Clinton's Military Legacy: SEX

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "In the military, situations arise where men and women share living quarters. I have been in such situations."

This may have caused some people to wonder. So, I will expand on it a bit.

A) First Situation:

A coed unit is engaged in field operations. Each male has been given 1/2 of a shelter. He must find another soldeir, team with him, and the two of them unite to erect a sleeping shelter to protect them from snow and rain.

The females (and Commissioned Officers, both male and female) have been issued a complete sleeping shelter so that they will not be forced to share sleeping arrangements with anyone else.

It is winter-time, and there is snow on the ground. The members of the unit have a GP Large tent in which they work. It is heated to keep them warm. During the night, probably all of the male and female soldiers will chose to sleep in that heated tent to keep warm. No one is rquired to do so. But, who wants to shiver in the cold of the snowy night when they can sleep in a heated tent.

Under "discrimination" provisions, the tent cannot be restricted to the members of one sex.

I have shared in this arrangement.

Next situation:

I deployed to a combat zone, in another country, with a coed unit. A group of about nine (it varried from time to time) of us shared living quarters. I was the ranking member of the group which included one other Commissioned Officer, a NCO, and a number of enlisted people. During the time we shared living quarters, the females outnumbered the males from 1.5:1 to 2:1. That female ratio was probably important.

I let things ride for two nights. Then I called the group together for an informal discussion in which the persons rank was NOT given standing. All had an equal voice.

First, I asked for them to share their personal norms, as they related to sharing living quarters withe people of the opposite gender. After this had been done, I asked them to develop a set of group norms that all would be comfortable with, that included: sleeping conditions, showers, and toileting. The group developted a set of norms with which all, to include the most consiverative were comfortable.

Folks, here is the bottom line:

1) The group were all adults, and willing to develop a group set of norms satisfactory to all.

2) Women from a U.S. background are not looking to have sex in an area in which the public (rest of the group) knows. They are not looking to be sharing a shower at the same time as another male, or to be sitting on a toilet at such a time. [NOTE: I am aware that cultural standards differ, and I have lived in such a country.]

Contrary to former posts made here, and the individual mores of the people involved, the male and female members of that group wanted a reasonable degree of privacy. Yet, they were willing to live where they had to share with others in some real limitations. I think that the women reading this will understand, even if some others do not.

3) I was with an artillery unit when (this was well before President Clinton.) females first came into the unit. Sr. officers did not know how to handle this as they had no experience. Now, remember, the Army practices combat operations. One of the first times we went to the field to play "war" we were followed by a bright orange "porta-potty" so that a female would have a place to relieve herself. That porta-potty could be seen for miles. It could not be concealed by any means. Rather rapidly, officers, on the highest of levels came to the conclusion that military units fighting battles do not have the luxury of accomodating every personal desire. This is true for personal living conditions. In a coed unit, it is likely that men and women will have to share sleeping arrangements, and other personal facilities. They will have to work those out under the conditions in which they are in, and according to group norms.

These accomodations can be effected in more than one way. In the combat sitution that I referenced above, I had some groups where one woman might be sharing living arrangements with 7 males. But, I had one woman come to me to tell me it was more than she could tolerate. A female Commissioned Officer in our unit ended up allowing that female enlisted soldier to share her living quarters. The officer did not have to do so. But, she did so.

4) Just a point of interest: In one military exercise, about 1,000 male and female soldiers were housed in a gymnasium. Low level lights were kept on the entire night (I was a part of it.). The Command had erected tents outside the gymn so that no female would have to sleep in the gymn with males. The females all rejected those tents, and chose to sleep in the gymn with the males. The only people who slept outside the gymn were a very few couples. There were not many of those.

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane said:

Sister K, When I was in the Army we had to yell out a little chant everytime we were called to attention. It was suppose to increase moral.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

And, this caused you emotional and/or moral damage?

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "[Clinton} is the President that put women into combat positions and now..."

With our present force structure, the U. S. Military has issues with meeting the responsibilities placed upon it by the Commander in Chief. Our current military committements stretch our forces very thin.

Women are allowed to enlist in the majority of MOSs. That means that females can serve in most military jobs, but not all.

I can say flat out that we could not meet our enlistment requriements if we did not allow women to fill such positions.

In addition, after years of observing women in the US Army, I can say that as a group, our female soldiers are often better quality than our male soldiers. No, on an individual basis, that may not be true. Every group of people have those who perform below the group norm.

