BettyAnnMBSC

Understand that I don't know the particulars of this incident. I don't know the people involved. What I do know is that some of the statements "don't wash". It is very unlikely indeed that CID conducted any sort of extensive investigation for a matter that was going to NJP. It is also unlikely that SLS was issued a military authority court order to release records because had they been, the issue would probably have been widely reported in the news. A person observing an occurence of adultry can not bring a charge of adultry (as far as I remember) -- that charge would have to come from 1) the command or 2) the injured persons. As to where they got the emails from -- there are certain provisions of recently enacted laws that allow the authorities to come to your house, copy your hard drive, and leave without a trace. No warrant required. More likely though -- if the exchange of emails was happening, it is possible that one of the participants provided copies. Of interest however is that SLS doesn't forward "emails" (AFIK) - they simply make you aware that a message is waiting for you on their servers. Their involvement in this issue is unlikely at best. Again, we simply have too little information to understand what happened. Not knowing the SSG, I can't speak to his integrity but, even if he told you his whole side of the story -- you still only have one side of the story. As is the case in most walks of life -- if something is a serious enough hazard, you avoid that hazard. If having pictures of your wife in emails is a concern, then you might wish to not put pictures in your emails. The specification for a charge of adultery requires: (1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person; (2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and (3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. "Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem." Could a person make a valid argument that being involved in the lifestyle could subject the service to public ridicule -- probably so... chances are though... there is still more to the story than we have heard...

Having spent many many years in the military (1980 - 1998) and having been involved in such matters in the past, let me share some facts. First, we don't have enough information here to decide whether the military invaded this service members privacy. We don't know what the actual charge was but we can be fairly certain that the specification didn't read "on or about 3 september, SSG Jones did knowingly and willfully engage in swinging" -- it could well have been a charge on grounds of adultery and these are in fact more and more common. However, if his wife or playmate (or her husband) didn't make the complaint, then the fact that emails offering to engage in adultery were found isn't sufficient to show that an act of adultery actually occured. No CO wants to have an NJP review overturned because he didn't have evidence of the event. If the service member lives in military quarters, uses a DoD laptop, or used his work computer for messaging or accessing SLS then those systems are free game for a serach by the command with no further legal authorization. The simple act of entering a military reservation subjects you and your property to search at the pleasure of military authorities. As it should! Without a thorough review of the preceedings, it's impossible to understand the nature of the charges or the outcome. Since there are known "swingers" who have not had security clearances denied based on their swinging activity, it is hard to imagine that an NJP hearing was successfully reviewed and approved based solely on "swinging". What is more believable is that the NJP specification relates to "inappropriate use of a government computer" -- wherein a service member used a govt machine to access SLS (for his personal satisfaction) and sent unofficial emails from that machine for the purpose of sexual gratification. This then would be an issue in any work environment and not just in the military. It's been made clear that emails on a work computer are not private. Nor are websites visited or people contacted. It is also possible that the SSG was confronted with an issue/charge of farternization. Possible if the SSG had contacted or actually played with the wife of a lower grade service member or if the playmate was a lower grade playmate. Military swingers are reminded that just because the Petty Officer and his wife are "swingers" doesn't mean the Senior Chief can't be nailed for fraternization if he sleeps with her. No less so than if he simply had an illicit affair with the Petty Officer's wife. On some installations (training stations such as Fort Jackson South Carolina for example) a permanently assigned NCO or officer may be charged with fraternization for involvement with any member in a training status -- even if she and her husband are swingers. Even if she is also a prostitute! Even if she is senior in rank or 35 years old. It's a really common way to be reduced in grade at places like Fort Jackson. No sex with trainees! There is clearly more to this former SSGs story -- it is indeed an issue of concern for those who have had contact with the SSG of a sexual nature. Did the SSG store pictures of other SMs wives on his PC? Did his browser cache images from SLS? If it's a gov't computer then those are now their images. Based on my experience (and is only my opinion); the justice system in the military is much more fair and forgiving than here in the civilian world. I found that most service members who complained about NJP left significant parts of the story out when it was retold. Not to be a cynic but I'd not be surprised to hear a story like this begin "I was surfing porn on my work computer on company time.... and they got all pissed off..."

any pressure for 1:1 private time or "dating"

Sex with a virgin girl is VERY different from sex with a virgin guy IMHO. On the one hand, with the virgin girl, she can learn what to do and when very quickly. Even if she's 100% clueless -- most guys don't mind "teaching" a girl what to do. A virgin girl can easily make $1000 or more off her virginity -- if she were so inclined. Many guys would pay for a virgin girl... With a guy, well, if he's clueless then it's awkward. Most guys don't take to sex lessons very well so you can't really teach him either. If he can find the hole he probably can't figure out how to get it in. And if you put it in for him that first time, he hasn't learned what to do for next time. If he's too excited he just creams your thighs... and thinks he got some. Nope, virgin guys are just not worth any price.

