Times of war

[oggbashan]

I don't think that's going back to the original question, Ogg. The original question is on women's possible change in sexual morality in wartime. Rape isn't this at all. The question is about the women, not what soldiers do to them in wartime. It's about their attitudes and whether their moral grounding on the issue of sex changes in wartime and why. When soldiers sweep in and rape them, this has nothing to do with the women's sexual morality. Morality is a matter of choice. The women have to make decisions on survival under these conditions to the limited option they have even this choice. That's not really much of a question of their moral values.

In the UK at least, women seemed to make one of two choices during WWI and WW2.

Either they had sex with a serving member of the armed forces and took the risk of having a bastard despite the moral condemnation that would incur (worse in 1914-18 than 1939-45), or

They married much faster and sooner than they would normally.

In my extended family I can find examples of both decisions. One of my aunts (WWI) had three successive fiancés killed on the Western Front. She remained single for the rest of her long life, stating that all the 'good' husband material had either died or had been damaged beyond redemption.

Another two women (WW2) married very young with parental consent. They were fortunate in that their husbands survived the war uninjured. Although their marriages were legal in the UK, they were too young to feature in a Literotica story. One became a grandmother aged 32...

 

[KeithD]

In the UK at least, women seemed to make one of two choices during WWI and WW2.

Either they had sex with a serving member of the armed forces and took the risk of having a bastard despite the moral condemnation that would incur (worse in 1914-18 than 1939-45), or

They married much faster and sooner than they would normally.

There's a third option, as I have given treatment in stories. They had pity/honoring sex with a soldier on his way to the killing fields while they were married to someone else, maybe to someone who hadn't gone, someone staying home and in the fields. This gives a complex cut at a woman with various motives for moral choices she might not have made in peacetime--a feeling of need to do something for the war effort (giving "comfort" to those going and risking their lives), a Cabaret feeling of "oh, why not?" in these chaotic, threatening times where life was cheap and the good died young, or any of various complex thoughts of her husband not going when other "brave" men were.

 

[NotWise]

There's a third option, as I have given treatment in stories. They had pity/honoring sex with a soldier on his way to the killing fields while they were married to someone else, maybe to someone who hadn't gone, someone staying home and in the fields. This gives a complex cut at a woman with various motives for moral choices she might not have made in peacetime--a feeling of need to do something for the war effort (giving "comfort" to those going and risking their lives), a Cabaret feeling of "oh, why not?" in these chaotic, threatening times where life was cheap and the good died young, or any of various complex thoughts of her husband not going when other "brave" men were.

Khaki fever was a fact at the beginning of WWI in England. I don't know that there were conscious reasons for young women's (and boys) behavior, or whether they simply found the soldiers sexually arousing. Khaki fever is similar to what my friend saw in Rhodesia, where (she said) young women would lay any man in uniform at the drop of a hat. A large part of the white male population was in uniform.

 

[KeithD]

Ah, so, it must have been Khaki Fever I was having in Bangkok during various periods in the 70s and 80s.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I wonder if also it's a case of the social disruption that war can cause? I am in no way an expert on the period of history the original post asks about, but I do have good knowledge about other more modern wars, and one of their features is how they break down social order, depending how widespread, long-term or violent they are. For lands and peoples being subjected to invasion and occupation by the enemy, it is often an explicit aim to break down the pre-existing order (social, economic, political etc) to make the land and people easier to control following the initial chaos of invasion. The use of rape has already been discussed in this thread. It's a weapon of control, fear and - longer term - of increasing the population of the victors. But there are other things that happen during the breakdown of social structures that overturn previously-held rules and behaviours. Sometimes this results in greater separation of men from women (as in Afghanistan under the Taliban) or the opposite (as in the drafting of women into the workforce where they worked alongside men who were not family, earning an independent income, sometimes billeted away from home, in the UK during the Second World War). So - could war offer the chance for an upset of the usual social norms? Yes.

What choices would each individual woman make, assuming she has choices that are more than binary (have sex with the Russian soldier or be bayoneted/have sex with the German soldier or watch your baby go hungry for another day)? That's where the moral choice comes, is it? Where a woman could say to herself, hey I want to have sex with that guy over there and with my father/brother/son too preoccupied by war I could risk it now? Hey, I'm going to choose to use sex as a way of obtaining information, greater social standing, money? I guess maybe so.

