Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

The bread and butter!

Moderators: justTripn, Elessar, dark_rain

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 29, 2011 2:45 am

France did have the "legal right" to own it's territories in the US because Europe and later the US government didn't give a hang about the Native Americans. So technically they could sell whatever they wanted. That's what I meant.
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 29, 2011 3:45 am

Rigil Kent wrote:Trying to apply logic and consistency to anything Star Trek is always a failing proposition.

As to whether SF was a military or not, well, they might claim they aren't, but by pretty much all modern measures, they fit the bill. Officially mandated government organization? Check. Regimented rank structure? Check. Armed and ultimately tasked with human defense? Check. So I'd argue that they are the military, merely evolved in a slightly different direction than from what most of us would consider military. Ironically, they're probably closer to the wet navy of 1700 and 1800s who were tasked with exploration as well as normal duties. As to why they might insist they aren't the military, one needs only look at the immense destruction and death caused by the Eugenics Wars/WW3 (I consider the two to be one and the same) and it doesn't take a monumental leap of logic to presume that the term "military" might have negative connotations that Starfleet is looking to avoid. Still, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... by Star Trek definitions, it is evidently an elephant. Or perhaps a monkey.

@ Marchale: You said "As far as fraternization goes, yeah - I think it's pretty silly having rules against it"

I have to respectfully disagree. Consider this example. You and I are serving in the same department. We're both the same rank, but I'm sleeping with our boss because she's a smoking hot Vulcan babe. Shore leave comes up and you get an undesirable, crappy rotation that won't let you do anything cool, whereas I get the prime spot that just happens to coincide with our boss' leave. It doesn't matter that the schedule for these leaves were randomly generated - you're going to suspect a rat.

Scenario 2: We're in a deadly combat situation. You and I are still the same rank, and I'm still sleeping with our boss. Suddenly, there's a situation that requires one of us to be given an assignment with limited chance of survival. If our boss, whom I'm sleeping with, assigns that job to you, are you absolutely positive that you're not going to call shenanigans?

So the frat rules are actually there for a very good reason, albeit one that a show like Star Trek likely wouldn't address with any seriousness (mostly because modern Trek - TNG and on) had so few veterans involved who actually comprehended the reason such rules exist. Me, I think that it would have made some fascinating storytelling in seasons 5 and on. Think of the scenarios: Trip is in command while Archer & T'Pol have been captured by villains, and Tucker can rescue only one. Which one does he save and how does he react afterward? And so on.

What he said.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.

User avatar
panyasan
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 12:14 pm
Location: Farel moon, Dosa system

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby panyasan » Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:26 am

Ditto. Great post, Rigil.
Think of the scenarios: Trip is in command while Archer & T'Pol have been captured by villains, and Tucker can rescue only one. Which one does he save and how does he react afterward? And so on.
That would make a great story.
Love is a verb.

Chapter 17 of Word of Ice is up!

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8522099/17/World-of-Ice

The Naked Truth and other necessities of life

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/12056258/1 ... es-of-life

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 29, 2011 4:28 am

WG, at no time did I say that the U.S. was exempt. I was pointing out that France claimed the territory but in fact it belonged to those who had lived on the land for centuries. France owned by right of cnquest?

So, when the Mongols, Romans or other societies conquer and claim the conquered territory they are right. what abou tthose who lived on that land what about their rights?

the europeans conssidered the natves as a problem that had to be dealt with harshly. They never considered the natives as anything but uncivilized barbarians. Getting rid of them and taking thier land was justified by that.

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


Image

putaro
Captain
Captain
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 6:18 am
Show On Map: No
Location: Cupertino, CA
Contact:

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby putaro » Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:02 am

Transwarp wrote:@ Marchale: You said "As far as fraternization goes, yeah - I think it's pretty silly having rules against it"

I have to respectfully disagree. Consider this example. You and I are serving in the same department. We're both the same rank, but I'm sleeping with our boss because she's a smoking hot Vulcan babe.


Those are both good examples and good reasons.

If we look back, though, "fraternization" originally wasn't a euphemism for "having sex" back when the services were all male. Fraternization also covered just being friends or having a business relationship, especially between officers and enlisted. At one time there were clear class distinctions between the officers and enlisted and breaking those class distinctions were a big no-no. Today, officers and enlisted can probably be more friendly than, say, in 1800, without falling afoul of "non-fraternization."

So, while your points are good when applied to TODAY, they may or may not apply 150 years from now. Certainly people would have been very quick to defend and justify the regulations in 1800.

