Can male soldiers wear lipstick, earrings and ripped clothes while off duty, but on post?

It's only ok if they're LEGS. Kidding. I don't think it is ever ok to fall that far from the regulations. Soldiers are always going to push the regulation limits and as leaders it is our job to maintain standards keep them squared away. Maybe I'm just showing my age, but the regulations were pretty explicit when it came to off duty personal appearance when I was on AD about 12 years ago.

Is he Goth, or a cross dresser?

When I was in MECEP at UT Austin, I heard of an Aggie (Texas A&M) MECEP that was seen out in town (off duty) with an ear ring in his ear, by his MOI (Marine Officer Instructor... generally a Captain or Major).

That's all he had -- no women's clothes, no make-up, just an ear ring. Yarrrr Matey!

Suffice it to say, his MOI gave him the boot.

There are no good old boys clubs and dress code cultures while off duty but still occupying space within the boundarys of a United States Military Instillation. Decore is to be maintained whether on duty or off duty and in a manner that showes respect for ones self and character

I'm having to clean the screen on the laptop after my coffee left my mouth just reading the question! Thanks, needed this on HUMPDAY!

I may be wrong in this, however it is my understanding that while off duty but still on a military instillation you are required to still show a professional appearance. Not to be sexist but as it being a male, most people can pick a male military member out from a mile away by the haircut, and someone that is showing such appearance as what is stated would not be considered professional in my opinion. As I stated I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that most if not all instillation's expected a professional appearance.

A Soldier can do whatever they want. That is the beauty of free will. If it was me back when I was a NCO, I probably wouldn't have said anything to them. I definitely wouldn't say anything now. I really don't care what someone does off duty as long as it doesn't affect their job. I guess that makes me a bad NCO, good thing I took of my Sergeant stripes many years ago :)

My brain slipped a gear reading this.

The way it reads to me... A Soldier can wear what he wants to as long as it's in good taste and doesn't violate any local garrison or unit policies on post. In good taste, to me, means clothing that is clean and serviceable, does not glamorize drugs and alcohol, and doesn't violate EO and SHARP policies.

Anyway, I don't care what a Soldier wears on his or her personal time. Don't forger that Soldiers are people who deserve their own individualities in their off time as long as it doesn't affect good order and discipline.

There's been some great points brought up (even from those whose perspectives I disagree with). Frankly, the regs could use an update that is more reflective of a culture promoting equality. This particular regulation is one of those that stands out for having such different rules for two categories of soldiers (male vs. female). It creates animosity. It's unfair. It detracts from implementing positive changes to Army culture and keeps the male soldiers vs. females soldiers perspectives in high gear (instead of of the "we're all green, all soldiers"). These kinds of regulations, where different standards by gender are unwarranted, are what keep hostile things like sexual/gender-related harassment, abuse, assault, and other traumas prominent issues in the Army.

A contributing factor to why we have refrained from making it a single set of standards for off-duty dress is because of American culture. You can't raise females from birth to be appearance-focused, wearing certain clothes (dresses, skirts, etc.), make-up, jewelry and so forth to the point that it becomes tied up in their very identity and then tell them they can't wear those things while off-duty during their time in service - it would create the perception that the Army is for men only and females need not apply unless they want to lose their right to all things that make them who they are and stand apart from the culture they are meant to serve. But then men are expected to deny themselves any lee-way in "traditional" ideas of what men are allowed to wear in a society rapidly changing and waking up to realization that the binary-gender roles are man-made concepts that not all men agree upon. They, then, are being asked to deny themselves the right to stand within the culture they are serving. It's smacking them in their face that women are getting separate treatment where the regulations are concerned.

If a female can dress as a male (forgo the dresses and skirts and jewelry and make-up, shave their heads), then a male--in an equal environment--should be allowed to dress as a female: The lipstick, nail polish, earrings, fashion, etc. that a female solider--by regulations--is allowed to wear should be permitted under those same regulations for males. This is a simple, no-brainer, straight-forward approach that could alleviate many of the problems still rampant within Army culture. It comes with growing pains only because it deviates so much from the norm that the generations before had (in some cases, literally) beaten into them and passed on and continuing even into today. (We could go the opposite direction and make the reg more restrictive for females, but it would be in such stark contrast with general American society that it would be considerably more difficult to implement and probably not worth the cost in the long-run.) Sometimes, we just have to let go of the things we may personally dislike but aren't physically hurting anyone.

All that said, the regulation itself is important. As mentioned, soldiers are 24/7 even "off" duty. There is a need for a clean, professional look. Make-up, jewelry, and fashion are going to change, but one can still wear "ripped" clothing and look clean in the same way one may have a tattoo that is allowable. (There is a huge difference in the look of someone who practiced proper hygiene and put on an outfit and accessories in modern styles--including ripped/torn look--and putting on old, torn, grunged up clothes in an obvious "I don't give an f----" attitude that is out of sync with the level of professionalism expected of a soldier.) It is a balancing act between our personal tastes and biases and the regulation - a bit of common sense is required.

Likewise, if an NCO is going to call someone out (male or female) on their attire, they need to have a clear indication as to why and express it. Is it because of the regulation? Exactly how is the soldier failing to abide by the regulation?

I can recall an incident as a young PFC, stepping out into a warm Alaska afternoon (by warm, I mean it was around 45 degrees after several months of negative degree weather) wearing what by today would have been totally culturally appropriate for a young female adult. However, the 1SG who stopped me on my two-minute walk from one building to another clearly decided, in that instantaneous way, that I was dressed like every kind of negative stereotype you could slap on a female. But did he reference the reg, which would have quickly made me go do my homework and then correct myself like a good soldier? Or even point out that I was dressed in a manner completely inappropriate as a representative of the US Army (as *all* soldiers are) and given me a rightfully lawful order to turn my happy self right around and change which I would have been obligated to do, even off-duty (he wasn't my command, but he still far outranked me!)? Yeah, no, he went with "You're going to get frostbite dressed like that." Which, as a medic, sounded to be the dumbest thing I'd heard that day and the 1SG instantly lost my respect as I easily countered his basis for suggesting I change. (I did *not* change that day and that 1SG did *not* follow that conversation up with my command).

As my experience illustrates with this regulation, the issue you may have encountered may not have been one of were you in the right for calling him out on violating the regulation, but more on your approach and argument in the moment. If your command referred you back to the regulation, there may be something to the particular situation that they are seeing and it could very well have something to do with approach given the sensitive nature of this particular regulation *regardless* of gender. Freshened up on the regulation, perhaps the next question is how to most professionally and tactfully implement and address it as a leader of fellow soldiers?