Navy gets more flotation

Submitted: Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:45
ThreadID: 49740 Views:1993 Replies:8 FollowUps:10
This Thread has been Archived
Probably get into trouble for this but I think its worth a mention.

Free boob jobs for women in the Australian Navy " NineMSN news " than again it might be to boost morale in the boys hahaha, but the news item said "address psychological issues" come on give us a break.

Cheers Bruce.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Kev M (QLD Bound) - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:48

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:48
They were additional personal floatation devices, there was no mention of what the males had though LOL

Kev
Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 262451

Reply By: Muddy doe (SA) - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 13:12

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 13:12
Amazing how the media can get hold of something like this and highlight it way out of context.

There are over 50,000 members in the military and as part of the package they get free (taxpayer funded) health care. The report says there were 2 women who were treated to address psychological issues and suddenly it is all over the press. Wonder how they will feel now!

I would think that many thousands of women around the country would have this procedure done, and yes they would pay for it themselves or claim medical benefits insurance where possible.

The fact that these 2 women are defence personnel and got it paid for by taxpayer funds does not matter to me as long as the approriate assessments were done that it was actually warranted to "address psychological issues" and was not just for "subjective appearance reasons".

If it suddenly became the norm and there were hundreds of defence women doing it then yes - questions would be raised. Until then it is only 2 women and it is probably highly embarrasing to them for a confidential medical procedure to be discussed in the public domain.

Probably a few sub-editors sitting around at the moment though, trying to come up with that perfect Headline!

Cheers
Muddy
AnswerID: 262456

Follow Up By: Shaker - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 13:25

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 13:25
Would you feel the same way if a male had a "surgical enhancement"?
0
FollowupID: 523926

Follow Up By: Muddy doe (SA) - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 13:58

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 13:58
If it were addressing a "serious psychological issue" as competently assessed by a recognised medical professional and it was impacting on the persons ability to do their job, then - yes, no problem. Especially if something happened such as an accident.

If it were just a case of " It's short, get over it" then no, it is the members' (no pun intended!) responsibility to cover the cost.

A fine line. My point is more about the sensationalist reporting of such issues and the subsequent embarrassment caused to the people at the centre of the story.

Muddy
0
FollowupID: 523933

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 13:59

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 13:59
They are apparently "Officers" which prompts the obvious question that they must have been assessed as psychologically suitable to be accepted for officer training with small tits so how does bigger ones make them psychologically better to command?
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 523934

Follow Up By: Shaker - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 15:37

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 15:37
As with your "It's short, get over it", why not "they're small, get over it"
0
FollowupID: 523967

Follow Up By: Muddy doe (SA) - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 15:54

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 15:54
Maybe the answer to that lies in the relative visibility of the affected parts?

For women it is about being outwardly confident and in a command position it may have importance (though I do agree with John when he says why were they selected in the first place!).

For men I think it may be a bit less public!

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 523972

Reply By: blue one - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 14:24

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 14:24
Two 45s are better than two 22s

lol
AnswerID: 262470

Reply By: Muddies Doe(Trippn) - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 16:48

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 16:48
Hi Bruce and Anne

I too may get blasted out of the water for this reply, but I'm with you on this one.
I can understand downsizing (back troubles etc) but upsizing, forget it!!!
No way can they say this was a genuine procedure, no way!
If they wanted them bigger then they should have paid for it themselves and not jumped on the "freebies" that is associated with all the armed services.

If they had them done to "address psychological issues" then a shrink would've been more a appropriate.
And...............
If they in fact have "psychological issues" over their boobies then they shouldn't be in the service and certainly not in a commanding role.

I'm all for women and men doing the stuff outside the usual "gender c*ap roles" that society have previously boxed us into but if they can't hake it then get the hell out and let someone else get in there and do the job!

Good point Shaker!!!

Cya
:)
AnswerID: 262488

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 16:55

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 16:55
Yeah what she said :-)

And besides Diamonds are better that bricks :-)
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 523984

Follow Up By: Muddy doe (SA) - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 17:24

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 17:24
Lol - obviously I have been over-ruled!
0
FollowupID: 523993

Follow Up By: mq swb - Monday, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:35

Monday, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:35
I think it's a bit of a joke about needing bigger boobs, but then again when these people joined the defence force they were told FREE medical and dental that's one of the PERKS of serving your country. Now I'll probably get "but tax payers pay for this" and so does this mean the defence force members get paid Tax free I don't think so.
Just my 2 cents worth

Dixie

(18 years in the defence and still going strong)
0
FollowupID: 524076

Reply By: Member - barry F (NSW) - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 17:33

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 17:33
Seems like it is one of those topics that you might get into trouble for commenting on. But anything bigger than mouth size is a waste. LOL
AnswerID: 262508

Reply By: Member - Lionel A (WA) - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 17:42

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 17:42
Bugga! Bugga! Bugga!

Spent the last 40 years in emotional turmoil, I always wanted a bigger thingy. Now its too late to join the navy.....lol

Cheers....Lionel.
AnswerID: 262510

Reply By: handy - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 17:52

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 17:52
if there that unstable about their tit size and its causing pyscholgical problems they shouldnt be in the navy.
AnswerID: 262517

Reply By: Philip A - Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 17:54

Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 at 17:54
I reckon they might get a lot of recruitment applications now, mainly from less endowed women.
great recruiting strategy .
Regards Philip A
AnswerID: 262518

Follow Up By: phil300 - Monday, Sep 17, 2007 at 00:25

Monday, Sep 17, 2007 at 00:25
I think before we make comment we should see some pics so
we can make a proper assessment.
Cheers Phil.
0
FollowupID: 524066

Follow Up By: Member - Bruce and Anne - Monday, Sep 17, 2007 at 06:53

Monday, Sep 17, 2007 at 06:53
So right, as tax payers we should get a look at the end result, what do you say hahhaha.

Cheers Bruce
0
FollowupID: 524073

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)