Posted on Nov 23, 2013
SFC Division Spectrum Chief
16K
83
30
2
2
0
I was having a discussion with my soldiers during my last deployment. GO #1 states that opposite sexes cannot be in the same room with the door closed or cohabitate at any time. With the repeal of don't ask don't tell, how is it now fair for same sexes that may be homosexual to cohabitate or be in the same room with the door closed? How is it ok now to share a shower with someone that may be attracted to you? Your thoughts?
Posted in these groups: Afghanistan Afghanistan
Avatar feed
Responses: 9
SSG V. Michelle Woods
7
7
0

During my first deployment I was the only woman on a convoy. The convoy commander didn't want me staying by myself across the FOB so he put me in the tent with the rest of the convoy escort team, the same guys I had just been locked in an MRAP with for 12+ hours. The billeting OIC came in and forced me to stay in the female tent where I slept by myself with no lock on the tent and ZERO battle buddies. All because it was a violation of GO1 to stay with my team.

 

RIDICULOUS!!!

(7)
Comment
(0)
SGT Public Affairs Broadcast Specialist
SGT (Join to see)
12 y
Exactly, SGT Woods,

If you can trust your "battle buddies" to spend hours in a small wheeled vehicle for hours without trying to grope you, then you should be able (as responsible adults) to trust each other to sleep in the same room without violating each other's private space...

And if you can't, then there's a much bigger issue that needs to be brought to the attention of your supervisor or commander...
(4)
Reply
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
SSG V. Michelle Woods
12 y
SSG, the OIC was ensuring GO 1 was enforced but I definitely think common sense and my safety should have guided the OIC's decision.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
SSG V. Michelle Woods
12 y
Exactly SGT O'Neill!
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1LT Infantry Officer
6
6
0
It's a complex issue with a simple answer:  Because it is easier that way. 
We're assuming a "hetero-normative" standard in a male dominated environment and that leads us to focus our attention on heterosexual man-and-woman relationships with special accommodations for the minority party in that potential relationship:  Women.

It's not about fairness or deeper philosophical underpinnings of habitation policy.  It's about making the mission happen with the least friction in the form of sexual harassment/assault, pregnancy, morale, and everything else while the civilian paymasters are breathing down our higher's back to make sure we don't get any bad headlines from down range that lose us the public relations war at home.

Here's my personal preference:  A gender neutral environment with coed lodging, hygiene facilities, strict punishment for sexual harassment from anyone, and an end to adultery as a UCMJ offense as long as it doesn't even create the appearance of undue influence on the CoC.  But I'll take what I can get.
(6)
Comment
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
SSG Robert Burns
12 y
You had me at hello, you lost me at adultery.  If you think making adultery legal will reduce the amount of sexual assaults I would suggest a little more training.
Your logic is misguided.  Let me walk you through it.  I believe you are saying a woman makes a false accusation of sexual assault for fear of getting in trouble for adultery.  I would submit to you that even if she was making a false accusation, it's not of fear of UCMJ, it's fear of losing the marriage.  Why?  Lets say it wasn't a UCMJ violation and she got caught having adultery.  You think she's going to be cool with it because she won't get an article 15?  Is that was she's going to tell her husband to save their marriage?
Adultery is not illegal in the military because its a criminal act, it's illegal because it is not in line with our morals and standards.  If you can't keep a commitment you volunteered to to someone who you love with all your heart, why would you think you could keep a commitment to the Army and a bunch of people you don't know.
The Army wants honorable folk with integrity, not those who would dishonor their marriage cause they can get away with it.  That my friend is the opposite of integrity.
(5)
Reply
(0)
SGT Public Affairs Broadcast Specialist
SGT (Join to see)
12 y
CPT Nocchi,

Although I believe I understand why you drew the connection between punishing adultery and upholding the Army Values, I think you have an invalid argument...

The Army Values are a set of goals to strive toward.  No one is purely Loyal, or purely Dutiful... No one is ALWAYS Respectful to EVERYONE... they are NOT punitive clauses in the UCMJ...

That said, if they removed adultery from the list of punishable offences, it would not make people lie, nor have less personal courage.  It would, in my opinion, give people more leeway to TELL the truth without the fear of negative repercussions... 

Do I think Adultery is good, No.  Do I think that engaging in Adultery shows Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage... No... 

And I'm not even going to bring my Religious convictions into this, but I still believe that if we try to police everyone's code of ethics, then we are going to be very busy busting people for other things...
(1)
Reply
(0)
MAJ G 6 Plans Oic
MAJ (Join to see)
12 y
SGT O'Neill:  "I still believe that if we try to police everyone's code of ethics, then we are going to be very busy busting people for other things."

That's what the military does to an extent.  Part of being a profession of arms is to self-regulate.  I know people who have in their code of ethics that it's okay to drink and drive...they think they can handle it.  Some people think that using illegal drugs is okay as long as it isn't hurting anyone else.  Some people have a code of ethics to get themselves ahead of the game, regardless of the consequences to others or the actions (lying, cheating, stealing, etc...) required.

No one is purely anything, we all make mistakes, but there is a reason we have rules and punishment because unfortunately without consequences, some people care less about others.  You mentioned RESPECT specifically, it is covered in the UCMJ.  In fact I would argue that all the core values are covered in one way or another in the UCMJ, as they should be.  We all know what we're getting into.  If it's not for someone, they should get out.
(2)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Infantry Officer
MAJ (Join to see)
12 y
SSG Burns, very well stated as usual.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Clinops
4
4
0

SFC Holmes, I think this may open up a Pandora's box of issues.  The main thing I would say with regards to this question is the DADT act itself or its repeal didn't change the physical gender of anybody.  Is it now suggested that it was fair before, or that I didn't know the guy/gal (depending on your gender) in the shower with me had/displayed LBGT tendencies before?  For me, fairness doesn't become an issue, for I realize that any/all LGBT personnel are probably not be attracted to me.  And the ones that are and present unwanted attention of any sorts would definitely fall into the category of a SHARP complaint, not a fairness complaint, IMO.

