

Bathia_Mapes: *facepalm*

Women can't pee outdoors? Really? You really believe that, Family Research Council?


To a certain, rather substantial proportion of the "Christian" "conservative" community, female anatomy is mysterious and scary.
2013-01-28 04:28:37 PM  
5 votes:

larrylboberry: When are they going to stop segregate genders in the Olympics?!

If women are equal they won't mind competing fairly!


It's not a question of competition. Combat service isn't determined by the top X% of physical performers. It's a single bar. If you're above it, you can serve in a forward area. If you're below it, you can't. Of course there will be less women that make that bar. Just like it's less common for someone who is Chinese to play in the NBA. But for those who have the natural gifts, or the skills and determination to overcome their initial disadvantages and make the grade - let them serve.
2013-01-28 03:58:06 PM  
4 votes:
According to Norway,  Sweden, Denmark, Finland and a whole host of other countries, not only are women perfectly suited for combat roles as we can indeed pee  outside, we can actually pee standing up. With enough practice, we can even write our names in the snow. So hand over the heavy weaponry and go hide behind yer mama's skirt, Nancy boys.

/wut?  I was raised  by Scandinavians
//we're special!
2013-01-28 03:52:46 PM  
4 votes:

Jument: If women are eligible to serve in combat, why aren't they eligible to be drafted to serve in combat?


Fair question.

If they're gonna be in combat, make them sign up for Selective Service at age 18, just like males do.

/Equality, Baby! It ain't only about getting the good stuff!
2013-01-28 03:48:36 PM  
4 votes:
Little known fact: Women did not exist before indoor plumbing.
2013-01-28 04:16:50 PM  
3 votes:

mark12A: One time I was bicycling home from work, under I-95, through the Philly sports complex. I saw one women, behind one of the I-95 support coluums, pants down, butt hanging out, squatting and peeing like a horse there on the tarmac.

Sorry Farkies, but women trying to pee in combat surroundings is a hell of a lot more complicated than guys whipping it out and squirting.

Women and gays in combat is monumentally stupid, but the PC brigade will get its way for now, and it will be goofy, scandalous, constantly newsworthy, will wreck countless military careers, and go on until we get into a real war, at which point women/gays in combat units will go away overnight as we get serious at fighting for national survival in what ever serious conflict we get into in the future.....


And there's where you tip your hand,  your arguments against women in combat have no substance to them but are convient "facts" cobbled together to support a forgone conclusion. How do I know?  Your incusion of gays gives the game away seeing as how Gays have served, with distinction in combat since the dawn of time.   The Spartans?  Boy-loving sodomites to a man,  it was a required part of their military training.   The Theban "Sacred Ban", the first military unit to defeat the Spartans in infantry combat and the only military unit Alexander the Great ever boasted of defeating?  Paired fighters who were also required to be lovers.   Alexander himself? a screaming bender.  I could go on, and on, and on, but you sir, whether you like it or not, are on exactly the same wrong side of history as those who swore that black lacked the mental capacity to be fighter pilots and tank-drivers and that integrating the troops was bound to lead to disaster.
2013-01-28 04:00:55 PM  
3 votes:

85blue: Good for women? It is a horrible idea. Hygiene issues aside what happens when someone gets pregnant on deployment?


Probably the same thing that happens now when a man has a medical issue that requires him to take a break from combat.
2013-01-28 03:54:01 PM  
3 votes:
Just what do you Christian fundamentalists think Jewish women did during the 40 years they supposedly wandered in the desert? You know, like in that story? It's near the beginning of that book you guys like to hold while you yell at gay people heading to a club or women going to the ob-gyn.
2013-01-28 03:51:57 PM  
3 votes:

Jument: If women are eligible to serve in combat, why aren't they eligible to be drafted to serve in combat?


Well since this ruling about women serving in combat just happened a few days ago I'm guessing the rules for drafting women will not be far behind.
2013-01-28 03:50:22 PM  
3 votes:
Wait until the Family Research council funds out that we're letting Negroes into integrated units!

Also did they hear that homosexuals can serve openly?
2013-01-28 03:48:13 PM  
3 votes:
If women are eligible to serve in combat, why aren't they eligible to be drafted to serve in combat?
2013-01-28 03:36:51 PM  
3 votes:
*facepalm*

Women can't pee outdoors? Really? You really believe that, Family Research Council?
2013-01-28 05:24:12 PM  
2 votes:

udhq: You liberals need to realize that sexuality is a part of human nature, and is ALWAYS going to be present when men and women share the same space unless they are teenagers who have signed and abstinence pledge.


