Our incoming CinC condoned behavior that's in conflict with SAPR. SHARP professionals, how should we address or respond to troops with this?

Sir, yours is the most reasonable response I've yet received. I'm still waiting to hear from someone in the SHARP field.

As in someone who works in the field of SH/SA prevention

You beat me to the same answer.

Thanks for posting a response to the actual question.

At least when Mr Trump said anything improper He owned up to it instead of the HRC approach of not answering the question at all o trying to blame it on someone else. The late President Truman came up with some real gems also, He owned up to them also and moved on. As harry Truman said, "The buck stops Here" President Truman was known for speaking His mind and being politically correct was never His way.

As I've stated throughout this discussion, I'm no fan of HRC. In fact, I'm relieved she not our first woman POTUS. That said, your point's moot because she won't be in our chain of command. I think as a country we have to stop embracing severely flawed leaders merely because we disagree with their opposition. Trump won fair and square. But that doesn't mean his behavior which was inconsistent with DoD's stated values shouldn't raise questions. In an extreme example, it's like saying at least Hitler didn't kill 20 million the way Stalin did. Neither's acceptable.

1SG(P) (Join to see) - the fact that it was 11 years ago and he apologized and said it was inappropriate, means that he has come to a new light, how many of use have said things in the past that we regret, also in reguards to the entertainment society take a good long look at beyoncee and her attire, mylie cyrus list can continue, I will not condem someone for their past transgretions but will support someone who has learned and risen above

I edited the question from "advocated" to "condoned".

Brought to you by the magic of google:
http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/
http://www.sapr.mil/

LTC Joseph Gross - sir interesting response, in my little neck of the woods Hobart college male student with accusation of rape dismissed from the college, when the dirt settled it was found that it was not rape, it was only because a so called rape advisor told her it was, the male was found not guilty by the law but he could not continue his education there or even see his own sister graduate, the people that investigated and decided this young mans future had no training but were willing to put his life away based on little to no evidence, SHARP/EO are good programs as long as the people in charge are trained as well as the counsellors/ reps/ investigators, otherwise its just check the block training

Crazy how many different viewpoints there are to this. No doubt the system will always be abused and there will be people who need the education they receive in the program. Sounds like another example where command and leadership needs to be actively involved and watch for abuse.

Sir, yours is one of the few initial responses to the actual question.

1SG(P) (Join to see) - And people say us grunts are dumb. ;)

1SG(P) (Join to see) - nor did Trump.

Sir, would you say his remarks condone such behavior?

1SG(P) (Join to see) - Honestly do not know what SAPR is but I kind of answered this above. The Army I served in way back in the 1980's would let things slide between units or assignments depending on severity or they would boot someone out. Items where someone ins just talking if this was the Army the most that would happen is Article 15 in my opinion.......if he acted out what he said on a person, then he would have been booted out of the Army. For the women that accuse him of acting out on them. Unfortunately the President Elect falls under immunity clause now that past transgressions are suspended until he is out of office (the immunity clause is part of our Constitution that protects the President from potentially fabricated charges dealing with actions in his past).. So if those women want to prosecute they will have to wait until his term in office is over. That's what the Constitution says on the subject.

I'm not so much curious about any legal ramifications of his behavior as I am that we'll be getting an annual brief pretty soon. Mr. Trump's admitted behavior and statements contradicts the policies we'll be reminded of. I'm just curious as to how our SA/SH gurus will reconcile this if at all.

1SG(P) (Join to see) - You are the company you keep. Besides, in order to set an example of respectful sexual interactions, it would only reflect badly on her husband if she didn't. I don't like the idea, but that's the nature of being a public figure.

I'm struggling to find anyone, President or not, that is a "sterling example of good character". In my personal view, no one that has been named President in recent years falls into that category. Everyone comes with their issue(s) and to ignore them but to demand accountability from others is just as bad as the behavior.

"sterling example of good character" George W, George Sr, Ronald Regan, Jimmy Carter. That was an easy question. Semper Fi.

SGT Ben Keen - for the purposes of this discussion, I'm solely considering sexual behavior.

I edited the question from "advocated" to "condoned".

1SG(P) (Join to see) - Saved me the trouble of posting the definition of advocating. Not buying condoning either.

How would you describe his comments?

1SG(P) (Join to see) - Crude, and probably not as bad as the lyrics to many songs popular so-called artists that are invited to the White House by the current occupants. For example Beyoncé and Jay-Z. During my youth, career in the military and second career in the private industry I have heard similar conversatoons by male a D female, but in public and home never stated. I tend to dwell on the Clinton's because of the huge stain on our nation and a significant decrease in our morality from that point on. Sexual assault was virtually unheard of during my military career.

True. But it's already been said.