http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8134596.stm

An investigation is under way in Australia over claims that navy sailors competed with each other to bed their female colleagues for cash prizes.

According to Channel Seven news, sailors on board HMAS Success put a cash value on each woman's head.

Sleeping with a female officer or a lesbian, or having sex in a strange place, won more money, the report said.

The Defence Department confirmed that a number of individuals had been sent back to Australia for interviews.

HMAS Success, which has a crew of 220, is currently on exercises in South East Asia.

According to the Channel Seven report, the contest came to light in May, when the vessel was in Singapore.

It said that the sailors recorded their efforts in a book called The Ledger, challenging each other to sleep with as many female colleagues as possible.

Sex on a pool table or with a lesbian reportedly scored higher points.

The Defence Department did not confirm how many sailors were involved.

But, in a statement to Seven Network, it said that a number of concerns raised by female crew members were "now subject to formal inquiry".

The "veracity of any allegations" had yet to be confirmed, it said.

Legends




__________________________________________________

"Being defeated makes victory taste ever more sweet" - Chinawhite

"If God gives you lemons, eat those lemons" - Chinawhite

Couldn't agree more.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-Noam Chomsky

As long as they didn't force the women to have sex without consent, i don't see how it's such a big problem. Boys will always be boys.

after all the girls must have been really flattered to get all of the sudden such a huge amount of atention from there male mates.

Also, how did they not find it suspitios that a lot of them wanted to do it on the pool table ...

Its almost like having a fling with a hot teacher, even better a substitute teacher LOL


__________________________________________________

"Being defeated makes victory taste ever more sweet" - Chinawhite

"If God gives you lemons, eat those lemons" - Chinawhite

"As long as they didn't force the women to have sex without consent, i don't see how it's such a big problem. Boys will always be boys...."


It doesn't appear that anyone forced into sex here.....nobody was violated against their will. What if the ladies on the boat had one of these on their pools own, eh? Would we be hearing anything about that?



If the "sex" pool is off-limits...........then all betting/pools/games must be barred equally so.

^This opinion piece voices similar questions.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25750192-5007146,00.html

Navy 'sex plot' is a storm in a hammock

By Andrew Bolt

The Daily Telegraph

THE navy is shocked - shocked! - that healthy young men cooped up on its ships look at the healthy young women by their side and want to, er, rock their boats.
In fact, so shocked is the navy, apparently run by old and devoutly Christian aesthetes who still undress in the dark, that four sailors from HMAS Success have been removed from their ship at Singapore.

Their crime? To have run a contest to sleep with the most women on board.

Yes, stifle your gasps. You've never seen anything so horrific since the last time you went to a disco or office party. Or last watched Channel Nine's sex-on-the-sea show, Sea Patrol.

Anyway, this contest had a few rules that's been deliciously eye-popping for the kind of people who love to drool and damn at the same time.

Sleeping with an officer or a lesbian won extra points, and the sailors kept score in a book known as the ledger, with dollar amounts written next to the name of each woman.

Which is where I start wondering where the navy got so old-fashioned, albeit in an almost refreshing way.

How many of these women actually slept with the bounty hunters?

None, I'd bet. In which case, why all this fuss?

Or is the answer "plenty"? And then we must ask: why haven't those women been sent home, too?

Doesn't this just confirm what rugby league star Matthew Johns found after the ABC outed him as a beast for having had group sex with a willing fan - that a woman's yes no longer means yes?

But first a caveat. It's too early to judge the true significance of what's now slaveringly billed as the navy's "sex scandal". There's been more outrage than explanation of what the sailors did to merit being kicked off their ship, subjected to an "equity and diversity health check" - No! Not the diversity health check! - and grilled by the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service in preparation for keelhauling.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for example, declared these "alleged behaviours" to be "disturbing" without saying precisely why. The navy hasn't even said whether the sailors' bets were paid out.

At least Rudd's deputy, Julia Gillard, did finally have a stab at that "why", saying she feared such a sex game "precludes women from having a good career in our armed forces", but even she failed to explain how it did or would.

Were any of these women in the ledger denied promotion? Or does Gillard just worry that the very idea of sex-hungry sailors will turn talented women to more sexless careers such as, say, film acting, which director Rachel Ward said last month now requires actresses to strip because "breasts are sexy; I want to see them and audiences want to see them".

If so, Gillard should be as relaxed about sex-mad seamen as she is about actresses made to bare their breasts for a break.

After all, it's only two years since the Australian Defence Force sexed up its recruitment ads to show big-breasted women, military tunics near bursting, under the headline: "We want you!" Perhaps sex actually sells the navy.

Certainly the US navy was done no harm half a century ago by the movie smash South Pacific, which showed a group of leering sailors circling navy nurse Nellie Forbush, all groaning There ain't Nothing Like a Dame as if she were first entry on the HMAS Success ledger.

Check the stats. Two years before South Pacific's release, just 10 women enrolled in the navy's Women's Officers School. Five years after, there were 150.

Coincidence? You be the judge while I hum All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor.

But even if Gillard's claim that good women may now shun this sex-mad navy is serious, I doubt that's the worry that makes so many other critics so hot to sink these sailors.

I listen to a Melinda Tankard-Reist of Women's Forum Australia, and hear a different agenda, with echoes of a preaching from long before our sexual revolution and the birth of feminism.

"(Women) have a right to feel safe in their pace of work and not be treated as potential notches on a sailor's belt . . .

"I don't believe these men should be able to serve at sea any more because they are not reliable, they can't be trusted, they don't respect women and these are not the kind of men that we need defending us."

Tankard-Reist's claim that we can only be defended by gentlemen with exquisite manners is just hyperbole, of course, and the kind of thing that had us laughing at Captain Corcoran in HMS Pinafore as he sang:

Bad language or abuse,

I never, never use,

Whatever the emergency;

Though "bother it" I may

Occasionally say,

I never use a big, big D.

In truth we want our navy to be filled with people prepared to blow up other people, which is why even a thinker as civilised as George Orwell noted that "men can only be highly civilised while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them".

Winston Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, likewise saw no need to apologise for getting rough men to do the shooting, famously describing the traditions of Britain's feared navy as "rum, buggery and the lash".

True, buggery is no longer a naval tradition, but that may well be because women can finally serve as sailors, too. But you'd be mad to think the sex drive of fit, young sailors, cooped up in a floating can, is now any less than that of sailors in Nelson's time, eyeing off the cabin boy in desperation.

Which leaves us with just one last, strangely familiar complaint against the four sailors - that, as Tankard-Reist protests, they showed no "respect" for women and "can't be trusted" to murmur the truth while trying to bed them.

And there she's right, as are the other critics. How bad of men to croon such sweet but empty nothings. Wicked!

We must instead insist our warships be manned entirely by men who sleep with women for only the purest of reasons, most involving marriage.

I'm actually drawn to this old-time preaching, despite its being even more useless now than it was when Casanova romped free. It's good to insist on standards, after all, since a little guilt may tame our most animal passions.

Even so, I still wonder why none of the women who slept with these sailors (if any really did) were not booted from the ship, too, especially if the real crime is a breach of a no-fraternisation rule. Haven't we been taught for years that a woman has a right to her own sexual choices, and is solely responsible for them? Given that, any woman who slept with their fellow sailors must take equal responsibility for the sex, without the rest of us assuming she must be the hapless victim, seduced by a bounder.

Nor should we assume her motives for hopping into the hammock were purer than her partner's. Who says women don't just want to score, too?

But bit by bit it seems we're retreating to an older morality, in which a woman's yes does not mean yes, after all, and a man is entirely responsible for her "seduction".

We've seen the signs. Early this year Matthew Johns was vilified by the media and dumped from his TV job for having had group sex with a woman who'd consented to it - even boasted of it, claimed her colleagues - but was now presented as the traumatised plaything of brutal men.

And the AFL Players Association is reportedly paying for counselling sessions for a woman who claimed to have willingly slept with some 200 footballers, yet now lumps the men with the responsibility for her treatment.

Now these sailors are likewise being punished for apparently assuming, in the affirmatively modern way, that women are strong enough to look after themselves in the mating game, able to say yes and stand by it.

Oh, how confused are all these standards and agendas. So what was the crime of these sailors, really?

Can we first agree on that, because right now these men are being hanged for both treating women with not enough respect

"Its almost like having a fling with a hot teacher"

God, I had an art teacher when I was a senior in HS that I wanted to diddle so bad I could cry. She used to wear pants suits so tight you could count the pubes! But she was married. LOL

"...that women are strong enough to look after themselves in the mating game, able to say yes and stand by it."

Let me finish that statement, "...until approached by someone who suggested a windfall of cash and notoriety could be won by playing a helpless victim." But then again I am cynical bastard.

---

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

They should be awarded.

===================================


South America Group.Welcome to the Jungle.