[QUOTE=jenn26point2;1205456]I feel he is being very unfairly punished.[/QUOTE]
He is. My guess is that it has to do with the huge anti-harrassment/anti-sexual assault push the Army is doing currently. Even though this was consentual it is all about CYA and looking like you are doing something blah blah.
Maybe I'm missing a point here. Why on earth do they care who he fucks? I can understand being cautious in terms of rape and such, but if it was a consenting party, even if the party was married, who gives a fuck? That should have zero impact on "acts becoming a soldier" or WTF ever the term is.
Wait, I forget, this is also the country that JUST allowed gay troops. (Another point I fail to grasp. Why on earth would someone's being gay impact their ability to hold a gun? Limp wrists are just a stereoty... Oh.)
we're so forward thinking in some aspects and more backward than the fucking Congo in others.
The Army didn't care... the ex-husband cared and filed a complaint against the captain. B/c of the anti-rape, anti-harrassment crap going on, they decided to make an example of out him I guess. He's a single guy screwing an eligible woman who was willing... I don't see the problem, but apparently, there is a problem with that.
If she was married, that's a HUGE problem. It raises questions about integrity and trustworthiness when you sleep with a married woman or stray from your marriage.
And the whole "no gays in the Army" thing was more to protect the gays from abuse than a backwards thinking thing. Homosexuality is still not accepted by many and being openly gay in the army opened the gay soldier up to being beaten and assaulted if they so much as looked in the general direction of another man. Then there was the whole "men and women can't bunk together thing" so how can they bunk a gay man with another man, etc, etc, etc. Separation of genders stuff, assuming a gay man could be classified as a woman interested in men. I still don't know how they do it...
It's a very touchy (no pun intended) subject. Very political and very "correct" thinking comes into play. I mean, they don't bunk men and women together to prevent rapes, assaults and "funny business", so how they would bunk gays is a difficult thing to consider... almost all gay people would have to have separate quarters to ensure no 'funny business' takes place. And at Basic Training, AIT, etc, if you're caught having relations with another recruit, you're Article 15'd, which results in a bust in rank, loss of pay and fines, etc... imagine if you had a bunch of same sex people bunked together that have sex with same sexed people... LOTS of funny business can take place a LOT easier than between boys and girls who are already bunked separately...
It's difficult and has to be handled in a special situations, I think. I have nothing against gay people - more power to them, if you ask me. People deserve to love and be loved, and gender should have nothing to do with it. But in a situation where you have to trust one another to protect each other and possibly take bullets for each other, a lot of issues can arise. I'm proud of the Army (all armed forces) for accepting gays into their community, but I can completely see why it took so long and why it's still a hot issue.
Point taken. I have trouble seeing things from the other side when it's the antithesis of how I think, sometimes. I generally try to forget that there are still [x]ist people out there, so having to remember that can become a problem at times.
So the issue comes down to appropriate sexual relations within the context of the Army (probably more specifically, deployment and active duty), meaning there should be none, for everyone's safety/compliance. I wish our military branches the best of luck with sorting that out. We have a lot of work to do in appropriate behavior in society at large before the military's attempts at enforcement really have any bearing. Murder may be illegal, but people still do it. That has to do with our social "training" more than the punishment you risk. Separated or not, people will screw. It becomes [I]segregation[/I] when you weed out people for certain characteristics. Currently that means sexuality, though I imagine one day they'll have co-ed bunkers etc.
I don't buy that they were doing it "for the gays protection", so to speak. That really doesn't explain why people were dishonorably discharged or denied rights for admitting, while enlisted, that they were gay.
It has to do with accomplishing the mission. Straight guy worrying about 'being checked out by the gays' affects mission readiness (stupidly but it does). Much like male recruits humping female recruits does the same (hence why they try to keep them seperated..try, and often fail). It is why permanent party is not allowed contact with recruits...same reason..will take away mission effectiveness. Hell, it is the only reason they care about sexual assualt - it effects the mission. The person is secondary to the mission.
[QUOTE=canio6;1205512]It has to do with accomplishing the mission. Straight guy worrying about 'being checked out by the gays' affects mission readiness (stupidly but it does). Much like male recruits humping female recruits does the same (hence why they try to keep them seperated..try, and often fail). It is why permanent party is not allowed contact with recruits...same reason..will take away mission effectiveness. Hell, it is the only reason they care about sexual assualt - it effects the mission. The person is secondary to the mission.[/QUOTE]
That is such crap! So terrible! Oh man.
Anyway, congrats on the solid 179! I'm chasing you down! <3
179 again today. I guess I can rest assured that this weight has stuck. lol
On today's agenda - 100# bench press... that number just floors me.