M14 Forum

DukeRustfield

You're comparing two different things, Cav.

If someone is off-duty and messing around, that's one thing. "When morals go down, morale goes up," can't remember who said it, but someone did I think circa WWII.

If they're on-duty and messing around, it doesn't matter if it's with a hooker, a nun, or a member of your squad, it's a bad thing. If someone has such collossal indescretion, to do that during a mission/guard duty/whatever, not only putting themselves but their mates at risk, they should clearly not be in the service as they aren't ready for the responsibility.

Like a LEO could easily take bribes to look the other way, take kick backs, protection for criminals, etc. But we trust them not to do so despite the temptation. If they can't resist that temptation, they face the consequences of their actions.

We all have free will and make decisions every day. I just stopped at three stop signs a little bit ago even though no one was around. If I can't do that, I got no one to blame if they take away my ability to drive. But it's not the stop sign's fault or the car's fault or even the pretty girl walking on the sidewalk who distracted me.

GARRARD

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on principle Duke, but the rigors of combat do things to some people that they wouldn't ordinarily do and that most people can't relate to. Some people lose their inhibitions when they face death because they figure it will all be over soon anyway or they just get desperate. Some people get hyper-emotional because of things they can't control back home or they feel isolated. On the flip side of that, there was a guy I knew that had been married 20 years, happily with kids, and after a couple of months of him being gone on deployment, his wife not only left him, but she left him for a woman. I guess what I'm getting at is that when one's routine and way of living are turned up side down, some people revert to their base instincts in order to cope. Does that make it any less immoral, maybe not. But knowing what can and probably will happen, is it still a good idea to change things? The military is a cross section of society so there will always be some that can't keep it in their pants. The question is, is it more important to put women in combat arms jobs that most of them can't do and deal with the problems that are inherent with co-eds or is it more important to ensure that everyone in a combat arms unit is physically able to perform and survive and to keep those who might be weak willed away from temptation?

CAVman

Let Me See...

Bunkers.

Guard Towers.

Bunkers.

Guard Towers.

Nope, Don't Think I Am...



CAVman in WYoming

willriskit

I would imagine that any statistics on the problem are under lock and key, but among my circle of friends and family, the number of those married when they went on deployment and came back to marry someone else they were deployed with is significant. One that stands out is an Army battalion commander who got one of his company commanders pregnant. We also had a situation in our family in which her parents raised two children during both times mom and dad were deployed. In that one, the children bonded with the grandparents and the separaton was traumatic. The ones I really feel sorriest for are the single moms who separate from the military with a child and a very uncertain future. These situations are difficult for members of my generation to comprehend. Perhaps Chesty had it right after all, when he said: "If the Marine Corps wanted you to have a wife we would have issued you one."

daniel43

In the wild land fire fighting world they let women be hotshots and smokejumpers. They have to pass the same pack test and p.t. test as the men.Many make it on the shot crews. but most wash out of the jump program. THANK GOD!!! Chicks are a pain in the ass! sorry but I am not p.c. but A.C. actually correct.