It's possible that in 150 years people are mature enough to deal with these issues. Or, maybe Starfleet has a lot to learn. Or, Starfleet is exactly the same as today's US Navy. All interesting directions to go in. I don't think there's any definitive answer from the show as to what the regulations are, other than no superior/subordinate relationship.
Image

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 29, 2011 5:33 am

Silverbullet wrote:WG, at no time did I say that the U.S. was exempt. I was pointing out that France claimed the territory but in fact it belonged to those who had lived on the land for centuries. France owned by right of cnquest?

So, when the Mongols, Romans or other societies conquer and claim the conquered territory they are right. what abou tthose who lived on that land what about their rights?

the europeans conssidered the natves as a problem that had to be dealt with harshly. They never considered the natives as anything but uncivilized barbarians. Getting rid of them and taking thier land was justified by that.

SB


I'm sorry but it sounded like you were saying France had no right to sell the land but the US had the legal right to buy it. Like I said before the entire US is owned by right of conquest. At least places like India got their independence back eventually, that will never ever happen in this country because the Europian powers AND the USA committed near genocide.

My point was that back in the early 1800's there was no law that said France could not do what it pleased with its own holdings. Because back then nobody was saying "hey you're stealing that land you creeps."

So I guess the better way to put it is that they had no moral right to that land. And guess what we still don't.

About the Frat regs... I say they're worthless for ONE reason. People will still break them. There is no law or consequence designed by man that can stop someone from being drawn either sexually or emotionally to another person.

Even if two people DON'T act on their feelings, the feelings are still there, and those emotions will cloud judgment.
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

Kotik

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Kotik » Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:08 am

WarpGirl wrote:About the Frat regs... I say they're worthless for ONE reason. People will still break them. There is no law or consequence designed by man that can stop someone from being drawn either sexually or emotionally to another person.

Even if two people DON'T act on their feelings, the feelings are still there, and those emotions will cloud judgment.


That, me dear, is called professionalism. As harsh as it sounds, but if you are part of a command structure, you'll have to leave your personal feelings at the door, when duty begins.

During my last year in the army, as one of the most senior enlisted ranks, I was often 2nd in command during guard duty. In more than one case I had to send good friends off to get punished, because they fell asleep at the post. You simply have to put personal feelings in the back-burner. Admittedly its not the same as sending someone off to die, but it demonstrates what the no-frat regs are all about.

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 29, 2011 6:31 am

I know it's called professionalism and I know a great many people are capable of restraint. But there is one little thing... Relationships will ALWAYS happen. We think that in our so called "transparent society" of the "information age" where youtube, facebook, and twitter divuldge everyone's secrets that people don't have any. Not true, clandestine relationships still happen. Adultry, Sexual Harrassment, Favoritisim, and every other thing frat regs are designed to prevent will happen whether you threaten to throw someone in prison or not.

The point is, people will always care. Unless you're a complete sociopath in which case please stay away. In the end the frat regs will fail with people. And frankly I don't think it's fair to punish someone for human nature. There are other ways of dealing with favoritism, situations where there is danger. Putting someone in prison, or stripping them of their sense of honor in the case of a Dishonorable Discharge only does more harm than good.
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

Kotik

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Kotik » Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:39 am

I think you're over-dramatizing it, dear. The no-frat rules do not exist to prevent or prohibit the existence of personal relationships. In fact there's nothing in them to say that you're forbidden to fall in love with a subordinate.

I don't know, how foreign armies handle it, but in Germany things are handled like that:

If you happen to plsn to pursue a personal relationship with a fellow member of the forces, you have the option of making that officially known to your superiors and one of them will be stationed in a different military unit, usually in the same barracks to avoid things like conflict of interests and/or favouratism. Both will not be punished and are free to pursue their relationship.

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 29, 2011 7:17 am

Oooh not a good week out of the month to call me on my inner drama queen. :lol: 8) My point is this, trying to regulate the human heart is futile. And from what my extended family tells me, (all Navy and Air Force) even when people do report relationships and follow the rules, there's this unspoken disapproval. Especially if it's a superior officer with someone under their command.

But you know what the worst part of rules like that are? I'll tell you. It's not about doing something that is WRONG, (unless there's adultry involved) I mean come on, someone does something really bad like DDO or DOD, it's because they're probably not that great to begin with.

But all of the sudden the right person just happens to come into your life in a less than tradtitional way, and you're in violation of the law! Does that not strike anyone as slightly rediculous?

Like I said, I get why the regs exist. I even agree with those reasons.

But rules like that just do not work, because people don't work that way. It's not like most people say, "okay I'm going to deliberately fall in love with so-in-so even if it's against the UCMJ." You have to make a choice to break every other rule. Whether you act on your emotions or not, falling in love will always effect your judgement it's unavoidable for HUMANS at any rate.

