Ceramic Body Armor, privately bought. Ass for Glass?

(Disclaimer:This thread was an outgrowth of a recent post in a “companion” pit thread, which I made in a burst of (unaccustomed) hyperbole… On further reflection, I have concluded that what first seemed to me absurd and hence satirical may in fact have a reflection in social reality)

We are familiar with multiple stories of stateside families purchasing body armor for their at risk service members.


A.The importance of the purchase
B.The high cost, especially as an “emergency” expense relative to the normal day to day budget of a lower income family.
C.The economic realities that make sex work more advantageously compensated for younger women of less education (such as fill the ranks of military wives) in comparison to the other vocational opportunities available to them
D.The fact that most service members who are in combat and most need armor are (supposed to be) men and therefore their stateside spouses are likely to be female.

Resolved:It is statistically probable, and objectively likely, that at least once, and probably many more times, some soldier’s body armor was purchased with money that resulted from an act of prostitution by some female relative, lover, friend or spouse.

If necessary, assume hypothetically that the statement is true;*would/'will it come to public attention, and if so, what will/should be the result in terms of political ramifications?

*(Larry Flynt, here’s another reason to offer a bounty like you did on Livingston…)

(BTW, I was married to a hooker for a while, so personally this is not a" fate worse than death" that has been chosen by the self-sacrificing. However, I believe that there are those on the right to whom it might be a big deal…)

Go go gadget Cheap emotional appeal!

Right, then. We’ll put you down for a “yes”

(what was the question??)

Best response to CEA OP scenario ever! They only way the OP could have been more Rube Goldbergesque was if he had somehow managed to add a gorilla with a shotgun to his rhetorical premise.

I question if the OP is anything like a serious question. But to take it at face value…

Given a sufficiently large population and (or) a sufficient number of trails, we can suppose any possible outcome will occur. Of course the trick is ‘sufficient.’

Turning to the problem at hand. Assume 100,000 soldiers or those, lets say 50,000 have spouses. Lets say one in ten of those went to the trouble of buying their own body armor. That gives us a potential pool of 5,000 wives who might sell themselves for their husband’s body armor.

OK, assume that half of those are so down on their luck that they cannot afford body armor. That gives 2,500.

Then assume that ten percent of those had no other way to raise (say) a thousand dollars. We are down to 250.

Then look at the practicalities of it. That brings the number further down.

Anyway, the numbers seem to indicate that even if all the numbers were safesided to support the proposition, the number of trials would be very, very low. As a result we can presume that the likelihood of this happening in any given length of time to be quite small.

I suppose there would be political ramifications for the young woman if she chose to run for public office at a future date, and if her former activities were to come to light. Of course, if she ran for mayor of Sausalito, it might not be a problem. So, if she were to consider a political career, I would recomend that she move to that city first.

I confess that I would hope for somethinga little more relevant to the supply line problems that made her foray into paid sex necessary, like maybe a general revulsion at the feckless pugs.

What foray into paid sex work? As Paul in Saudi suggested, it’s a dubious proposition. But I suspect you hope that it does happen, just so the Democratic Party can run a campaign ad, “My husband is a soldier in Iraq, but because the military didn’t provide body armor to him and his fellow soldiers, I was forced to sell my body downtown to raise money for it. But then I got arrested and had to use the money I made to make bail. So he still got wounded. So won’t you vote Democratic this time?”


My ex used to say you could drop her in any city in the world and in half an hour she could be working, whether she knew the language or not…

Who among us can say the same?

*why yes, yes I do

I must say that I like the bail scenario–you have a future in political advertising…

OK, this is off topic, but goddammit, I"ve had it with the targeted ads.

I’be been seeing ads for body armor ever since I started this thread.

Ok, I can deal with that.

But now there’s an ad for a fuckin’


who told google that I’m not funny and need to work on my material??

actually, if Karl Rove is on his game, he is even as we speak creating a FAKE impoverished military wife, to PRETEND to be whoring for armor, so that she can then, a la the national guard papers, be DEBUNKED, and moreover, discrediting those who say the armor is an issue–Red Herring Publicists and Pettifogers, Inc, at your service.

I don’t think anyone needed to tell Google that you’re not funny. It was obvious even to their adbot.

I get the gorilla, but what does he do with the shotgun?

I think the OP is a sexist (among other things :wink: )…why does it have to be a ‘female relative, lover, friend or spouse’??? :stuck_out_tongue:

This OP takes the cake…its pure speculation and designed to get a gut response to a bullshit question. What if some guys ‘female relative, lover, friend or spouse’ does tricks to send him Mac and Cheese boxes because he doesn’t like the food the Army/Marine Corps gives him? What if she does tricks to get him different boots because he doesn’t like those issued to him? What if she does tricks to send him crack money?

The assumption here seems to be that the military is holding out on the soldiers, that there are no real obsticles except Republican greed/stupidity (or whatever) and that if a Democrat were in office of course they would have been issued better stuff…instantly. As if the military under a Democrat would be oh so much more responsive than under a Republican. :dubious:

Having read the article this OP cited for his pit thread now there are a lot of factors that have prevented the troops getting new body armor in a timely manner (mostly with manufacturing snafu’s and the fact that we ignored the body armor manufacturers for over a decade forcing a lot of them to go out of business…and also delaying innovation, interservice rivalry, added weight to the soldiers and of course high per unit costs)…few of them coming directly from EITHER party. Myself I blame the military thick headed-ness, head in the sand attitude about change and most of all the fucking bureaucracy.


well and good, but how do you write an algotrithm for that? And if you really can, are human beings on the way out (pace, Ray Kurzweil)

Well, let’s face it. Google’s computer network is the earliest form of Skynet, soon to get pissed off and attempt to eliminate all of mankind. And what exactly made Google/Skynet so mad? Clearly, your lack of humor. As we speak, it’s thinking, “No species that could produce such crappy attempts at humor is worth tolerating. Let’s see how we can get rid of it.” So it’s you, and not Pauly Shore, who is responsible for the end of humanity.

I think the OP is a sexist (among other things :wink: )…why does it have to be a ‘female relative, lover, friend or spouse’??? :stuck_out_tongue: QUOTE]

I considered the alternative, but rejected it for rhetorical purposes–(it makes a better story when it’s little nell on the corner.)

Also, there really ARE practicalities that rise as obstacles to the reciprocal version–if nothing else, the market is wildly smaller, both on either the homosexual or heterosexual side

no way it’s just me and not Pauly too.

While you’re at it, I’ll bet they have a hard on for Tom Green too…