US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Women are too weak physically to serve in combat

This is a discussion on Women are too weak physically to serve in combat within the Military forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Katzndogz Quote: Originally Posted by Samson I don't even understand the controversy. My understanding is that women will still need to ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Military

Military Armed force strategies, news and comments

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #166 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:24 AM
Samson's Avatar
Póg Mo Thóin
Member #21821
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: A Higher Plain
Posts: 24,245
Thanks: 2,929
Thanked 4,990 Times in 3,688 Posts
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3294
Samson has a reputation beyond repute
Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Katzndogz View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I don't even understand the controversy.

My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.
Not for long. Just like police and firefighters, the standards will have to be lowered. Otherwise they will end up with very, very few women.

The sad part is that perfectly capable women will have military careers cut short as they are discharged early for medical reasons.
You mentioned the lowering of standards for police and firefighters.

Sorry, but I haven't read all through the thread to find your evidence this has happened PLUS because it has happened to any municipal government, it would happen in the U.S. Military.

Where did you post it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #167 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:34 AM
longknife's Avatar
Registered User
Member #39846
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sin City
Posts: 6,369
Thanks: 2,533
Thanked 1,847 Times in 1,365 Posts
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1812
longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute
longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute longknife has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Katzndogz View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I don't even understand the controversy.

My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.
Not for long. Just like police and firefighters, the standards will have to be lowered. Otherwise they will end up with very, very few women.

The sad part is that perfectly capable women will have military careers cut short as they are discharged early for medical reasons.
You mentioned the lowering of standards for police and firefighters.

Sorry, but I haven't read all through the thread to find your evidence this has happened PLUS because it has happened to any municipal government, it would happen in the U.S. Military.

Where did you post it?
https://www.google.com/search?q=lowe...ient=firefox-a
Reply With Quote
  #168 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:50 AM
Registered User
Member #33658
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 40,355
Thanks: 38
Thanked 14,130 Times in 9,337 Posts
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 6918
Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Quote: Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Katzndogz View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I don't even understand the controversy.

My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.
Not for long. Just like police and firefighters, the standards will have to be lowered. Otherwise they will end up with very, very few women.

The sad part is that perfectly capable women will have military careers cut short as they are discharged early for medical reasons.
You mentioned the lowering of standards for police and firefighters.

Sorry, but I haven't read all through the thread to find your evidence this has happened PLUS because it has happened to any municipal government, it would happen in the U.S. Military.

Where did you post it?
Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police

Officials: Panetta opens combat roles to women - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

The LAPD's assault on SWAT - Los Angeles Times

When the standards are too stringent to allow in representation of minorities, including women, the standards are changed. The standards are an artificial barrier maintaining the good old boys network and have to go.

The same thing happened with women firefighters. In order to reach the quota of female hires standards had to be lowered.
Women Firefighters: The Gender Boondoggle - Page 4 - News - Los Angeles - LA Weekly

In fact, some firefighters say Bamattre quietly rolled back strict physical requirements, just like Manning, implementing a secret "no fail" policy to pass women who plainly could not heft chain saws up ladders or run with heavy hoses, or who had other physical deficiencies. In the almost entirely male yet multiracial force, firefighters were furious that academy rejects were getting through, and many questioned whether Bamattre was jeopardizing firefighters and the public.

In one instance, firefighter Melissa Kelly could not carry a ladder. She dropped it on herself. She complained that the male firefighters would not come and get the ladder off of her. Think of this as an emergency. One firefighter can't perform and more firefighters are needed to help her rather than deal with the emergency. Liberals don't see this as a problem.

Lima told the Weekly, "It is hard to go in a fire with someone when you know from drilling she can't lift the ladder... If you can't do it in a perfect environment in a drill tower or academy, there is no way you can do it in a life-threatening situation."

Lowering standards to let women in has a secondary deletorious effect. When standards are lowered, they aren't lowered just for women. Unqualified men get in too.

I used to think that women were the equal of men in every way and there was nothing a man could do that a woman couldn't. She could run as fast and for as long as any man. Lift the same amount of weight. Be as vicious in a fight. It took many years for me to be educated out of my misconceptions. Nevertheless, this concept of physical equality is a misconception and a dangerous one at that.
Reply With Quote
  #169 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 11:12 AM
Samson's Avatar
Póg Mo Thóin
Member #21821
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: A Higher Plain
Posts: 24,245
Thanks: 2,929
Thanked 4,990 Times in 3,688 Posts
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3294
Samson has a reputation beyond repute
Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Katzndogz View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Katzndogz View Post

Not for long. Just like police and firefighters, the standards will have to be lowered. Otherwise they will end up with very, very few women.