I guess I just believe there has to be a better way. I'm mean the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, (particularly the Spartans), and Romans, deliberately encouraged close bonds between their soldiers in order to foster devotion, and to make sure their armies would fight even more firecely in battle to protect their loved ones. Last time I checked all of those cultures were dominent world powers longer than modern Europe or the US.
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

Kotik

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Kotik » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:34 am

WarpGirl wrote:But all of the sudden the right person just happens to come into your life in a less than tradtitional way, and you're in violation of the law! Does that not strike anyone as slightly rediculous?


Sorry, dear, but you are wrong. You are NOT in violation of the law, if you fall in love with a subordinate. You only violate the regs, if you do not report it. And there's also no unspoken disapproval, unless the person unspokenly disapproving is a bigot. So, in essence, you are allowed to foster a relationship with any other member of the forces an you are perfectly within the no-frat rules, if:

1. You report it to your superiors.
2. You accept that either you or your other half is reassigned to a different unit that does not share a command structure with yours.

There is a saying in the German army - Melden macht frei (Reporting sets you free) - meaning, once you report something to your superiors, you're free of (almost) all the responsibility and its now their job to deal with things. Of course that doesn't apply if you report "uh, I sort of shot a comrade" ;-)

Basically, the no-frats do NOT forbid personal relationships, they only forbid to have them clandestinely.

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 29, 2011 8:14 am

Uh yeah I know that you have to report it. But let's take a hypothetical here... Suppose there's this nice guy named Micheal. He's a Commander in the Navy (because that's the branch I know most about) he oversees the mail room on the base, there's a pretty young Lt. j.g, that works under him. He falls for her, now he doesn't do anything about it, never mentions it to her. But someone finds out. And all H-E-double hockeysticks breaks loose.

Now how may I ask is it fair to punish someone who never acted on their feelings, or even mentioned that he had them to the woman involved? Nothing inappropriate happened, no hint of anything WRONG. Yet our guy at best, gets written up and a perminent black mark on his career. All because he didn't go to and say "hey listen I need to get rid of this girl whose done nothing wrong, whom I'm not pursuing AT ALL but I fell for her."

I'm sorry that's nuts. You shouldn't have rules that make it a criminal offense to not fill out a bunch of paperwork and uproot entirely innocent people just because someone happens to fall in love with someone. Seriously! There's got to be a better way of handling it.
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

Kotik

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Kotik » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:28 am

WarpGirl wrote:Uh yeah I know that you have to report it. But let's take a hypothetical here... Suppose there's this nice guy named Micheal. He's a Commander in the Navy (because that's the branch I know most about) he oversees the mail room on the base, there's a pretty young Lt. j.g, that works under him. He falls for her, now he doesn't do anything about it, never mentions it to her. But someone finds out. And all H-E-double hockeysticks breaks loose.

Now how may I ask is it fair to punish someone who never acted on their feelings, or even mentioned that he had them to the woman involved? Nothing inappropriate happened, no hint of anything WRONG. Yet our guy at best, gets written up and a perminent black mark on his career. All because he didn't go to and say "hey listen I need to get rid of this girl whose done nothing wrong, whom I'm not pursuing AT ALL but I fell for her."

I'm sorry that's nuts. You shouldn't have rules that make it a criminal offense to not fill out a bunch of paperwork and uproot entirely innocent people just because someone happens to fall in love with someone. Seriously! There's got to be a better way of handling it.


Sorry dear, but that's utter hogwash :shock:

Your hypothetical Commander did absolutely nothing wrong. Why should hell break loose, because he is secretly in love with her? In fact all he would get is probably a commendation for is professional conduct. And whoever reported that he secretly loves her, but didn't act on it, would walk the plank for violating the privacy of a fellow comrade. There's only one possible reason, that your fictional Commander would get into trouble is, If he showed favoritism towards the Lt. j.g, which by your account he did not.

The army isn't cruel, only rigidly regulated.

putaro
Captain
Captain
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 6:18 am
Show On Map: No
Location: Cupertino, CA
Contact:

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby putaro » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:34 am

Kotik wrote:The army isn't cruel, only rigidly regulated.


I'll take your expertise on Germany Army regs - you've been there and done that. Anyone want to weight in on US miltary regs?
Image

Kotik

Re: Where did those pesky fraternization rules come from?

Postby Kotik » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:45 am

putaro wrote:Anyone want to weight in on US miltary regs?


I think our resident expert is Transwarp, although I suppose that they are pretty similar to our regs, considering that the post-war Bundeswehr was established with substential input from the US of A and Great Britain.


Return to “Trip and T'Pol Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests