Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

The bread and butter!

Moderators: justTripn, Elessar, dark_rain

Cogito
Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
Posts: 1886
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 8:46 pm
Show On Map: No
Location: England

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Cogito » Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:40 pm

Transwarp wrote:For me, the bottom line is this: If you allow relationships between superiors and subordinates in a military setting, you are just begging for trouble, and it won't be long in coming. Not when the unit is composed of human beings!


I agree absolutely that is so, but I also maintain that relationships do exist between people and it is impossible and silly to try to prevent them completely. (I am using 'relationship' in the general sense, not just to mean a romantic or sexual relationship.) At best, you can regulate against specific types of relationship in specific situations. But that is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid bias/prejudice/favoritism. The most desirable approach imo is to regulate against bias/prejudice/favoritism etc if that is what you are trying to prevent, not against relationships. And no matter how fairly and reasonably you act, there will always be people who think the world is out to get them, or are willing to jump up and claim unfair treatment when it benefits them. That doesn't mean you can't have fair regulations, only that they need to balance the rights of both parties.

User avatar
Asso
Site Donor
Posts: 6336
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:13 am
Show On Map: No
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Asso » Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:07 pm

'Forbid' translates practically always into 'foment'.
Well yes. I continue to write. And on Fanfiction.Net, for those who want, it is possible to cast a glance at my latest efforts. We arrived to
The Ears of the Elves, chapter Forty-four


And here is the beginning of the whole story.
Image

But, I must say, you could also find something else on Fanfiction.net written by me. If you want.

User avatar
Transwarp
Captain
Captain
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:37 pm
Show On Map: No
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Transwarp » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:06 am

Cogito wrote:I agree absolutely that is so, but I also maintain that relationships do exist between people and it is impossible and silly to try to prevent them completely.

Goodness! When did I EVER suggest that?! Neither I (or the US military) tries to completely prevent relationships. That would be absurd.

Please, if that is what you believe I am arguing, stop reading this right now and go back and re-read all my earlier posts. Go on, off with you! I'll wait for you here.

Back so soon? Sorry, I said re-read ALL my posts. Yes, I know the thread is eight pages long, but we must be clear about these things.

Okay, now that we're all on the same sheet of music, here (in a nutshell) is what the Army's reg says:

Relationships between soldiers of different rank are prohibited if they:
(1) Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command.
(2) Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness.
(3) Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of rank or position for personal gain.
(4) Are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature.
(5) Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission.

I'm having a hard time understanding why so many people seem to have an objection to this. You must remember that in the military (unlike the civilian workforce), the needs of the unit come before the needs of the individual. The first priority is to accomplish the mission. If a leader puts his own needs first then he is not a fit leader, and any leader that enters into an intimate relationship with a subordinate is putting his OWN needs above that of his unit. Am I really the only one on this board who can see this?

Cogito wrote:no matter how fairly and reasonably you act, there will always be people who think the world is out to get them, or are willing to jump up and claim unfair treatment when it benefits them.

That is true. But even further, no matter how fairly and reasonably you act, you will sometimes have to make decisions that even *reasonable* people would conclude are unfair. It's unavoidable. Quick example: You have two soldiers in your command who are eligible for promotion but there is only one position to fill. Both soldiers have similar qualifications, but one of them is your lover. Who do you pick? If you pick the lover, isn't everyone in the world going to suspect favoritism? And if you pick the other guy to avoid that scenario, haven't you just done an injustice to the soldier who happens to share your bed? Either way you are causing a problem, and that's why I think it's best to avoid such relationships in the first place.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.

User avatar
lfvoy
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:12 pm
Twitter username: lfvoy
Location: StarBridge Academy
Contact:

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby lfvoy » Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:12 am

I'm curious to know if anyone has read or written a fic that treated the fraternization rules seriously, or tried to address them with something other than a way of getting around them. Anyone have any suggestions?

I've mentioned before in this thread that I'm an HR type in real life, and that I've seen some very ugly things happen when no-relationship rules are broken in civilian employment situations. By "ugly" I mean that I've seen it go so far as suicide attempts on the job, nasty physical and verbal confrontations, and so forth. I can't even imagine how bad it could get in a military or para-military situation, but suffice it to say that when I'm on the job, I'm one of those dreaded stick-in-the-mud types even though I dearly wish I didn't have to be.

