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
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
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)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
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...
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)
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
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)
(0)
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.
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)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
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)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
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...
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)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
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)
(0)
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)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
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)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google