The Army: Be the Best

Also, to address your point, most of us manage to get along in workplaces with people who we could theoretically stand to have sexual relations with, without getting jiggy in the stationery cupboard.

In the office environment you're not living with people and watching them shower, undress etc

Why must everything come down to fecking homophobia when it is nothing of the sort, and I'm not even saying where I stand on this only putting down a question that I have heard (gosh) gay people and straight people discuss.

Actually. no.

xpost innit

-- Liz :x (lizd4ply...), January 6th, 2005.

This is just naive really isn't it? Put me around 19 naked women and expect me to live, and get to know them, and eventually something is likely to stir for someone (not to mention showering with them - of course I'm going to fucking look).

I was part of a dance troup (total amateur, me that is. They were pros). Part of it is being in close proxim with each other. Girls were not mingers. Guys were not gay. Admittedly showering was not involved, but dressing/undressing was, obviously. Result was, we did not get off with each other (although no doubt the punters thought we were having group orgies all the time).

Anyhow. Showering is showering. 'Perving' happens in private...

Proving once again that you are an immature tosser. Bored now.

Wow!

I know someone in a dance troupe!

Well I don't really know you. But hey!

Dance troupe!

Cool beans!

Were you called "Hot Legs"?

To be fair, I probably would too. The question of whether or not I'd react is a different one; I don't know, it's a very unlikely hypothetical.

xpost we were called "The H3lik3rn3s Dance Group" (3 = a)

No, but we have met. It counts for me.

I think Calum has an entirely pr0n-film-centric view of communal showers. He should think more about mould growing between the tiles.

I'm waiting for his "If you go to the gym you must secretly be a poof" thread eagerly. OK, the last word there was a lie.

Should we stop communal showering in high school? I don't know. It's not quite the same is it? You have a choice to shower in high school, but in the army you are living and showering with people. Christ, why must this come down to perving?

it's probably time you stopped doing that yes, it's been years since graduation after all

(communal showering wasn't really an issue at school for me as no-one really bothered after P.E. - god we were filthy boys)

I cannot see why you don't seem to comprehend that there is a sexual element to being in a shower with the opposite sex/ same sex (depending on your orientation). Otherwise, hate to break it to you, we wouldn't seperate toilets into male/ female or showers into male/ female. That we do indicates the majority of us would be UNCOMFORTABLE otherwise.

I've had this discussion before and only on good old ILX could it break down to, "This is unique, you're just a perv who thinks that we're all sexual creatures God forbid, with desire and eyes too... eeew!"

Please, Stevem, I'm still hurting.

I think toilets are seperated more to do with sanitation and stench and privacy than the fact that the thought of someone of the opposite sex shitting or possing makes us into ravenous sex beasts.

But you know, if coprophilia is your bag, then that's OK. Just try not to fuck my shit while I'm getting it out, OK? I'll put it in a bag for you if you ask.

It always comes back to male genitalia doesn't it...

Problem: To work out instances of pervation that occurs during an army shower with 19 men.

Assumptions:
1. Each army soldier is a homosexual
2. Each army soldier is a slut who would perve on every other men
3. The army soliders are not so vain that they'd perve on themselves
4. Each army solider is however very kinky and would fantasise group sex, with every permutation and size of group up to all 19 men together.
5. The army soldiers are so unimaginative, that, they will only form exactly one fantasy on any one soldier/soldier group combination.
6. The army soldiers are so self centred, that, no fantasies happen in third-person i.e. the soldier himself is always involved in the act. and also that no spectator is involved in any of the sex fantasies.

-----
Base case: twosome fantasies

each of the 19 men will have 18 different fantasies, one with each other man.

therefore, fantasies formed = 19 x 18 = 342

--------------------
Group sex fantasies: For a group sex fantasy of any size x, the number of other soldiers involved will be x-1 (e.g. for a group sex session involving 3 soldiers, there will be two other soldiers involved - see assumption 6.) let this number be k.

therefore the permutations of all group sex fantasies inside each soldier's mind would be

18! / [k! . (18 - k)!]

i.e. the permutations of picking n soldiers from any of the 18 other soldiers.

and so the total number of fantasies for all 19 soldiers of group sex of a particular size k would be

19 . {18! / [k! . ( 18 - k)! ]}

e.g. for a fantasy of group size 4, the number would be

19 x [18! / 3! x 15!] = 15504.

so..

The total number of fantasies, of all group sizes, for all soldiers would be

19 x 18 + 19 x [18!/(2! x 16!)] + 19 x [18!/(3! x 15!)] + 19 x [18!/(4! x 14!)] + 19 x [18!/(5! x 13!)] + 19 x [18!/(6! x 12!)] + 19 x [18!/(7! x 11!)] + 19 x [18!/(8! x 10!)] + 19 x [18!/(9! x 9!)] + 19 x [18!/(10! x 8!)] + 19 x [18!/(11! x 7!)] + 19 x [18!/(12! x 6!)] + 19 x [18!/(13! x 5!)] + 19 x [18!/(14! x 4!)] + 19 x [18!/(15! x 3!)] + 19 x [18!/(16! x 2!)] + 19 x [18!/(17! x 1!)] + 19

the final 19 being each of the nineteen soldiers having a fantasy of a group sex involving all 19 people.

I can't be bothered plugging that to the calculator.. anyone want to work this out?

Straight women or gay women? Following c*l*m's logic surely straight women would still be copping an eyeful of teh cock? And the gay men would still be ogling each other?

I'm still waiting for a confirmation by him of that (all he's said to date is that they apply equally).

P.S. I'm honest enough to say I'm uncomfortable showering with ANYONE except the person I'm dating.

seeing as it's none of my business i couldn't give a shite either way. i'm surprised you seem to. i like the expression 'gay fellow' tho.

footballers and rugby players actually take baths together (or used to at least, perhaps it's lost favour) so we should really be discussing that as there is more potential for 'incident' - you'd be amazed at how so little bubble bath can cover up so much anonymous/accidental touching (whose hand is it anyway?)

(Debbie does Dallas to thread)

If you're saying, Calum, that people shouldn't be naked together in a room with people of the gender they habitually fancy, then ok. But why not SPECIFICALLY?

I'd be curious to see some of the figures on this. Most studies have shown this is a US problem and not a UK one (such as those by Lees, Gillespie and The Home Office for the UK; and Human Rights Watch {who went yet further and drew racial conclusions too} and Michael Scarce in the US), as far as I have read. Even in some of the most extreme UK circumstances such as Deepcut there are "only" 9 rape cases involved in the 7 year period of controversy, and all those are related to one man. (I'm not saying 9 isn't too many, hence my use of "only", of course it's an unacceptable number; just that it's a small figure in relation to the scale of the problem - which hardly implies it's " 'big' ".)

girl "wow! let's have sex!"

calum "finally!!!!"

Show us your tits then, love."

please tell me this is an official moderator announcement.

it wasn't as good as "four eyes", i have to admit. :(

xpost