She looks like she could handle in incoming attack without problems.  Nice to know the ladies are out there fighting for us also... service sure has changed since I had the pleasure.
Don't understand the uproar over the pix in Playboy.
Unless the Pentagon thinks it will distract the troops from the mission at hand.  Actually, kinda gives the boys a reason to join.

the Muslims think everything including cold oatmeal is pornographic and a blaspheme to their god of blood-lust “Allah”. Promoting and publicizing a highly fuckable female fighting machine in service to the Judeo-Christian alliance in the thick of this poli-sci-oil war merely exacerbates already hot button cultural differences and issues.  
If the Pentagon would grow some hair and ignore the PC sensitivity bullshit and get down to the business of annihilating a long documented threat to civilization they would sardonically have her as the one who pushes the button launching a thermo nuclear attack that makes Fat Man & Little Boy look like fireworks at a church barbecue.

Got marshmallows???






-- Modified on 1/14/2007 6:18:59 AM

As a female veteran, I am PISSED as hell over what this bitch did. She set every female in the military back a decade. Women in the military have enough bullshit to deal with and get through as it is, they don't need some dumb bimbo like this fueling the stereotypes that abound in the military.

I remember very well going though "apprentice training" - with 100 other women in my class alone, and maybe 1 or 2 men total in the entire program. Apprentice training was a churn program. You didn't go to an A school, you didn't get training. You learned enough about working on a flight deck to avoid getting sucked into a jet engine, and then sent to the fleet. Two years later, you were out of the military. It was a program designed for women. Men never went for it. I had an ASVAB of 99. My recruiter never even suggested an A school, although I qualified for any A school a woman could enter. Actually, that's not completely true. Due to a typo in my name, he was under the impression that I was a man until I showed up in his office. When I walked in that first day to meet him, he had pamphlets sitting on his desk for the nuclear program. His disappointment was clear and he laughed off his mistake as he quickly cleared away the pamphlets - women can't be nuclear techs because it is a considered a combat rating. I went from being a potential candidate to be a nuclear tech to a candidate for being an unrated apprentice in the milisecond it took him to realize I wasn't a man.

When I arrived at my first duty station as a recruit, along with three other ladies fresh out of boot camp, we learned that there was a betting pool - on who would bang one of us first, and which lady it would be. I can't recall how many times I was reminded that women were originally called WAVES (women accepted for voluntary enlisted service)....and that men in the Navy do love to enlist so they can ride the WAVES.

My days working in the line shack were delightfully filled with daily tirades from Rodriguez, our supervisor, as he expounded on his belief that women belonged barefoot and pregnant. It was a personal affront to him that he had to supervise a bunch of women. Numerous complaints about him fell on deaf ears.

Then of course there was the work. We ladies worked our asses off, did what was required of us, and quite simply had to work twice as hard to be thought half as good.

Women in the military encounter on a daily basis stereotypes, mistrust, double standards, and intolerance. The very last thing in the world they need is some dumb bimbo like this confirming most men's beliefs, and giving them the idea that every woman who joins the service is just like her. Court martial her, than SLAP her for being such a dumb bitch.

PS. Just in case there is any confusion, in spite of my experiences, I am damned proud to have served, loved what I did in the Navy, would do it again in a milisecond, and believe without a doubt that some of the most important life lessons I have learned as the direct result of my service in the military. Enlisting was the best decision I ever made. That doesn't change the fact though, that I and the other ladies in my squadron encountered blatant (and sometimes not so blatant) sexism on a daily basis.

*Note, my ASVAB was 97, not 99. Sorry for the typo.

-- Modified on 1/14/2007 10:48:43 AM

She is definitely on my MILF list.

I think he was referring to the bimbo in the pics regarding MILF.

I have to make a correction though...the 99 was a typo sorry! My ASVAB was 97 not 99. That still put me in the top 5%, but not quite the highest, and still high enough to have qualified me for any A school the Navy offered

Didn't realize I'd typo'd til I read your post. Have to go back and correct the original.

At any rate, thanks so much for your kind words. At least one person gets it - thank goodness.

-- Modified on 1/14/2007 11:23:21 AM

1st, has she committed an offense?  If she's still in, there's probably some reg they could get her on.  Maybe more to the point, NCOs should know not to let it all hang out.