 

(4)
Comment
(0)
SGT Public Affairs Broadcast Specialist
SGT (Join to see)
12 y
SSG Best,<br><br>the way I read SFC Holmes's Original Post, I think he was saying it's not fair that my two gay buddies could live in a room together or even just be in a room together with the door closed without necessarily raising suspicion, but I could not be alone in a room with a female companion with the door closed...<br><br><br>
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Avatar feed
Fairness of GO#1
SFC James Baber
3
3
0
I think that as with all the other rules and regulations that have or need to be updated with the repeal of DADT and the allowance and recognition of same sex marriages, this is another that needs to readdressed and updated, but the question how do you do that, it is not that you could ask if someone is homosexual or if they are attracted to their roommates to determine housing assignments.
(3)
Comment
(0)
SGT Public Affairs Broadcast Specialist
SGT (Join to see)
12 y
SFC Baber,<br><br>Very true... It would put a HUGE strain on the system to determine who was attracted to who...&nbsp;<br><br>As responsible adults (again, hypothetically) we should be able to control our primal urges, and not get creepy with a roommate, even if we are attracted to them. &nbsp;I do think there should be (and likely is) a policy that lets you request a different roomie if you can't get along with the one you have...
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
SSgt (Join to see)
12 y
Yes it is a real quagmire but that happens when you have a cause being more important than how to implement a certain idea.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG V. Michelle Woods
2
2
0
If sexual preference shouldn't matter then it shouldn't matter for heterosexuals either...correct?
(2)
Comment
(0)
MAJ G 6 Plans Oic
MAJ (Join to see)
12 y
I really wish we could just let adults be adults...but unfortunately we just can't seem to do that in the Army. Partly the fault of knee-jerk over reactions and one size fits all policies that fit no one.  Partly the fault of adults that can't act like adults.

I wish we could just let adults be adults behind closed doors, but eventually that will lead to some problems. 
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
SSG V. Michelle Woods
12 y
I completely agree sir.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Fire Support Specialist
2
2
0
     This is an interesting question and one that many of my Soldiers and peers have pondered as well. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to it. I can tell you that I don't think the military is going to take a route that will cost more money by building a separate latrine facility for gay service members. That just isn't feasible at this point in time and really would assist in fostering the climate of tolerance that we are trying to create. I don't think they will take on added expense to proved a single occupant rooming arrangement either. That would be more costly than the latrine thing. How do we create a policy that is "fair" across the board. I really don't know. That is a very difficult undertaking and will be sure to anger one group or another regardless of what the policy is. As an openly gay Soldier, I can tell you that I am just as uncomfortable in those situations as a straight person is. Mostly due to preconceived notions that every gay person wants to have sex with every other person they meet. which is ENTIRELY FALSE by the way. But, because of this, I am uncomfortable showering with other guys and rooming with them too. I think that there must be a way to bring this policy into a fairer light but, I can't think of how to do so. Honestly, if you were to try to implement a policy that would, everyone would have to be in their own single occupant quarters and no one would be able to be in a room with a shut door. Again, not feasible. So what is the solution? I guess this one will have to be one that simply isn't 100% fair to everyone. Unfortunately, sometimes we just have to "suck it up and drive on". There isn't a good solution for this question that I can see.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SGT Public Affairs Broadcast Specialist
SGT (Join to see)
12 y
SFC Day,

To address the issue of fairness, couldn't they just do away with the general order, and allow you to be in a closed room with whomever you choose?  We're all (supposed to be) adults in the military, so I don't really see what's so shocking about us wanting to have sex with each other...

On the other hand, I recognize that the fraternization policies are there for a good reason, so that would still need to be monitored...
(3)
Reply
(0)
SFC Fire Support Specialist
SFC (Join to see)
12 y
SGT O'Neill,

   I don't see the Army doing that. In light of the rise in the number of reported sexual assaults on female Soldiers, I don't see the Army giving an added opportunity for sexual predators. Just my take on that particular line of thinking.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Senior Instructor
1
1
0
That is a pretty good point. But I don't think this is going to change much. I was deployed with a married couple and they shared a CHU. I don't think this is really an issue. I recall having a PSG that was really paranoid about this. After one of his many rants I asked him if he really though if a gay soldier would even want a burnt out old man like you. He really didn't have a comeback. I have served with gay soldiers and we pretty knew that he was gay. It didn't matter. He was a brother, with a great sense of interior design. None the less you wouldn't care if your brother was gay. You  may not want him to take you to a bar but it really shouldn't matter. 
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
SSG V. Michelle Woods
12 y
Sir I think the point is the Army preaches EO, says everyone is a Soldier and our gender and/or sexual preference shouldn't matter however they don't ACT like it.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
1
1
0
That is a good point and a potentially legal conundrum.   Gays might say that you are discriminating against them when they can close the doors and straights cannot.  You know I never thought about it.   I am sure there is a political answer to this,  especially amongst active duty people.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Public Affairs Broadcast Specialist
1
1
0
I see individual rooms (or at least divided rooms) and individual latrines (again, at least divided) as the future of acceptable accommodations in garrison, but I know that will take many, many years to accomplish... and downrange... well, sometimes you just have to make the best of what you have...
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
SSgt (Join to see)
12 y
By the time they do that,&nbsp; they will have plans to close that base too but still go ahead with it...&nbsp;
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close