The bottom line is that the military cannot meet its obligations without females. Those females who enter often serve very well.

[Naomi]

Gregory Matthews said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Contrary to former posts made here, and the individual mores of the people involved, the male and female members of that group wanted a reasonable degree of privacy. Yet, they were willing to live where they had to share with others in some real limitations. I think that the women reading this will understand, even if some others do not.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Having an ex who was an officer in the Air Force, I never gave a thought to the possibility of immoral behaviour because he was involved with military operations. People are going to do what they want ... even if they are just next door.

__________

Shane,

While traveling in a third world country on business, there was only one room with a double bed available. My coworker was male. We were not in the military. We shared the room, and maintained our personal privacy. I suppose there are people who would find something inappropriate with this arrangement.

IMHO, it would have been more inappropriate for one of us to have slept in the lobby or hallway.

____________

The Clintons were not all good, nor all bad. GWB is not all good, nor all bad. I happen to know some people who, last year, attended a private BBQ with the Bushes ... they let their hair down in private. Soooooo ......

I don't always exercise the most appropriate judgement; do you?

[Gregory Matthews]

Naomi, I make spelling errors, and was going to let Shane's error pass. But, now that you are commenting on it, I will have to point it out:

Morale is not the same as moral.

[lazarus]

I like the way you guys (Naomi and Gregory) are Fair and Balanced. You post; we decide.

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Gregory Matthews said:

Naomi, I make spelling errors, and was going to let Shane's error pass. But, now that you are commenting on it, I will have to point it out:

Morale is not the same as moral.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Morale: has to do with a person's state of confidence, enthusiasm, courage.

Morals: ethics, principles, etc.

Thanks Gregory. That proves what happens when one/I assume they/me know what a person is really saying.

Naomi

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "People are going to do what they want ... even if they are just next door."

Shane, this is so true. I was part of a U. S. military force that invaded an island in the Carribian. I assumed that I just might have an opportunity to take a swim, so I packed my swimming suit. Some of our enlisted people never thought of that. So, they decided to make one of the beaches a "clothing optional" beach. I swam at a beach where everybody had a proper swimming suit. The choice was an individual one.

European standards for beach wear are not that of the United States. A few years back I had a SDA Chruch official tell me that he felt that his sons had been raised with a more healthy view of the human body, than we in the US have, due to the European culture.

Naoami is quite correct in a statement that she made about her ex-husband. People are going to do what they are going to do. One can not catagorize everyone into one group. The women that I shared living quarters with may not have had the same standards that I had. But, that did not mean that any of them wanted to live together in a situation where there were no bounds and standards.

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Matthews,

I was in a combat engineer battallion and bought a shelter half so I wouldn't have to share with anyone. However during a winter training exercise we were not even allowed to use it. We slept in our sleeping bags on the cold ground. However since the ground was frozen I don't know how we could have driven in the stakes for our shelter halfs anyway.

Sleeping in the same tent with female soldiers during a winter training excersize wouldn't be so awkward. When I was in a supply unit I had females in my unit. During winter training we all slept in our clothing in our sleeping bags. It isn't tlike any of them were running around in their bra and panties.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Having an ex who was an officer in the Air Force

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I did know some married guys that messed around on their wives when I was in the Army although I do not think that is any more common than in the civilian world - although I could be wrong. However the Army can and does, at times, discharge people for adultry so that is not something that is encouraged.

I went to college and had some friends that were considered premiscious by civilian standards. I was all too familiar with the fraternity, sorority and dormitory cultures. In my experience, and that of many verterns I know, the military is more premiscious than civilian culture.

I dispute that our military is spread too thin and that we need females in combat to achieve our mission goals. I agree that our military is composed mostly of the poor which have been enticed to join by enlistment bonuses. A draft that allowed no deferments for education would be a much fairer way of maintaining our military strength.

[Amelia]

Why is the age cut off for the military 35? I know they need a cut off but why not 40? And really some 40 yr old are in better shape than many 18yr olds.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

However since the ground was frozen I don't know how we could have driven in the stakes for our shelter halfs anyway.

---

From an American soldier's memoirs about the Battle of the Bulge - you just fire shots into the ground with a light caliber rifle or heavy caliber pistol, making the holes you need...

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Bevin, in training we don't have live rounds <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> However the officers do manage to get a GP (general purpose) tent up but I don't know how they did it. Maybe they used pails of concrete to anchor it instead of stakes but I remember erecting them in summer months and we used wooden stakes.

[K]

Amelia,

It hasn't been put out in the press, but they are now taking back 42 year olds who retired out. I know several people who have gone back in because of the bonus offered. A friend was at a check up on post here, and he said that they were recruiting him big time. He is 45. He declined because he isn't looking for an all expense paid tour in the sun and sand.

K

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "I dispute that our military is spread too thin and that we need females in combat to achieve our mission goals."

Sorry, Shane. You are simply out of touch on that one. I may be retired, but I still maintain contacts with officers who are currently serving. My evaulation that the military is striched to thin for our current missions is based upon what they tell me, my professional military training, and current knowledge of what is happening.

[Gregory Matthews]

Amelia, two comments:

1) The 35 YO thinking is based upon the fact that ten years later, the 55 YO will probably not be as fit at that 28 YO, and therefore unable to serve until retirement.

2) The current personnel crisis has resulted, on a selective basis, people older than 40 being allowed to come into the military.

3) By the way, while 35 has been the published standard, execptions have always been allowed on an individual basis for people up to 40. Now it has been extended beyond that.

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Matthews. When we think outside the box we realize our military isn't stretched too thin to meet its goals.

We have no goals in Germany. Why are we there? We have no goals in Japan. Why are we there? We have no goals in the Philipians. Why are we there? We have plenty of troops - we just have a lot of them in places where they are not needed.

[Dr. Shane]

Are we spread too thin? The question sounds an awful lot like "Do we need more troops?" One can say we are spread too thin in the respect that we have our troops in the wrong places. However that is not to say we don't have enough troops to accomplish our goals.

Let's take a look:

Iraq: 200,000 troops

Germany: 76,000 troops

Japan: 45,000 troops

S. Korea: 33,000 troops

Afghanistan: 18,000 troops

Italy: 13,000 troops

UK: 12,000 troops

Philipians: 5,000 troops

Qatar: 4,000 troops

Bosnia: 3,000 troops

Iceland: 2,000 troops

I see the need for troops in South Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Qatar and Iraq but why do we have thousands of troops in the rest of the world? We have more troops in South Korea than Afghanistan and there is not combat going on in Korea... What is wrong with that picture?

[Gregory Matthews]

# 1

Shane, if you had stated that we no longer need to station our military forces in some parts of the world, I would have agreed with you. We have military forces in some parts of the world where they were once needed, but are no longer needed, at least in the numbers that we currently have them stationed. I generally support the current efforts of the Bush administration to re-align our forces.

But, that was not what you stated. You stated that we have no goals for forces stationed in certain areas. That is incorrect. We have goals for every area in which we have stationed forces. That is true regardless of whether it is a couple of dozen, or 40,000 or 200,000.

In some cases our goal has nothing to do directly with the country involved. Our forces stationed on Guam and in Japan are probably not directly related to Japan. No one would argue that the forces we have stationed on Diego Garcia have anything to do with the conutry that controlls Diego Garcia. Our goals are totally unrelated to such. But, we have goals that place our forces there. We could go on and on. Why do we have military forces stationed in England, Spain, and Italy?

In the matter of Germany, this is a case where, in my opinion, we need to re-align. With the fall of the USSR, we need to rethink Germany. The origonal reason for placement there was to defend Europe against a Fulda Gap invasion. That rationale no longer exists. No one thinks that a Fulda Gap invasion is of very high probability. But reasons for having our military in Spain, and Diego Garcia, still remain. There may be some changes, but reasons remain.

# 2

You seem to assume that if we removed (reduced, as appropriate) our military forces in certain areas, that our military forces would not be stretched to thin, and women would not be needed. You are wrong in this.

Let us suppose, for a moment, that we were to bring all of our military back to the United States, with the exception of the areas in which we are currently fighting (Iraq & Afghanistan) we would still be stretched to thin. We would still need women in our military. We are unable to obtain enough qualified males to staff to that level.

The military is not staffed based upon the current situation. It is staffed based upon a future potential mission given to us by Congress. As an example, at one time (not now) our mission was to be able to fight a major war on two fronts at the same time. That required a very high level of staffing. Our present mission is less than that. But, it is a mission that goes beyond that of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need women to fill at that level.

The mission is given to the Department of Defense by Congress. Perhaps it should be changed. But, until the politicians change it, we have to live with it.

On a third issue:

You have mentioned the Draft. I am well aware that some politicians sugget that the Draft should be resumed. A few military seem to support such. I will tell you that most high-ranking military officers do not support it. A military Draft is very expensive in personnel costs and in training due to very short periods of service. It is quite expensive to have someone for two short active duty years (18 months in the job, or less) when one can have them for 48 to 72 months, for the same training costs.

I will tell you that in my opinion, the politicians and the people of the US will not support a Draft in the foreseeable future. It simply will not happen.

Perhaps under some great immediate crisis. But, even then I do not think so. Under ideal conditions it would take from 12 to 24 months for a revised Draft to begin sending people into the Armed Forces. Such would not help an immediate crisis.

[Bravus]

I guess the other point on this issue is that, while wartime military service is definitely an unusual and extreme working environment, men and women manage to work together in every other occupation, including other extreme environments like oil rigs and even oil rig fire fighting teams. They sleep together or they don't, and are credited with being mature enough to make that choice. The military situation is new, and therefore gets attention, but the argument seems to be that, if there are women around, rampant promiscuity will occur. Same for women in the GC office? It's something that needs to be acknowledged, and managed, and there will likely be happenings and situations that we don't like much, but making the Army an all-stag institution again just doesn't seem like a realistic response.

And I'd been holding off on saying this, but maybe it's better that there's sex between consenting male and female soldiers than either prostitution on the part of poor local women in the areas around army bases or rape of local people. Both are more violent, degrading and damaging than consensual, if casual, relationships between equals.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

....... but maybe it's better that there's sex between consenting male and female soldiers than either prostitution on the part of poor local women in the areas around army bases or rape of local people. Both are more violent, degrading and damaging than consensual, if casual, relationships between equals.

---

[old fashioned victorian church lady type mode-on]

OOOOOOMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ofvclt mode-off]

[Bravus]

Yeah, s'called 'harm minimisation': it's an evil secular humanist concept, apparently...

[Neil D]

Bravus, I thought you were joshing, but apparently you are correct...a new thought in itself

[:"blue"] Harm reduction

Harm reduction is a set of policy beliefs, essentially stating that some people always have and always will perform activities, such as promiscuous sex or drug use that may cause them harm. Therefore, there is a moral imperative to reduce the harm caused by risky activities, rather than an ineffective blanket prohibition of the performance of harmful activities.

Harm reduction has been very controversial in the U.S. (less so in Europe and Australia) due to concerns that some harm reduction initiatives normalize dangerous behavior, treat already stigmatized people with the "subtle racism of low expectations", and involve governments and communities in morally dubious activities.

Harm reduction initiatives range from widely accepted designated driver campaigns, to more controversial initiatives like the provision of condoms in schools, safe injection rooms, drug legalization, heroin maintenance programs, and the provision of sterile surgical facilities for female circumcision (also known as female genital mutilation) in order to reduce infections. [/]

[Dr. Shane]

My arguement is basically that of the libertarians. With our nuclear submariane fleet and our aircraft carriers, the US is able to respond to almost any conflict in any part of the world rather quickly. Thus the need to have troops stationed in various parts of the world is not what it was 50 or even 30 years ago.

While Korea is a hot spot, do we really need 30,000 troops there? 10,000 would be likley to be able to fulfill the purpose. Guam, of course, is part of the US and our troops need to remain there and at a signifficant level. By withdrawing our troops from Japan and Germany alone we would have over 100,000 additional troops.

This is the tricky part. Many who say our military is stretched too thin actually want to say the reason for that is IRAQ. Now wait a minute. The purpose of our military is to defend us as a nation. Putting aside the controvesy of the war, if it was nessasary to invade Iraq in order to defend the country, than invading Iraq didn't stretch the military too thin - rather failing to withdraw the troops from areas where they are no longer needed stretched the military too thin. So the solution isn't to pull out of a war where we are needed but to pull out of other areas where we are not needed. I hope that logic isn't too hard to follow - it is the libertarian in me.

I agree the draft is unpopular with the military and the civilian population. However what is right is often unpopular. Each of us that is able, serving in defense of our nation is morally right. As it is now our military is comprised mostly of the poor and many of them are minorities. That fat man is busy dancing while the thin man pays the band.

[Dr. Shane]

Sex between soldiers is never a good thing but has been a reality in noncombat positions for years. Fratinization is a much more serious issue in the military than in civilian ocupations. With women in combat positions, the military now has to deal with fratinization in another realm. That is not good for the women or men involved.