Liberals have to realize this? I thought conservatives were the ones who didn't understand that concept. They're the ones who think abstinence-only is the magical method to keep people virgins.

jehovahs witness protection: Oh, and if you get captured...YOU GONNA GET RAPED.


Male soldiers get raped too. It's not about sex, it's about humiliation and dominance.

Next stupid argument.
2013-01-28 04:44:10 PM  
2 votes:

bluefox3681: Joe Scarborough made an interesting point the other day. He mentioned to Mika that she is in much better shape then him. However, in a firefight, he would be able to carry her around in need be. However, even though she was in better physical shape, there is no way that she could carry Joe out of dangers, since he weighed so much more than her.


Unsurprisingly, Morning CoffeeJoe is wrong.

Link
2013-01-28 04:41:08 PM  
2 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: As long as women have to be held to the same standards as men, it shouldn't matter. Only one in 500 will be up to par though.


I hear a lot of guys say that, but I wonder how many of them have something even approaching a realistic idea of A) what kind of shape you have to be in for combat and b) how womefully short they themselves personally fall short of that standard despite having a Y chromosome.

  Yet strangely history proves that on several occasions in our history we've been able to turn hundreds of thousands of desk workers and clerks and factory workers into the most feared combat force on the planet.   However did we do that I wonder?

Did we simply go through the population hand-selecting all the hidden Adonai among us and giving them guns, or, as crazy as it sounds, does the human body possess some heretofore unguessed ability to grow stronger and gain more endurance through repetitive physical activity?  And is it maybe just possible that we could somehow TRAIN this strange  human super-power through a specifically designed series of physical exercises?   Sorry, I know that's crazy-talk, I just got carried away
2013-01-28 04:25:07 PM  
2 votes:

larrylboberry: When are they going to stop segregate genders in the Olympics?!

If women are equal they won't mind competing fairly!


When will oranges start giving me apple juice when I squeeze them?
2013-01-28 04:16:10 PM  
2 votes:

bluefox3681: Joe Scarborough made an interesting point the other day. He mentioned to Mika that she is in much better shape then him. However, in a firefight, he would be able to carry her around in need be. However, even though she was in better physical shape, there is no way that she could carry Joe out of dangers, since he weighed so much more than her.

That is what this debate should be about. If women are going to (and it sounds like they already are) on the front lines, then they need to have the same PT standards that the men have. Creating a lower standard of physical requirements for women to serve reeks of political correctness and will make for a weaker military.


History shows again and again how women can be effective soldiers. And that was back before internal combustion engines. Banning women because of something so trivial as an arbitrary deadliftvis just grasping at straws.

They're already deployed. They're already in danger. This will just recognize it.
2013-01-28 04:08:18 PM  
2 votes:
Ever notice that the biggest hand-wringing ninnies that spout off about women in combat are men?
2013-01-28 03:55:42 PM  
2 votes:
Bathia_Mapes: " You really believe that, Family Research Council?"

Of course not. But they get paid to make a stink.
So they have to come up with *something*.
And the base that responds to their bullshiat *will* respond positively to two predictable forms of argument:

1.) sexist gender expectations.
e.g. women are dainty flowers that are: too physically weak, too mentally weak, too shy, too rape-provoking, etc.

2.) dog-whistling.
e.g. allowing women will necessarily be followed by lowered requirements: playing off that old "affirmative-action hire" boogeyman.
2013-01-28 03:52:52 PM  
2 votes:
Israel lets their women serve the front line and their army is arguably a lot tougher than ours. Israel can do no wrong in the eyes of many Republicans and anyone who speaks out against them is against "Judeo-Christian values" and therefore anti-American. But I guess this doesn't count?
2013-01-28 03:52:39 PM  
2 votes:
Anyone else ever notice how every single one of these objections to women serving in combat has already been proven wrong by the decade or so that we've let them be shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan?

At least when they were objecting to gays serving openly they could point to something that was actually going to change. They may as well be arguing that we can't take the chance on letting women drive or vote.
2013-01-28 03:50:53 PM  
2 votes:
Nothing called FaRC can be taken seriously....
2013-01-28 03:49:43 PM  
2 votes:
Thank god they don't poop.
2013-01-28 03:48:55 PM  
2 votes:

trotsky: /Who needs health class in the age of the internet?