Now, reading TnT fic always requires a bit of suspension of disbelief, but in some cases, the way the writer handles fraternization drives me out of my skull and thus away from the story (and no I am not going to name names or stories, so please don't ask). Which is leading me toward the idea of writing a fic of my own, where they aren't let off the hook so easily -- if they even are at all.

Anyone ever come across one of those?
My fan fiction is in The Laundry Room.

User avatar
Alelou
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:05 pm
Twitter username: @sheerhubris
Show On Map: No
Location: Upstate New York
Contact:

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Alelou » Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:15 am

It's been a long time, but I seem to recall it being a big deal requiring embarrassing hearings and such in Hopeful Romantic's Reconnecting series, or at least one of her series. I may be wrong about that.

I'd certainly be interested to read your fic. I've seen nasty relationship blow-ups in the office as well, and also the lack of respect that can occur when everyone knows someone is sleeping with someone they really shouldn't be (i.e. not their spouse), or gets a reputation for sleeping around, or gets treated favorably in exchange for sexual favors, or whatever. Heck, I remember the rumors about how a certain corporate executive always promoted attractive redheads into high-level positions. I can only imagine this kind of thing could be a disaster in a military setting.

Actually, though, the single most disruptive issues in our office was an estranged spouse not employed by us who was threatening to kill one of our employees... which totally changed our security procedures -- and that's something that strikes me as particularly difficult to handle if the job by its very nature involves access to weapons and weapons training.
OMG, ANOTHER new chapter! NORTH STAR Chapter 28
Image.Image
Read opening chapters free at Amazon (US): The Awful Mess: A Love Story
Blog: Sheer Hubris Press / Twitter: @sheerhubris / Facebook: Sandra Hutchison

User avatar
Silverbullet
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 4:38 pm
Show On Map: No
Location: Casa Grande , Arizona

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Silverbullet » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:43 pm

I agree, there can be favoritism withoout a relationship. I have seen it in the military: Once in a 200 man unit one stripe was coming down.Everyone in the unit knew who was going to get it it. that person did. There was the chrade of meeting the promotion board but there was no way in Hell that anyone was going to get that stripe but the guy the superiors wanted to have it.


Same way in the Sherrifs Office of the Sherrifs department my brother worked in. Some kid who was great at office politics was strutting around with Sergeants stripes when much more qualified men still were patrolmen. Someone wanted him promoted. So, while the others who met the oral board got hard questions asked of temm the kid got patty cake questions.His written score wasn't all that good but his orals score overcame his written score.

When I was going to get out I had to meet a promoiton board. I was aksed that if I was promoted would i re-enlist.I said no. that was that. I didn't trust the bastards anyway. they would promoise a promotion I would re-enlist first and then no promotion.

Eisenhower was a great case in point. He went from a colonel to a five star general in four years.Impossible without someone pushing him. that someone was Marshall.

Eisenhower was great at ofice politics. wonderful smile. Never made an enemy and never remembered a friend. He had no stragegic or tacticle abilities at all.

SB
I am Retired. Having a good time IS my job


Image

User avatar
Transwarp
Captain
Captain
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:37 pm
Show On Map: No
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Transwarp » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:53 pm

Silverbullet wrote:Eisenhower was a great case in point. He went from a colonel to a five star general in four years.Impossible without someone pushing him. that someone was Marshall.

Eisenhower was great at office politics. wonderful smile. Never made an enemy and never remembered a friend. He had no strategic or tactical abilities at all.

Or maybe Marshall recognized Eisenhower was the best man for the job *because* he was so good at politics? (Not to mention some pretty decent organizational skills). I suspect someone like George Patton or Joe Stillwell, with much better tactical resumes, might have been ill-suited for the job of Supreme Allied Commander, which required some careful diplomacy in dealings with other allied nations.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.