Take a look at http://www.Playgirl.com -- Playgirl is still around. Had a subscription when I was mid-teen -- mom said it would "take some of the mystery away..." It did.

There are many folks that use the low incidence of disease transmission among the population of non-IV-drug using bisexual women to support an argument that condom use is a touch over-rated. There is such a thing as a dental dam designed for use by women in intimate situations; they are of infrequent use indeed. On the general topic - while I too don't agree with the far right's mass hysterics about the use of safe sex to prevent the spread of the dreaded HIV (which I personally have come to believe is not an STD at all) -- Condoms are in fact effective against the spread of some less deadly pathogens such as genital herpes, syphilis, ghonorhea, and Hepatitis. That said, many anti-condom pundits have a valid argument when they claim that there are both alternative and effective disease prevention models. They argue that relying on condom use as the epitome of good safe sex behaviour only increases a false sense of security and comfort. These folks present that behaviour modification and not barrier sex are needed to stem the spread of disease. Now, to some on the very far right, this behavior modification is in the form of abstinence and self denial of sexual pleasure -- their method does work in disease prevention to a degree. But, like any other method, only to the degree that it is followed 100%. Others (including myself) argue that safe sex is a misnomer, that such an animal does not exist in entirety. That sex acts are inherently risky and by electing to participate in them, I accept certain risks of my behavior. Not unlike the risks accepted when one rides a motorcycle or jumps from airplanes. We tend to argue that by labeling certain behaviours as safe we then label others (by association) as unsafe. One could argue that riding a motorcycle without a helmet on is unsafe and yet there are millions of riders that persue that activity (visit Myrtle Beach SC in early May) by choice. While some of these riders are denying that there exists a risk - many others simply accept the risk they undertake. Few would argue against the idea that careful and deliberate operation of their motorcycle is a far better preventative than wanton operation with a helmet on. It remains that careful selection of partners is a far better disease prevention model than condom wear and random/unselective partnering. As an example - what will happen if you allow a guy with oral herpes to "go down on you"? What if he's wearing a condom? Yep - doesn't matter if he's wearing a condom at all. Understand, there are in fact some annectdotal indications that condom use will help prevent the spread of HIV (ie: studies in brothels among professionals in Nevada) yet those studies do remain annectdotal since it would be unrealistic to expect blind studies which place the subjects at high risk (such as introducing a known HIV+ client into the study). There is also anectodtal support that condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV (ie: condom use studies already cited in this board) and that increased levels of personal hygeine and care will prevent the spread of all STDs (see studies by the US Army dating into WWI on STD disease prevention theory). One academic I've heard on the topic sums it up this way:

The OP didn't ask whether anyone had attempted to do so secretly or with malice aforethought. Just simply "ever tempted to get pregnant on purpose"? The question doesn't assume any malice or alterior motives or even deception. Yet, the replies each assume that there is a hidden agenda amongst anyone who would think of such a thing and that anyone that would consider this is somehow a terrible person == isn't this a bit judgemental from a sector that is known to be reasonably nonjudgmental? Let me ask this -- let's say that you couldn't conceive with your SO and you had decided you wanted children. Let's say too that one option were artificial insemination. Is it such a far leap to consider non-artificial insemination with a willing playmate? What if there were three-way approval of the idea of selective impregnation? Can we say that there are no advantages to the concept? What if the couple in question enjoys a fantasy that involves relationship external impregnation -- are they somehow wrong? Any more than couples that enjoy the fantasy of multi-partner intimate relations? I've read that quite a few women enjoy that fantasy as do their husbands. And, in some communities in the US (particularly in the south) -- selective breeding (aka non-paternity event, aka getting "knocked up by a lover") is not all that uncommon among the general population. A simple review of some family line genealogical DNA results will prove that non-paternity events are fairly common in many communities. I'm reminded of a joke with the punch line "don't worry Suzy, you ain't no kin to pappy noways" So, for the guys reading out there -- she knows that she's the mom, are you 100% sure that your the bio-dad?