The other aspect I have heard people talk about, those who survived wars where they were living in occupied countries anyway, is that of the closer proximity of death. If your city is getting shelled every night and snipers are out every day picking off people queueing at the water pump, then death feels a lot closer than during more normal times. So, one's ideas about the various sins (stealing, fornicating, killing others) begin to change in relation to the perceived punishment/guilt that would follow. Overcoming one's inner dilemmas becomes easier the longer the situation goes on - the more, in other words, that sinning is seen to be performed by others around you, it becomes normalised.

Something like that, anyway

I think you may be closer to it. Societal disruption can occur, of course, apart from actual war and conflict. Take a frontier setting, with men greatly outnumbering women. Or, WW2 in England, with large numbers of young men and women moved about, away from the normal societal structures of neighbours, relatives and friends.

 

[Hypoxia]

I think you may be closer to it. Societal disruption can occur, of course, apart from actual war and conflict. Take a frontier setting, with men greatly outnumbering women. Or, WW2 in England, with large numbers of young men and women moved about, away from the normal societal structures of neighbours, relatives and friends.

Out from under their eyes!

For a non-warfare model, consider travel. We can easily re-invent ourselves when we go where we're not known. 'Me' in Guatemala isn't 'me' back home in Salem. In USA traditions, many resettled with new identities. "What was your name back in the States?" was a top Western pioneer song. Bothersome spouses, creditors, sheriffs, all left behind. From Kentucky farmwife to Tucson pornstar. An Ohio riverboat murderer, now a respected Oregon rancher.

Be all you can be, somewhere else. War and escape take you elsewhere and let (or make) you be a new 'you'. Is your soul disrupted too?

 

[Hypoxia]

Follow-up to wartime weddings:

'TIL V-J DAY DO US PART
The unromantic, untold story of the great US divorce spree of 1946

 

[ishtat]

Follow-up to wartime weddings:

'TIL V-J DAY DO US PART
The unromantic, untold story of the great US divorce spree of 1946

The UK had an interesting statistic in 46/47/; the murder rate doubled, mainly through returned servicemen killing their errant spouses. But like the USA it was a mega year for births as well.

 

[FEELINGLUCKYPUNK]

That is wrong.

I watched a youtube video of an ex Delta Force Operative (John "Shrek" McPhee) who said that when he was in Afghanistan, he was eating rice with flies in it and shitting in holes in the ground and when he was moved to Iraq, he was living in Saddam's palace and shaving in a sink made of gold. ("Now that is how you war," he said.)

The point is, in war, a person's desire to survive can change their behavior.

This guy didn't come back to the US and continue shitting in holes that he dug himself and eating food with bugs in it to survive. He left that behind in war. As did his killings (I hope).


The term "Women have no morals in war" can translate to: What is a woman willing to do to survive in war? Russian women joined the military as soldiers during WWII. Other women from other countries became whores and thousands of those women paid a price afterwards by having their heads shaved and receiving beatings. If you look at the Rape of Nanjing, you can see just where people's morals go during wartime. And when thousands of men with guns have no morals, it's Hell on Earth. No doubt it happens everywhere, in smaller numbers nowadays, but you can search google and find present day soldiers in a civilized army on trial for rape and murder.

So are all women whores? No and your base translation of the topic is a terrible one.

Are women willing to become whores in order to survive and then regret it later? Yes, but so are men, whether its the ass they give up or the pride that they swallow, some people will do anything to stay alive.

It's not really, "Women have no morals in war" because those don't go away, but its more like, "Women are willing to break their morals to survive in war." They don't toss them aside just because they do things they aren't proud of. And if they do survive, how does that part of their life effect who they are afterward? To say, "Women have no morals" is a haunting phrase. It's not a strong phrase. There is regret in that statement. Saying, "I did what I had to do," shows less to no regret, but this lady didn't say that, so while she's alive, it doesn't sound like she's proud of how she stayed that way.

Women aren't inherent whores, but some are willing to become a whore when the need for it arises.




Cheap shot , and BS if you look at the UK's history.

Look at my post. I said nothing about morals. Morals are correct conduct. I said women are whores who make excuses to breed, and Brit men are 3rd rate women. The last time the Brits used real men was in the Zulu wars.
women.

 

[Bill_Cosplay]

Look at my post. I said nothing about morals. Morals are correct conduct. I said women are whores who make excuses to breed, and Brit men are 3rd rate women. The last time the Brits used real men was in the Zulu wars.
women.

You didn't say morals. I did. You straight up declared that they are whores.

 

[KenNicottii]

It's been documented that in the final stages of the Russian advance on Berlin many German women actively sought out the Soviet officers for protection, paying for their protection by sexual favours. There's a very powerful book published just after the war by one such woman, but for the life of me I cannot remember its title.