Weeble
Captain
Captain
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:49 am
Location: NW Lower Michigan USA

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Weeble » Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:30 am

Just finished a re-read (actually a re-listen to a book on tape) of "An Army at Dawn" which closely chronicles the US Army's entry into WW2 by focusing on North Africa. I think all of us Americans should remember how terribly unprepared we were for that war. We lost a ton of wonderful young people before we found our stride. I do not believe there has ever been a more forced coming of age. What must be noted is that because we Americans are the way we are, we re-learned the lessons in Korea and Vietnam.
Be thankful that we made the decision, finally, to become the best in the world and maintain it. Thanks again Transwarp for your service.

weeble
RIP Tom, I will miss you, as will many others

User avatar
WarpGirl
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:02 pm
Location: In A State Of Constant Confusion

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby WarpGirl » Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:40 am

Since this has turned into a history lesson I was thinking about this the other day...Did you know that nearly every military power in the ancient world, encouraged sexual relationships within their ranks? It's true, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans, all encouraged it. The idea being that it made for a more ferocious army. Certain Greek armies made it a requirement! Now, I know somebody will probably find this very stupid, but my thinking is if these armies manages to conquer the entire known world during their times, then they couldn't have massive disruptions and upheavals. They made it work. Frankly I don't think the US or any other modern miltary power dotday could even begin to have survived a conflict with Alexander The Great or Julius Ceaser if they had an even playing field of Technology and people.

Now before anyone starts tearing this to shreds remember it's 0439 where I am, and I thought of this in the shower. So I can't dig out my books on ancient history at this very minute. You'll all have to wait until the sun is out and I've had some sleep.
Some of these people haven't taken their medication. Let's see what happens now...
Donna Moss: The West Wing


And by people WG had herself in mind, but then the quote would have been ruined.
Fics
May We Together Become Greater Than The Sum Of Us
*Rights,* Wrongs, and Choices

User avatar
PoweredByCoffee
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:49 pm
Show On Map: No

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby PoweredByCoffee » Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:28 am

Honestly I don't think in the grand makings of things frat rules really matter all that much. They brought them up when they wanted drama and they let them go when it was convenient.

It's just a plot divice.

Now should or should their not be frat rules is a whole other topic. I think humans and other races are going to have sex and date rules or no if their ships are gone years at a time. Even if you dock them a rank and even if you said they could be kicked out. Simple as that.
"Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised." - Captain Kathryn Janeway, Professional Badass

User avatar
WarpGirl
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:02 pm
Location: In A State Of Constant Confusion

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby WarpGirl » Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:08 pm

It happens NOW! I still don't see the point in making rules that are nearly un-enforcible the only reason people get caught is because they're stupid or they don't have enough power to hush it up. It's not that hard to hide an affair.
Some of these people haven't taken their medication. Let's see what happens now...
Donna Moss: The West Wing


And by people WG had herself in mind, but then the quote would have been ruined.
Fics
May We Together Become Greater Than The Sum Of Us
*Rights,* Wrongs, and Choices

User avatar
Transwarp
Captain
Captain
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:37 pm
Show On Map: No
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Transwarp » Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:15 pm

WarpGirl wrote:Since this has turned into a history lesson I was thinking about this the other day...Did you know that nearly every military power in the ancient world, encouraged sexual relationships within their ranks? It's true, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans, all encouraged it. The idea being that it made for a more ferocious army. Certain Greek armies made it a requirement! Now, I know somebody will probably find this very stupid, but my thinking is if these armies manages to conquer the entire known world during their times, then they couldn't have massive disruptions and upheavals. They made it work.

I think we're talking apples and oranges here (again). The 'no-frat' regs in the real world (US Army) prohibit relationships only if they are (or appear to be) abusive, coercive, exploitive, impartial, or unfair. This was extensively hashed out earlier in this thread, yet a belief seems to persist that the regs constitute a ban on all sexual relations. This could not be farther from the truth!

Admittedly, the regs would seem to impose an implicit ban on intimate relations between two people with a supervisory/subordinate relationship in the same chain of command, since I can't imagine a circumstance where that would NOT cause at least the perception of partiality among the other subordinates. As for how things worked in Alexander the Great's army, I don't know whether sexual relations were encouraged, or whether that made for more ferocious fighters, but if so I make two points: 1) There were no women in the chain of command so any sexual relations with the opposite sex were outside the chain of command, which is perfectly okay in today's US Army or any other army I'm aware of, and 2) I doubt if the officers in Alexander's army gave a rat's patootey whether the troops perceived anything the officers did as coercive or unfair. There were different (and harsher) means of maintaining discipline in the ranks in those days!

WarpGirl wrote:It's not that hard to hide an affair.

On a starship?
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.