Everybody at the Family Research Council.
2013-01-28 03:48:23 PM  
2 votes:
They should see my wife walking home after leaving the bar and a long subway ride... Their wrongness cannot be overstated.
2013-01-28 10:34:23 PM  
1 vote:

bluefox3681: Joe Scarborough made an interesting point the other day. He mentioned to Mika that she is in much better shape then him. However, in a firefight, he would be able to carry her around in need be. However, even though she was in better physical shape, there is no way that she could carry Joe out of dangers, since he weighed so much more than her.

That is what this debate should be about. If women are going to (and it sounds like they already are) on the front lines, then they need to have the same PT standards that the men have. Creating a lower standard of physical requirements for women to serve reeks of political correctness and will make for a weaker military.


Or maybe you don't know what you are talking about.
2013-01-28 10:15:22 PM  
1 vote:
So they just held it their whole lives up until the invention of indoor plumbing?
2013-01-28 08:41:37 PM  
1 vote:

gaspode: malaktaus: jehovahs witness protection: Oh, and if you get captured...YOU GONNA GET RAPED.

Three guys from my brigade got captured during my second deployment. We eventually found their bodies, or parts of them anyway. From what I gathered their deaths were probably something like the chainsaw scene in Scarface. Compared to that, what the hell is rape?

Yeah this is what always gets me about that argument.. if the kind of people you are fighting are the kind who will rape prisoners then they will do a LOT worse than rape prisoners(and will likely sexually assault/abuse male prisoners too.)


Kind of like how prisoners were raped at Abu Ghraib. By US soldiers.
2013-01-28 08:38:09 PM  
1 vote:

Great Janitor: I spoke to a soldier over the weekend who asked the question "If women are going to serve in combat, and supplies are often in short supply, sometimes to the point that a five day mission can last twelve, what about female combat soldiers and their menstrual needs?"

He also pointed out that if male soldiers are required to carry 80 lbs of equipment into the field, then the female troops should be required to carry the same amount of equipment and not have it where women carry less supplies and males carry a mixture of their supplies and female supplies.


Already been covered.

Also covered: 80 lbs is about the weight of a firefighter's gear, and women do that job. Women have been farming for, well, ever, and that takes some serious farking strength. Moreso before mechanization, but still does.

Not all women are delicate little flowers, you know.
2013-01-28 05:44:16 PM  
1 vote:

StaleCoffee: Precision Boobery: From the HOO-HA thread:

One of the biggest problems we had operationally was that women were constantly dehydrating. The reason was simply because they had no place to pee. Now think about this when it comes to military operations and how far you are removed from the comforts of modern conveniences and think "I can do anything!". Everywhere we went always drew a crowd, we would hope to stop at the side of the road, pull security, and allow females to pop a squat between two humvee doors with another female service member holding a sheet between the doors. The uncomfortablity of the situation led many females to the obvious conclusion that it was preferable to simply reduce drinking water. In 140 degree heat with 100% humidity this led to the obvious problem of dehydration and heat exhaustion, another reason why females always ditched their crew, equipment, and vehicles and simply headed back to their home as soon as we were back inside the wire, including officers, leaving men hours of work to deprep everything.

I've actually sat in mission briefings with females who argued to command, successfully, to reduce the time a proposed mission as they couldn't be outside the wire that long without urinating.

I'm generally all for equality but the profession of killing people in large numbers should not be one where modesty is more important than efficiency.

It's not like heterosexual-only military keeps guys honest, so that argument is sneer worthy. If stopping to take a piss impacts a mission like that, though.. some policy has to change, and if it's one aiming for equality she needs to keep hydrated and piss in a ditch like everyone else.


If the issue is that civilians are gathering around the soldiers (which is what the post sounds like--I'm assuming this was patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan?) and there was added risk to the soldiers in that a woman would be endangered by going off alone to squat in a corner where a man could just unzip; then the problem isn't that the woman has to squat, it's that she has to take down her whole uniform to do it. Any female cop knows it's a total hassle to have to undo your duty belt to have to piss.

A redesign of the uniform pants, so that a woman could undo the crotch of her pants and straddle, instead of having to drop her pants and squat, would pretty much end the whole "how will a woman pee in front of men" issue right here. I freely give this idea to anyone who wants to patent it and send it along to the Army.
2013-01-28 05:27:31 PM  
1 vote:
Girls can't pee outdoors? I have an awful lot of pictures and video that say otherwise.

It is not gonna be any different for a female soldier to pee than any gender of soldier to poop - aside from not having to be as picky about where to pee compared to where to poop.

As for people in this thread worrying over periods and even pregnancy, why not keep them on the pill constantly? Women can postpone periods indefinitely without any health consequence and also not get pregnant too.
2013-01-28 05:24:23 PM  
1 vote:

jehovahs witness protection: You have obviously never served in the armed forces, much less seen combat. I have. The requirements of female members in PT tests is only a fraction required by males.


Fun Fact: 1/1 is a fraction.  Besides, who farking cares?  If you can do the job, you can do the job.  If you can't, you can't.  Y or X shouldn't enter into the equation.
2013-01-28 05:17:56 PM  
1 vote:

hutchkc: kindms: Do women realize that if guys could basically give it all up, let them take care of making the money and stay home, most would do it in a heartbeat ?

I friggin would. Here it's all yours, have fun.


Women make up 47% of the workforce. So, your quest to find enough lazy housewives to hand the reins to: Good luck with that.
2013-01-28 04:58:54 PM  
1 vote:

Psycoholic_Slag: jehovahs witness protection: As long as women have to be held to the same standards as men, it shouldn't matter. Only one in 500 will be up to par though.

They will never get past the "kill the spider in the bathtub" phase of the testing.


I never considered myself military material, but hey, I just killed a spider in the bathtub over the weekend. What's the next phase, "not jumping onto furniture when seeing a mouse"? Or some other cliché from an early 1960s sitcom? Is Vitameatavegamin tolerance tested?
2013-01-28 04:51:58 PM  
1 vote:
How are women able to be firefighters, and carry men out of fires while wearing over 70 pounds of equipment, if they can't carry injured men out of a combat situation?
2013-01-28 04:50:11 PM  
1 vote:

pute kisses like a man: jehovahs witness protection: As long as women have to be held to the same standards as men, it shouldn't matter. Only one in 500 will be up to par though.

what exactly are these standards that are so tough?


I've been searching online for the info, but my Google Fu is weak today. I do recall reading a few years or so back (I believe it was) that the General in charge of the Iraq shenanigans at the time was saying that women were getting stronger  focus on core body strength in  their training because they needed  to  be able to lift an injured fellow  service member out of a burning tank or Bradley. I really wish I could find that article/interview because even though he didn't come right out and say it, the implication that women were already on the front lines and  that your girlfriend or wifey poo was gonna come home with six pack abs and probably able to kick your ass was incredibly amusing (and cool) to me. It was  also definitely  there.

Unless you've got scrawny little  girlie arms like me, the average female going for a combat role probably isn't in any worse shape than the average male CoD or WoW gamer dude going for the same type of role. We'd just have to work harder at it - something a lot of us are already used to doing. It's not enough  to be just as good  as a male for  a lot of things  women want  to do. We have to be better at it than many men, or it's not happening. 'Tis why some of us can be so ruthless.

/fear us. please?
2013-01-28 04:49:17 PM  
1 vote:
And there's where you tip your hand, your arguments against women in combat have no substance to them but are convient "facts" cobbled together to support a forgone conclusion. How do I know? Your incusion of gays gives the game away seeing as how Gays have served, with distinction in combat since the dawn of time. The Spartans? Boy-loving sodomites to a man, it was a required part of their military training. The Theban "Sacred Ban", the first military unit to defeat the Spartans in infantry combat and the only military unit Alexander the Great ever boasted of defeating? Paired fighters who were also required to be lovers. Alexander himself? a screaming bender. I could go on, and on, and on, but you sir, whether you like it or not, are on exactly the same wrong side of history as those who swore that black lacked the mental capacity to be fighter pilots and tank-drivers and that integrating the troops was bound to lead to disaster.

I love how this is constantly trotted out to justify gays in the military. IT IS NON-GERMANE. What happened in the distant past with a society that ultimately collapsed DOES NOT apply to our current situation.

However, MY present day experience with what I've encountered on Navy ships does apply. The heterosexual horse trading that goes on, the destruction of promising military careers caused by "Zipper Failure" is rampant and ignored by the MSM because it doesn't fit their PC narrative of a smoothly operating, culturally diverse and wonderfully perfect "Modern" military.

Adding gays into the mix will make it even worse. When they were not allowed, they kept their behaviour to themselves. With them in the open, they will be pair bonding and that's when all the conflict, favoritism, jealousy all comes pouring out and crapping up the workplace. Happens with male/female heteros onboard, WILL happen with gays.

Adding sex into modern, technological combat environments is a distraction that will cost lives, and ultimately battles. This pathetic belief that "training" will prevent misbehaviour is every bit as misguided as the Soviets were when they thought lifelong indoctrination/education would produce the "New Soviet Man" who would work selflessly for the greater glory of the Motherland.

Didn't work. You can't change human nature.

Like I said, this gays/women in combat crap will be blow away as soon as we get into a real shooting war.
2013-01-28 04:48:24 PM  
1 vote:
Pregnancy and hygiene: long term contraceptive injections. No periods, little chance of pregnancy, reversible.

And all things being equal, punish the male soldiers as well when pregnancy occurs. It takes two to get pregnant, if you treat the male the same, send him home, discipline him, the incidences would be reduced. Just saying. Also, unless a woman gets pop in her urethra, and has no access to menstrual supplies, hygiene is relative. Women in combat will stink just as men do. So what...
2013-01-28 04:39:28 PM  
1 vote:
Gen. Boykin's argument boils down to this: you have to have a penis to be a combat soldier. Women don't have penises, therefore, women can't be combat soldiers.

Ironically, Gen. Boykin's very existance disproves his argument.
2013-01-28 04:28:40 PM  
1 vote:
The Family Research Council is in a weird spot on this one. On one hand, their BFF Israel has allowed women in combat roles since, like, forever, and nobody has ever faulted the IDF for being too soft. On the other hand, Jesus gets sad when women are empowered to the point where they're not subservient and barefoot in the kitchen. On the third hand (this metaphor has a genetic mutation) their menstruation will attract bears, killing the women outright, and this problem rights itself.
2013-01-28 04:21:33 PM  
1 vote:
When are they going to stop segregate genders in the Olympics?!

If women are equal they won't mind competing fairly!
2013-01-28 04:21:27 PM  
1 vote:

bluefox3681: Creating a lower standard of physical requirements for women to serve reeks of political correctness and will make for a weaker military.


Yes. But conversely baring people from serving even if they meet the physical requirements reeks of gender discrimination and will make a for a weaker military. And that's what we're currently doing, so it's probably worth a second look.

/ Also, having standards actually related to the job seems worthwhile
2013-01-28 04:15:23 PM  
1 vote:

sigdiamond2000: mark12A: One time I was bicycling home from work, under I-95, through the Philly sports complex. I saw one women, behind one of the I-95 support coluums, pants down, butt hanging out, squatting and peeing like a horse there on the tarmac.

Sorry Farkies, but women trying to pee in combat surroundings is a hell of a lot more complicated than guys whipping it out and squirting.

Women and gays in combat is monumentally stupid, but the PC brigade will get its way for now, and it will be goofy, scandalous, constantly newsworthy, will wreck countless military careers, and go on until we get into a real war, at which point women/gays in combat units will go away overnight as we get serious at fighting for national survival in what ever serious conflict we get into in the future.....

You bicycle to work? What are you, some kind of communist?


Sounds about as hard as pooping in a combat situation. Which happens all the farking time, really.
2013-01-28 04:14:06 PM  
1 vote:
I've figured it out. These people have never met, talked to, or interacted with any woman in any way shape or form.

Explains a lot, really.
2013-01-28 04:10:19 PM  
1 vote:
I'm Canadian, so I'm getting a kick out of this.

Canada has allowed women to fill combat roles for 20 years. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/25/women-filled-8-3-of-canadas-co mbat-positions-in-afghanistan-study/
2013-01-28 04:08:31 PM  
1 vote:

85blue: Good for women? It is a horrible idea. Hygiene issues aside what happens when someone gets pregnant on deployment?


The same way it's handled now. Lot of women were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

If they can exceed the physical and mental bars set in training and by regulation, let them go. Yes, it's "rare" to find women with the physical capabilities for forward combat. For those that can perform, they should be allowed to go. Banning an entire demographic because they are statistically less likely to make the mark is beyond ignorance.

They want to fight for their country, let them fight for their country. Just like we let non-whites, homosexuals, and everyone else who wants to fight. This is just another silly barrier put up by those on the wrong side of history.
2013-01-28 04:08:21 PM  
1 vote:

mark12A: One time I was bicycling home from work, under I-95, through the Philly sports complex. I saw one women, behind one of the I-95 support coluums, pants down, butt hanging out, squatting and peeing like a horse there on the tarmac.

Sorry Farkies, but women trying to pee in combat surroundings is a hell of a lot more complicated than guys whipping it out and squirting.


So, just to sum up: You once saw a woman peeing in public without needing a toilet, and you submit this experience as proof that women are incapable of peeing without a toilet. Did I get that right?
2013-01-28 04:07:10 PM  
1 vote:
Joe Scarborough made an interesting point the other day. He mentioned to Mika that she is in much better shape then him. However, in a firefight, he would be able to carry her around in need be. However, even though she was in better physical shape, there is no way that she could carry Joe out of dangers, since he weighed so much more than her.

That is what this debate should be about. If women are going to (and it sounds like they already are) on the front lines, then they need to have the same PT standards that the men have. Creating a lower standard of physical requirements for women to serve reeks of political correctness and will make for a weaker military.
2013-01-28 04:06:21 PM  
1 vote:

DeathCipris: JohnAnnArbor: I once saw a product that was a little disposable paper triangle/cone that was intended to allow ladies to use urinals.

The she-wee! It was on Top Gear!

Srsly


namegoeshere: Of course they can! Just start making these in camo.


No. The best is the Freshette (aka the portable penis). Link You can actually aim it and write your name in the snow.
2013-01-28 04:05:35 PM  
1 vote:
I love this guy. First he argues that field conditions are such that soldiers sometimes go for weeks without bathing, then claims that having women on the field may distract male soldiers with their sexiness.
2013-01-28 04:05:08 PM  
1 vote:

nickerj1: One of his many arguments is that women require a higher level of personal hygiene than men. And that maintaining that level of hygiene may be impossible out in the battlefield where supplies may be limited or there is prolonged fighting. (I.E., you may not have any tampons for your period).


Got it covered.
2013-01-28 04:03:55 PM  
1 vote:

HotIgneous Intruder: One word: PREGNANT.

That is all. Carry on.


One word: PROSTATE CANCER / KICKED IN THE NUTS.

That is all. Carry on.
2013-01-28 04:03:28 PM  
1 vote:
Um, Family Research Council? TheOne solution is right here:

us-f2-edit.store.yahoo.com
2013-01-28 03:58:42 PM  
1 vote:
The author sounds unfamiliar with female genitalia. I'd love to here his thoughts on regulating female reproductive health.
2013-01-28 03:58:22 PM  
1 vote:
I think they meant to say that women can't pee on doors.

/if a woman wants to go into combat, let her.
2013-01-28 03:57:11 PM  
1 vote:
Good for women? It is a horrible idea. Hygiene issues aside what happens when someone gets pregnant on deployment?
2013-01-28 03:56:46 PM  
1 vote:

God Is My Co-Pirate: Have these people never been to a festival?

Wait, of course they haven't.


I used to work as a bus boy for a college bar.  From personal experience I can tell you women will piss anywhere they goddamn feel like it.  Drunk women also have a truly obnoxious habit of playing with poop.  Never once did I have to clean shiat off a stall wall in the men's room.  It was a weekly occurrence in the women's room.
2013-01-28 03:54:32 PM  
1 vote:

JohnAnnArbor: I once saw a product that was a little disposable paper triangle/cone that was intended to allow ladies to use urinals.


The she-wee! It was on Top Gear!

Srsly
2013-01-28 03:50:13 PM  
1 vote:
I once saw a product that was a little disposable paper triangle/cone that was intended to allow ladies to use urinals.
2013-01-28 03:49:50 PM  
1 vote:

God Is My Co-Pirate: Have these people never been to a festival?

Wait, of course they haven't.


Shouldn't you? It's almost the Red Hour.
lochgarry.files.wordpress.com

/back to the shadows again
//where an indian's always your friend
///where the vegetables are green
////and...
2013-01-28 03:49:47 PM  
1 vote:
Someone doesn't understand this design:
idolexpress.com
2013-01-28 03:49:38 PM  
1 vote:
2013-01-28 03:47:05 PM  
1 vote:
Is Family Research Council attempting to be a comedy troupe like Second City?

Cuz damn, they're pretty hilarious.
2013-01-28 03:46:45 PM  
1 vote:
Issue them driver's buddies. Problem solved.
2013-01-28 03:46:42 PM  
1 vote:
Wow... I didn't know the Family Research Council has such a pull with who can and cannot fight in combat.
2013-01-28 03:44:58 PM  
1 vote:
Oh hey, they're attacking non-gays. This is one of the anti-gay family organizations, right? They're so many of them, I lose track.
2013-01-28 03:25:31 PM  
1 vote:
Why are they against US defense?
 
Displayed 69 of 69 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report