Well, I'd have a baby. If the playmate was of a different race -- I'd have a bi-racial baby. Explaining it to others -- why bother? They're going to make assumptions anyway. In this case, their assumptions would be correct. Would I tell the bio-dad? Nope! Would hubby have a problem? He says "that's one of the risks we take swinging..." Telling the family? It'd go like this... "We really like sex and we often invite others to enjoy it with us..." But; I'm on the pill and will trust them for now.... Even though, I've seen some very pretty bi-racial babies. hmmmmmmmm I can't say that I've never thought about getting PG on purpose with a playmate...

Fred, Wilma, Barney, and Betty --- NO DOUBT! (like BamBam was really adopted -- we all know Fred and Betty made that one. And Pebbles with that hair -- 'fess up Wilma!) Peter and Lois --- Oh yeah - twice a week. Homer and Marge -- nah.... Ned and Maude Flanders -- MFM with Rev. Tim Lovejoy (his ole lady doesn't have a clue -- she's too busy with that other guy...) Yogi Bear, girlfriend Cindy Bear and BooBoo Bear... why not? Mickey and Minnie Mouse -- no way! Donald and Daisy -- he likes to watch...

It does feel strange the first time you watch him with a woman. That aside, it seems to me that you're probably more concerned that he coerced you into it. Chances are that he's feeling guilty about the coercion too. I've sometimes taken one for the team but usually prefer that when I say "no" -- that means that I don't want to play. The least you need to do now is talk to him about it. Try to keep the talking calm and as unemotional as possible. Maybe some "when you xxx I feel/felt xxx"

Well, I'm a BBW (245#) and have had no problems finding interested playmates. And I do mean "no problem" -- I get more invitations than several of my "fit" friends. Hubby relates the following for your reading enjoyment: ============================ "The size or appearance of a woman is only really important for a couple minutes when you first meet. After that initial moment of first impression, everything becomes about personality and attitude. You might look like Barbie but if you're a stuck up b*tch then I don't have enough time in my day to spend with you (also applies to BBWs with an attitude). And if I hear one more 102 pound woman say "I'm so fat" I'm gonna scream! There are some real advantages to having a big girl as a playmate. Not the least of which is that I've often found them to be very passionate and caring women. I've also found that BBWs are often able to carry on a conversation about something other than the latest diet fad. Now, what is a challenge is the BBW who has no confidence in her own beauty and sexual appeal. Sure, there are some guys out there that only want super-models in their bed. They're most often alone in bed. Remember always -- "God didn't make no ugly women" ========================

We really look at the middle responses as about equal -- couple months, couple weeks -- same, same. It's about comfort levels with the partner and it's my decision. I generally use the same rationalle I would if I were a single girl dating again -- if I'd go bareback if I were single, I'll trust him now. I can't really describe the method I use to decide -- I'm not sure if it's a look or a feeling or what. Most simply put, some guys get to go bareback and some don't -- and I decide. A sure way to make sure you don't go bareback is to insist that you never wear a condom or make some other lame excuse. Virgins almost always get to go bareback facelick

Condoms present one quandry for us though... In addition to preventing pregnancy and many STDs - condoms also very thoroughly prevent sloppy seconds or even "thirds, fourths, and fifths... Now, I have two playmates that very much enjoy the feeling of sloppy seconds and a cream-pie seems essential in order to provide the full experience Then in our case, we are particularly careful about who is allowed to ride bareback and who is not. Those who are a very few indeed. Add to that STD concern that I am of child-bearing age and condition, and we had to seriously consider all possible risks. Even then, as was said already, it is sometimes a risk we elect to take. Swinging in general is a risky behavior (socially, medically, emotionally) and yet we don't elect to not participate. We simply evaluate various risks and elect to either accept or not accept those behaviours based on the immediate circumstances... Not to minimize the impact of STDs but, statistically, it is very much more likely that any of us is going to be killed in an auto accident this week than it is that we will contract HIV this week == and yet, we still elect to get in the car.

Okay -- I'm sometimes refferred to by my friends as "The Virgin Slayer" as I don't mind a virgin guy at all and think it's kinda fun... But, pay for it??? Yeah right! I've never met a virgin guy that turned down the chance to give it away (or more accurately didn't beg for the chance to give it away). IMHO -- Something's just wrong with a guy that thinks he can sell his complete and total inexperience. I bet his dad is that guy that says "Baby, I can show you things you've never imagined..."

Let's see -- my first "swinging" experiences... The first one happened because I was dating two guys at the same time when I was (well I was young) -- they knew each other and decided we should just have a little party... really fun MFM though none of us knew what to do... Then one of these guys got himself an extra GF too (if I could he could thing) and he brought her over and we had an MFMF MFM FMF FMFM FF... etc... By this time I realized that I like the attention of more than one person in bed at a time....