User avatar
Silverbullet
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 4:38 pm
Show On Map: No
Location: Casa Grande , Arizona

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Silverbullet » Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:24 pm

WG is right. I am not sure about he Egyptians or Romans but the Greeks certainly encouraged homosexual relations among its troops. They thought that no one wanted to appear a coward in front of his lover so he would fight harder. apparently it worked with one group of Greeks.

SB
I am Retired. Having a good time IS my job


Image

User avatar
Alelou
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:05 pm
Twitter username: @sheerhubris
Show On Map: No
Location: Upstate New York
Contact:

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Alelou » Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:08 pm

Yeah, but it must be tempting if your EX-lover (or his new beau) gets in range of a little friendly fire...
OMG, ANOTHER new chapter! NORTH STAR Chapter 28
Image.Image
Read opening chapters free at Amazon (US): The Awful Mess: A Love Story
Blog: Sheer Hubris Press / Twitter: @sheerhubris / Facebook: Sandra Hutchison

User avatar
WarpGirl
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:02 pm
Location: In A State Of Constant Confusion

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby WarpGirl » Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:10 pm

How is it Apples and Oranges... Militaries have *always* needed clear chain of commands and disciplined units to be successful. Tactics might have gotten more sophisticated due to advances in technology, however the basic principles are the same. Armies still use tactics used in the ancient world.

Transwarp wrote:Admittedly, the regs would seem to impose an implicit ban on intimate relations between two people with a supervisory/subordinate relationship in the same chain of command, since I can't imagine a circumstance where that would NOT cause at least the perception of partiality among the other subordinates.


You assert that the regs exist for good reasons. I will agree the reasons are fine, however they don't prohibit ALL favoritism. They just prohibit favoritism based on sex. Which I find laughable! Even if nobody busted the sex rules in a chain of command favoritism can still be shown. Where's the ban on serving with your best friend? Your Mother's best friend's son or daughter? Where's the regs that state that nepotisim is prohibited? If you're going to ban sex than ban everything else too.

Transwarp wrote: As for how things worked in Alexander the Great's army, I don't know whether sexual relations were encouraged, or whether that made for more ferocious fighters, but if so I make two points: 1) There were no women in the chain of command so any sexual relations with the opposite sex were outside the chain of command, which is perfectly okay in today's US Army or any other army I'm aware of, and 2) I doubt if the officers in Alexander's army gave a rat's patootey whether the troops perceived anything the officers did as coercive or unfair. There were different (and harsher) means of maintaining discipline in the ranks in those days!


No women? So What? The Thebeans (the Greek ones) were considered the greatest fighting force of their day. On par with the most elite fighting force of the country of your choice. They were required to pair off into relationships that ecompassed everything that there is to do in life. And believe me, it worked, they almost defeated Alexander. The only thing that saved his behind was his nifty new Phalanx. To say that those relationships don't count because women couldn't fight is erronious for 2 reasons.

1. Women were provided to officers and troops alike. For the officers they were wives and concubines that traveled with the camp. And some of these women held an enormous amount of power. Alexander burned Athens to the ground because one of his General's mistress convinced him to do it. The common troops also took slaves and captives for their sexual needs. So it wasn't desperation for sex that made it common place to form relationships within the chain of command. There were definite reasons to do it.

2. While it is true that the ancient world was more brutal and less just, you're mistaken to think that the common soldiers had no rights or that the officers didn't have to worry about being thought of as fair. In fact, they had to worry about it far more than officers do now. If enough of the common grunts got disatisfied the officer found himself, poisoned, stabbed, bludgoned, killed in battle by one of his own troops, or a million other more horrifying situations. They definitely had to be thought of as fair! Why do you think so many Roman Emperors were killed by the Preatorian Guard? Let me say this, it happened in the regular army too!

Now granted, I think sex should be confined to two genders so I wouldn't have made it in an Egyptian, Greek, or Roman, army even if I was a man. However, I still say that if fratinization is a debilitating to a military's ability to do it's job, then the world powers of the ancient world should never have gotten off the ground.
Some of these people haven't taken their medication. Let's see what happens now...
Donna Moss: The West Wing


And by people WG had herself in mind, but then the quote would have been ruined.
Fics
May We Together Become Greater Than The Sum Of Us
*Rights,* Wrongs, and Choices


Return to “Trip and T'Pol Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests