KiltedSoldier
Infantryman
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2011
- Messages
- 733
- Location
- Scotland
Ivan you are right we Scots have no problem with manhood being displayed, yes we troops wear a kilt that covers waist to 1" above the knee, but know that it can easily get thrown up and leave us exposed, and show the world that the Scottish warrior is bare and manly under his kilt 
I agree that an appropriate size cock and balls on a nude statue is better than one artificially big and unrealistic, like the David you mentioned. Warrior / soldier uniforms have always been designed to emphasise the masculinity of the soldier - broad chest, thick legs, crotch bulge (our uniform with tartan trews leaves nothing to the imagination showing the man's balls and penis outlined) women have always been attracted to it, which then attracts young men to join and test themselves as soldiers.
In WW1 as in other wars I see a difference between professional soldiers / warriors, volunteers and conscripts, the first were in the Army when the war started, held the line, trained the volunteers, and most were dead within a year unless kept back for training, they are professional career soldiers, know what war is and have a high expectation of death in battle if in a fighting arm, - the volunteers, were the patriotic enthusiastic ones, which we might have less of now given that people can see what war is really like, most of them were dead within 2-3 years used up on the Western Front, the conscripts were the unwilling, who did not respond to society pressure to join up, white feathers etc, were probably the ones who survived the war. In WW2 conscription started right away to prevent this uneven sacrifice, and worked well, I had by my count 8 ancestors killed in WW1 all in Scottish infantry, 3 in WW2, 2 in Scottish infantry units, one in the RAF. WW1 was a bigger slaughter. All deserve decent memorials like those posted to honour their sacrifice made when ordered to by their country.
I agree that an appropriate size cock and balls on a nude statue is better than one artificially big and unrealistic, like the David you mentioned. Warrior / soldier uniforms have always been designed to emphasise the masculinity of the soldier - broad chest, thick legs, crotch bulge (our uniform with tartan trews leaves nothing to the imagination showing the man's balls and penis outlined) women have always been attracted to it, which then attracts young men to join and test themselves as soldiers.In WW1 as in other wars I see a difference between professional soldiers / warriors, volunteers and conscripts, the first were in the Army when the war started, held the line, trained the volunteers, and most were dead within a year unless kept back for training, they are professional career soldiers, know what war is and have a high expectation of death in battle if in a fighting arm, - the volunteers, were the patriotic enthusiastic ones, which we might have less of now given that people can see what war is really like, most of them were dead within 2-3 years used up on the Western Front, the conscripts were the unwilling, who did not respond to society pressure to join up, white feathers etc, were probably the ones who survived the war. In WW2 conscription started right away to prevent this uneven sacrifice, and worked well, I had by my count 8 ancestors killed in WW1 all in Scottish infantry, 3 in WW2, 2 in Scottish infantry units, one in the RAF. WW1 was a bigger slaughter. All deserve decent memorials like those posted to honour their sacrifice made when ordered to by their country.