In civil life, it's an entirely different situation - ideas or pictures or any expression is within the 1st amendment, until it's inciting a riot; and that's the way it has to be as long as we want a nation of people who are responsible for themselves - as opposed to needing to be fed ideas.

I admire and appreciate your ability and dedication.  That's where I was about 30 years earlier, though male and commissioned.

The problem is that the military is a team, and it doesn't exist for the purpose of gender relations.  It exists for the purpose of national defense, and IMHO, it shouldn't be doing anything else.  It's not a pleasant job, and killing people should not be something anybody aspires to, but done only when absolutely necessary.  

There were plenty of assholes of many stripes under my command that I would rather not deal with, but we had to be concerned with the mission, 1st last and always.  If I were to separate out every man who had eyes for or delusions about the woman next to him, or even just enough to pacify the unit, we'd never get the job done.

As far as I know, I kept things at arm's length between the men and women, but that was possible because there wasn't a lot of integration - there were separate WM companies, and women were not expected to be gun bunnies, who could sling 95lb rounds all day long.  Sure there are some who might, and as worthy as they might be, I could not take the chance of having them among the troops, because I had no way of knowing who would cause trouble about it, and for me to think that I could just feed them all a bunch of saltpeter so I could get a couple more good PFCs is deluded.   You can't isolate gender relations; it's built into being human.

Another time and world, it might work.  I think the solution for now has to be to either suck it up on the theory that life is tough all over, or keep them far enough apart to minimize the conflicts.  

IMHO, one does not need to fill a particular billet or expose onself to fire to be outstanding - Eisenhower never served in a combat billet, and yet there are few men more important to this country.

My guess is, she'll get a COG discharge, and the bad thing is, that may be exactly what she wants.   It's damned hard to compete with the kind of money and attraction Playboy can offer, and dimwits like Bush who piss away people's lives make it worse.

but if ya'll want to put your money where your mouth is, (1) don't vote for CinCs who get people killed needlessly because they don't know WTF they're doing, and (2) get behind people and ideas like Jim Webb's renewal of the GI bill http://www.webbforsenate.com/press/release.php?id=64
so there's something real behind the thought.

If a beefy, hunky male serviceman appeared in some beefcake magazine, would the Pentagon take the same attitude with that as they are with Sgt. Manhart?

Me thinks not.  That's a double standard, and that is not right.

The target of your message is unclear --- just what here classifies as "high tea"?  No one is forcing to read messages that don't interest you --- unless your entire objective is to publish off-the-wall comments like yours here.

As a veteran myself of 20 years, she did more harm to her career than the AF will do. If she stay in she will be ridicule for the rest of her career, not respected by her co-workers or peers. The AF is still a close-knit society who play by their own rules. Her best option is to leave now or it will be hell for her going forward.

depending on how much attention it drew.

The brass don't like the attention, and only act on dipshit like this when it gets a high profile, and they have to - so when every PFC who can get to a terminal is drooling at this - or retching at the guy in the fag mag - their hand is forced.

Your thinking there is a double standard doesn't create one.  Believe it or not, the field grade who get these things done have real problems they would rather be dealing with.

Well, excepting the REMFs.

I'm glad I kept reading the thread.  You had me confused and stirred up with your first post.

I have the utmost respect for all our brave military personnel.  It takes a special breed to do what they are doing in war or peace.  I had actually been selected to attend the Air Force Academy but decided it wasn't for me.  So I know the commitment it takes to be in the service.

But anyone who poses for Playboy has to be expecting (and desiring) the reaction I had.  So "the bimbo" stays on my list.  

-- Modified on 1/14/2007 5:03:24 PM

No disrespect here, but I feel this is exactly the poster child the services need to demonstrate the capabilities of women in service. Lets face it they can do it all.
And respectfully when I took the armed services vocational aptitude battery it was the easiest test I had ever taken. I remember more difficult quizzes in high school. I aced it all 3 times I took it in 1980. And most candidates recieved the answers ahead of time.

Also IMHO it's not for sure she'll strike it that big if she voluntarily decided to leave and head for the entertainment industry.  

I think one of the main fantasies derived from these pics is that this is a woman/MILF who ACTUALLY IS an officer in the military!  Taking that away, what is her competitive advantage?  

Either way, I wish her luck moving forward (and why lie.....I also thank her for giving us this little something for the eyes to feast on!).

Military?  The Army, Navy and Marines, I respect. The AF, get Real! They have contractors set up their air conditioned GP tents.  That is why they have time to pose for playboy.

Isn't this post and several others on this thread on the wrong board?  There is board called
"Politics and Religion". Just look at the top left of the page, third board down!

I think she looks hot no matter what she does for a living.

just my 2 cents and keep the change.

There's nothing in the UCMJ that covers this.  At least not what I can find or remember.  Should there be?  What would the charge be?  

I served as a non-com in the Navy myself, and I saw all of the reprehensible conduct you're describing.  As a male, I wasn't on the receiving end of it, but believe me, I was disgusted with all of it.  I isolated myself quite a bit because of my views.

Is it your belief that the gender inequality in the Navy can be corrected through women keeping a tighter lid on their sexuality?  I'm skeptical that this can ever work in favor of women. Sexual games that you describe are about gaining power over women with sex as a "fun" tactic.  I don't see how women retreating from their sexuality could possibly help them.  To take it to extremes, they can retreat behind burkas.  Now that's really demonstrated to help women's equality.    

You might consider posing in a magazine is far different than simply having a sex life that gets the upper hand over the attacks.

It is here that this gets hypothetical.  It depends on whether the display strengthens or reduces power for her; if it strengthens it, does it then do so at the expense of other women in the military?  

IMO it gains personal status for her, since there is a certain power to gaining national recognition this way.  She said that she has always wanted to pose in Playboy, so she perceives it that way, too.  The pictures do not show her under duress or "compromised."  If anything, her will in the matter is clear.  I don't think proudly displaying herself in these pictures can be detrimental to informal power or formal rank-- for her.    

So, does this display, then, gain it at the expense of other women?  I don't know.  No doubt that's the way women like yourself perceive it.  IMO, it doesn't give the pigs any sop that they don't already have.  

Another question: why should you feel like it undermines you?  Women are more than 50 percent of the human population; how could anybody expect that you have much in common with that many people?  

You fear that other military people will judge you for being like her or being not like her.  Why should you give in to the comparison even being made?  Help the group under siege, but also fight against the perception that it should be grouped.

If you think about it, the main issue of sex concerning gender equality is in using sexual harassment or sexual attacks to undermine women's wills, including their wills to power.   Sexual attack is only a tactic.  

For example: the fact that they were taking bets on who would bang one of you first was pretty much implied that none of you would have a will in the matter.  It let you know you were under siege, and, as those pigs would say.  Abandon all hope; resistance is useless.

So I'm saying: it's not as bad as you think; it's probably not bad at all,  and it's definitely not criminal.  

-- Modified on 1/14/2007 10:34:06 PM

For all your belly-aching about sexism and oppression from said in the military; you and your sisters on this board are turning a tidy profit from the time honored exploitation of the natural imbalance of libidinous desire between the sexes.
IMO it’s a bit hypocritical to rail against someone’s sexual self exploitation only too make profit from the same in a different venue.

I support her both in and out of uniform.

and finding a woman attractive - puts her in the drivers seat... as to who and when she will do what with....   chill dude... go see Borat... that movie was made for ya.

anyone made this lady pose.  but imagine that in the "society" that we are helping reestablish itself (namely Iraq) after we leave women won't even be allowed to drive a car... or leave home without "a man"!  lol!

I have known several women who could whup butt.  and occasionally do.  would I rather my daughter be a nun or a nice lady who is fortunate enough to have the looks good enough to pose for playboy... assuming that all else in her life is equal?  I'll take the playmate image any day - if all else is equal...

too bad the military can't quite get the sex thing right.

As retired Air Force I take great offense at this attitude.

I know many folks who deployed to the field in Iraq.  Not a single one of them stayed in GP tents set up by contractors.  None of them had air conditioning.  They slept in the same tents as everybody else, and endured the same heat/cold as everybody else.

These are the men and women who went out and fixed planes and equipment when it was 120 degrees outside.    The servicemembers who loaded and unloaded planes full of equipment, wounded, and BODIES.

As for whether this young woman should be in any trouble, the answer is YES.  You don't do stuff like this then involve the armed services.  If she wanted to do this and NOT say who she worked for it would be different.  The implication here, however, is that the Air Force condones her action which it certainly does not.

She is guilty of Conduct Unbecoming.  It also appears as if the Air Force condones her behavior, which it does not.

If I participate in a rally in full uniform, it makes it appear as if the Air Force agrees with the position of that rally.  If I state I'm in the Air Force and this is what I believe, it amounts to the same thing.  Both are against the rules and can result in disciplinary and possibly UCMJ actions.  That is what she is guilty of.

Conduct unbecoming, I thought, is applied to commissioned officers-- which she is not.  Now, maybe I'm wrong and I don't have time to check.  If conduct unbecoming were applied to the enlisted ranks they wouldn't be able to keep them filled.  

If the sexual pictures involved combining the uniform, or a partial uniform with civie clothes, I could see this.  Dogtags don't qualify as a uniform.  They had a separate pictures of her in full uniform, and there is nothing unbecoming about that.

Second, participating in political rallies is covered specifically by another article in the UCMJ, not conduct unbecoming.  This is not a political rally, so it wouldn't apply.

They already relieved her of duties.  The Air Force has the right to do that regardless of the UCMJ.  I might like or dislike the fact that they did it, but the military has a complete right to make a non-judicial ruling on that.  I think that's a signal that they don't condone it and good enough to send that message.

Lastly, if they took her to court martial, I think they know that they might be chagrined by the outcome.  

Conduct unbecoming applies to all, not just officers, and officers are no better behaved than enlisted.

The fact that she appeared in uniform in a skin rag is enough for her to be relieved and be charged with conduct unbecoming.  By doing so it sends the message that the service condones it, whether she explicitly says it or not.

Understand the basic point I'm getting at:  she is guilty of conduct unbecoming because of associating the Air Force with a nudie mag, not for appearing in it.  If she was in it, not in any uniform or in any way mentioning the service, then I have no problems.

on this board. If you like to discuss the merits of the Air Force I be happy to, on the Politics board. Perhaps, you can dissuade my biased perceptions, as they are. I will listen.
Respectfully.

-- Modified on 1/17/2007 7:33:46 PM

No pun intended, this definitely doesn't cover her:

"933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Not conduct unbecoming, definitely, but it would be covered by the next article:

"934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."
 
So, she might go to court martial on the general article.

If you ask me, I think a prosecutor general would be looking into it now.  It would be interesting to see if they bring it to court-martial.  However, think of the challenges here: 1) they have to prove that it's bad for good order and discipline (is it?) or 2) they have to prove that it brings discredit to the Air Force (does it?)  I could see arguments on these two points getting very sticky.  You don't know how either of those points could be proved or disproved.  It's hardly open and shut.   What if it is demonstrated that it raises recruiting?    

IMO, I don't think a prosecutor general would want to take this case to court.  What could come of a ruling like that?  If Playboy is ruled shameful by the service, then will they have to prosecute guys reading it, or reading any other nudie magazine in the service?  They'd have to somehow be even-handed about it regarding genders.  

Now, if the ruling goes against the prosecutor, it could be more embarrassing than the original offense.  

I think the Air Force will take a pass on this one and just settle for relieving her of duty.  About the way they do with gays currently.

PS: I have no idea what you mean by "skin rag."  Is that just anything green in color?  I'm thinking that it's been adjudicated what does and does not constitute a partial uniform.  I'm thinking that she probably read those regulations very carefully before she did this.  

I've looked on the internet for the pictures, and I'm not certain I've seen them all.  I don't know what you mean by the term.    

First I admit ignorance on the matter of this young AF Sergeant's case. So my question is:

Do you know if a superior officer gave a direct order not to pose for Playboy?

-- Modified on 1/18/2007 12:22:52 AM

No way the military would tolerate disobeying a direct order.  No way it should.  If she did that, we'd already be hearing about court-martial now, because that's a separate charge under the UCMJ.  The Air Force would have no choice, and she would go down-- easily.

"Skin Rag" is slang for a nudie magazine.

Will this go to courts-martial?  Doubtful.  I do think it could easily be and Article 15 offense (non-judicial offense).  I have seen people busted under Article 15 for buying something on their Government Credit Card while not on TDY or traveling, even though they paid it off immediately.  

If somebody can be dragged down for that, why would they go easy on somebody who brought the Air Force into a nudie mag?  That would be a slam-dunk Article 15 offense, maybe resulting in loss of pay/rank, or a suspended bust.