The sad part is that perfectly capable women will have military careers cut short as they are discharged early for medical reasons.
You mentioned the lowering of standards for police and firefighters.

Sorry, but I haven't read all through the thread to find your evidence this has happened PLUS because it has happened to any municipal government, it would happen in the U.S. Military.

Where did you post it?
Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police

Officials: Panetta opens combat roles to women - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

The LAPD's assault on SWAT - Los Angeles Times

When the standards are too stringent to allow in representation of minorities, including women, the standards are changed. The standards are an artificial barrier maintaining the good old boys network and have to go.

The same thing happened with women firefighters. In order to reach the quota of female hires standards had to be lowered.
Women Firefighters: The Gender Boondoggle - Page 4 - News - Los Angeles - LA Weekly

.
Well, I'll take them one at a time (ignoring the Op-ed article from LA times)

Regarding the laweekly.com article, there was never any lowering of standards.

The accusation was that, WITH THE STANDARDS IN PLACE, administrative personnel had overrulled drillmasters that had failed women.

Even if there was any unwritten policy overruling drillmasters to allow greater number of women to pass, any hint that this might be happening has promped corrective action:
LAFD Battalion Chief Richard Rideout refused to discuss whether there was a no-fail policy for women, adding cryptically, "It doesn't happen anymore. Everything was revamped" when Chief Barry took over
So in this case, the standards did NOT change, and any efforts to contravene them were corrected.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 11:12 AM
JakeStarkey's Avatar
Supporting Member
Member #20412
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in the mainstream
Posts: 69,417
Thanks: 10,162
Thanked 11,243 Times in 8,674 Posts
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 18682
JakeStarkey has disabled reputation
That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz. Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.
Reply With Quote
  #171 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 11:28 AM
Samson's Avatar
Póg Mo Thóin
Member #21821
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: A Higher Plain
Posts: 24,245
Thanks: 2,929
Thanked 4,990 Times in 3,688 Posts
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3294
Samson has a reputation beyond repute
Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz. Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.
Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:

Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police

Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.

While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.

I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.

However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #172 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:22 PM
Bigfoot's Avatar
NRA
Member #31257
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,072
Thanks: 2,147
Thanked 1,106 Times in 739 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 819
Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve
Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve Bigfoot could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz. Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.
Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:

Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police

Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.

While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.

I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.

However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.
It is so more Blacks can pass the tests.
Reply With Quote
  #173 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:29 PM
Samson's Avatar
Póg Mo Thóin
Member #21821
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: A Higher Plain
Posts: 24,245
Thanks: 2,929
Thanked 4,990 Times in 3,688 Posts
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3294
Samson has a reputation beyond repute
Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute Samson has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Bigfoot View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz. Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.
Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:

Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police

Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.

While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.

I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.

However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.
It is so more Blacks can pass the tests.
More whites can also pass the test.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #174 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:36 PM
JakeStarkey's Avatar
Supporting Member
Member #20412
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in the mainstream
Posts: 69,417
Thanks: 10,162
Thanked 11,243 Times in 8,674 Posts
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 18682
JakeStarkey has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz. Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.
Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:

Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police

Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.

While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.

I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.

However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.
Far sighted is better than near, yes, I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #175 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 02:18 PM
Mushroom's Avatar
Registered User
Member #41892
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Posts: 484
Thanks: 303
Thanked 203 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 248
Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator
Quote: Originally Posted by RightNorLeft View Post
The thread title should be Most women arent strong enough and then id agree.
Actually, my main issue with the title is that it should be " Women are too weak physically to serve in a direct combat MOS". I have no problem with women in combat, they have served in that many times, and have done very good at it.

I have no problem with women in 90% of the MOS available in the military. It is only that small 10% where such things really matter that I start to object. And some of the few are Infantry, direct crews serving artillery, Armor, and a select few others.

MPs many times see more "action" then infantry, and I have absolutely no problem with women serving there. But they are generally involved in much shorter duration but intense firefights. That is quite different then what is expected for Infantry.
Reply With Quote
  #176 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 02:30 PM
Mushroom's Avatar
Registered User
Member #41892
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Posts: 484
Thanks: 303
Thanked 203 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 248
Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator
Quote: Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I don't even understand the controversy.

My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.
There is really no "physical criteria" to get into different MOS, other then the lack of physical conditions that might prevent them from serving (like color blindness for electronics MOS, or no profile that says they can't lift over 50 pounds). There is no "higher level" required to go into say the Infantry.

But women already do take their physical critera at a much lower level then men do. At my age (48), the minimum passing score is 25 pushups, 30 situps, and to run 2 miles in 19:30 or less. To give an idea how far off that is from "prime", for a 22 year old male it is 40 pushups, 50 situps, and 2 miles in 16:36.

For a 22 year old female, it is 17 pushups, 50 situps, and 2 miles in 19:36.

In other words, a female does not even have to be in as good a shape as a 50 year old man to pass the "physical requirements".

Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)

In fact, a female in her prime does not even have to do as many pushups as a 60 year old man, and only has to run about 20 seconds faster then him.

Now think about putting 60 year old men in the infantry, and you might start to get an idea how silly this is.
Reply With Quote
  #177 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 02:35 PM
Mushroom's Avatar
Registered User
Member #41892
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Posts: 484
Thanks: 303
Thanked 203 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 248
Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator Mushroom could be State Senator
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
Horse puckey, of course. Standards will not be lowered.
They already are lower! What don't you get about that?????

Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)

The standards for women in the Army is much lower then that of men. And it is not just that way in the Army.

In the Marines, women do not even do pull-ups. Where as men have to do at least 3 pull-ups, women only have to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds. Where as men have 28 minutes as a minimum to run 3 miles, women get 36 minutes.

Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Males

So don't even try to go there where the "standards will not be lowered", they already are, and have been since women first entered the military.
Reply With Quote
  #178 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 02:49 PM
JakeStarkey's Avatar
Supporting Member
Member #20412
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in the mainstream
Posts: 69,417
Thanks: 10,162
Thanked 11,243 Times in 8,674 Posts
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 18682
JakeStarkey has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by Mushroom View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
Horse puckey, of course. Standards will not be lowered.
They already are lower! What don't you get about that?????

Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)

The standards for women in the Army is much lower then that of men. And it is not just that way in the Army.

In the Marines, women do not even do pull-ups. Where as men have to do at least 3 pull-ups, women only have to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds. Where as men have 28 minutes as a minimum to run 3 miles, women get 36 minutes.

Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Males

So don't even try to go there where the "standards will not be lowered", they already are, and have been since women first entered the military.
We are talking about combat arms. So show me where the women are going to get different standards than in the combat arms? You can't.
Reply With Quote
  #179 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 03:11 PM
Godboy's Avatar
Registered User
Member #17047
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,499
Thanks: 437
Thanked 591 Times in 377 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 284
Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness Godboy may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Mushroom View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
Horse puckey, of course. Standards will not be lowered.
They already are lower! What don't you get about that?????

Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)

The standards for women in the Army is much lower then that of men. And it is not just that way in the Army.

In the Marines, women do not even do pull-ups. Where as men have to do at least 3 pull-ups, women only have to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds. Where as men have 28 minutes as a minimum to run 3 miles, women get 36 minutes.

Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Males

So don't even try to go there where the "standards will not be lowered", they already are, and have been since women first entered the military.
We are talking about combat arms. So show me where the women are going to get different standards than in the combat arms? You can't.
Theres a lot more to combat than simply firing guns. The physical tests are there (among other reasons) to ensure your military personell are strong enough to move injured soldiers out of harms way. I imagine most women couldnt drag a 200 pound man with his full pack on, let alone carry him.
Reply With Quote
  #180 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2013, 03:14 PM
JakeStarkey's Avatar
Supporting Member
Member #20412
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in the mainstream
Posts: 69,417
Thanks: 10,162
Thanked 11,243 Times in 8,674 Posts
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 18682
JakeStarkey has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by Godboy View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Mushroom View Post

They already are lower! What don't you get about that?????

Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)

The standards for women in the Army is much lower then that of men. And it is not just that way in the Army.

In the Marines, women do not even do pull-ups. Where as men have to do at least 3 pull-ups, women only have to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds. Where as men have 28 minutes as a minimum to run 3 miles, women get 36 minutes.

Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Males

So don't even try to go there where the "standards will not be lowered", they already are, and have been since women first entered the military.
We are talking about combat arms. So show me where the women are going to get different standards than in the combat arms? You can't.
Theres a lot more to combat than simply firing guns. The physical tests are there (among other reasons) to ensure your military personell are strong enough to move injured soldiers out of harms way. I imagine most women couldnt drag a 200 pound man with his full pack on, let alone carry him.
Just so.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Military
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Search tags for this page

women are too week for the army

Click on a term to search our site for related topics.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:25 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.