The book is ‘Eine Frau in Berlin’ (‘A Woman in Berlin’). Her first-person account, published anonymously in Germany in 1953, caused so much controversy it wasn’t until after her death that a new edition was released (in 2003). Since almost 60 years had passed since the war ended, the reception was markedly different. The author was later revealed to be journalist Marta Hillers.

The book was made into a feature film in 2008 starring German actor Nina Hoss as ‘Anonyma.’ I can highly recommend the film adaptation (for those who prefer watching to reading) despite its morose and emotionally draining content.

If you’re short on time, check out this article about the film & book by Irish writer Danny Morrison:
http://www.dannymorrison.com/a-woman-at-war/

 

[Hypoxia]

The book is ‘Eine Frau in Berlin’ (‘A Woman in Berlin’)...

If you’re short on time, check out this article about the film & book by Irish writer Danny Morrison:
http://www.dannymorrison.com/a-woman-at-war/

I have read that, as Soviet armies closed in on Berlin, a favorite topic of office conversation in Hitler's capitol was the preferred method of suicide. Berliners knew quite well what atrocities German forces had committed and that awful vengeance awaited. Run or submit or die -- or run and be caught, and submit to rape, and die anyway. Survive by luck or pluck or self-abasement. Would you rather live enslaved or die free? The future depends on your choice.

The human truth? Wars make us animals. Expect us to commit any outrage and to react nastily. Maybe we survive to procreate, maybe not.

Some of y'all may recall the War Nerd at Exile-dot-Ru. He noted that most contemporary wars are not grand, sweeping affair, but small, tawdry fights without compassion or quarter. Rape, kill, pillage, enslave. That's the ticket. Morals are irrelevant.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The book is ‘Eine Frau in Berlin’ (‘A Woman in Berlin’). Her first-person account, published anonymously in Germany in 1953, caused so much controversy it wasn’t until after her death that a new edition was released (in 2003). Since almost 60 years had passed since the war ended, the reception was markedly different. The author was later revealed to be journalist Marta Hillers.

That's the one. I have a late fifties or early sixties English translation, I think, with a lurid cover but an intelligent introduction (can't remember who from, and I'm two thousand km from home so I can't check).

 

[FEELINGLUCKYPUNK]

You didn't say morals. I did. You straight up declared that they are whores.

Women are whores, dogs have fleas. Its their natures.

 

[TxRad]

And you are trying to stir up trouble as usual. Trolls are like that.

 

[Voboy]

Fascinating topic.

From what very little I’ve read on this particular topic (Australia during WWI and II, England during WWII, and the western US during WWII), there was an urge on the part of some women for them to do something nice for the boys about to go off and die. They felt sorry for them and did what they could.

 

[SimonDoom]

Fascinating topic.

From what very little I’ve read on this particular topic (Australia during WWI and II, England during WWII, and the western US during WWII), there was an urge on the part of some women for them to do something nice for the boys about to go off and die. They felt sorry for them and did what they could.

This took an interesting twist in the US during the Vietnam War, when young people supported draft resisters. A famous poster was published of three attractive women staring out at the viewer with the caption "Girls Say Yes To Boys Who Say No." I don't think it's a coincidence that the sexual revolution occurred during an unpopular war.

 

[Sara2000Z]

This took an interesting twist in the US during the Vietnam War, when young people supported draft resisters. A famous poster was published of three attractive women staring out at the viewer with the caption "Girls Say Yes To Boys Who Say No." I don't think it's a coincidence that the sexual revolution occurred during an unpopular war.

Indeed ... the timing is not coincidental. Not least because the generation leading the social/sexual revolutions were mostly the kids of the generation that had come to adulthood just before and during WW2 and were likely reacting to the rather stifling conservatism of their parents. Postwar society in the UK and US tended to emphasise the 'traditional' values of family. The birthrate soared, as did the divorce rate, in the immediate postwar years, and this seemed to lead to something of a reversal, placing greater emphasis on marriage and putting women back in the kitchen after some years on the loose in factories, farms and other places of work. As if they were trying to press the factory settings button to return to the society that felt safer before the war happened. Their kids saw through it and called out its hypocrisy.

 

[Bill_Cosplay]

There is another factor. When the country is at war, the people who stay behind want to be a part of something bigger than themselves as well.It doesn't just happen. There is motivation in not wanting to be left out and so from the surrounding circumstances, new dogmas are created.