Triaxiansilk.com

It is tough even in a building that houses an embassy for instance. If one goes around seducing the secretaries and telephonists, etc one gets people upset and they start saying things about you. Same in an office I guess if it gets known.

A night in someones arms can be a balm for problems though.

SB

Rigil Kent wrote: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.

TNG addressed it in the episode Lessons

And I agree with your post.

WarpGirl wrote:Actually, it isn't unclear at all. In ENT it flat out says that Starfleet is not considered military AT THAT TIME PERIOD. Later on, at the beginning of the Romulan War, and the founding of the Federation, Starfleet is officially absorbed as part of the Federation's Military. As are all the members space fleets.

Star Trek is balancing on the same fence as Earth explorers did when they set out from the 15th century an onwards to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. When they needed to be military, they were. They had to prepare for hostile responses and they did and if needed they were side by side with the actual navy and became part of it. At the same time they also explored and when things went well, that was in the foreground.

When you're embarking on something like this, military like structures makes things a lot easier to handle a crisis (like oh god, oh god, we're all going to die). People know what they should do (and not) and it can make the difference between life and death. It's also logical to be careful with relationships because they can cause problems.

I'd like to point out that there are cultural differences in how you look at relationships when you work and that Star Trek is written in an American context. As far as I know there are no non-frat rules in the Swedish Military. Part of that has to do with the fact that very few women have been officers (and the whole idea of gay men is completely ignored) but also, we have a very strong legislation around our official workplaces (which the military is - officers are state employed), what you can and can't do, how you look at merit for promotion etc, and also how you deal with abuse and blackmail in a sexual context. I know for a fact that relationships exist (and have existed) between officers here and there's been no issue about that. In most Swedish workplaces (not American like McDonald's and such - they have rules about this) it's ok to have relationships. On the other hand, you're not supposed to be flashing it either, but that's an unwritten rule, and if you come across a couple having a private moment, you just ignore it and carry on with your stuff. The vast majority can handle having a relationship in your workplace, it's no big deal.

Then it's the fiction Star Trek. With emphasis on fiction. What would fiction be without relationships of various kinds? That's why that non-frat rule suddenly is whipped out when it suits the writers, while in other episodes it's blissfully ignored.

Ulva wrote:As far as I know there are no non-frat rules in the Swedish Military.

On first reading, this was very difficult for me to believe. Swedish officers are permitted to display favoritism to subordinates that they are having intimate relations with? Really? Could there be a quicker way to destroy morale and undermine unit cohesion?

Ulva wrote:we have a very strong legislation around our official workplaces (which the military is - officers are state employed), what you can and can't do, how you look at merit for promotion etc, and also how you deal with abuse and blackmail in a sexual context.

Ah! I read further down and find that the Swedish Military *DOES* have rules regulating conduct between superiors and subordinates. Rules that sound very much like the US Army's.

Remember, people, there isn't a 'no-frat' regulation in any military that I'm aware of. Relationships between officers and enlisted *are* permitted. Even marriage. Just not in the same chain of command, for all the reasons I've spelled out (in great detail) in earlier posts. There are regs that govern fraternization, but not a 'no-frat' reg that would prohibit any and all such relationships. I suppose such regs are rampant in fan fiction, but not in reality.

Transwarp wrote:Swedish officers are permitted to display favoritism to subordinates that they are having intimate relations with? Really? Could there be a quicker way to destroy morale and undermine unit cohesion?

You seem to have read favoritism where I read fraternisation. Surely the two are quite separate? You don't have to be having a relationship with somebody to show them favoritism, and you can be in a relationship without showing favoritism.

Transwarp wrote:Remember, people, there isn't a 'no-frat' regulation in any military that I'm aware of. Relationships between officers and enlisted *are* permitted. Even marriage. Just not in the same chain of command,

A regulation that prohibits fraternisation between people in the same chain of command *is* a no-frat rule, surely?

Cogito wrote:you seem to have read favoritism where I read fraternisation.

I read favoritism instead of fraternization because the regs aren't about fraternization, they're about conduct and conflicts of interest.

Cogito wrote:Surely the two are quite separate? You don't have to be having a relationship with somebody to show them favoritism, and you can be in a relationship without showing favoritism.

Indeed. And I'm quite certain most people who would engage in such relationships would be extremely careful that they were absolutely impartial and fair. But it doesn't matter. Human nature is such that I will suspect the fact that *I* am busy scrubbing out the bilge while your lover isn't is because you are cutting her slack. Doesn't matter she did it last week; that was last week and I've already forgotten!

Cogito wrote:A regulation that prohibits fraternisation between people in the same chain of command *is* a no-frat rule, surely?

In an extremely limited sense, perhaps. But I remind you that it isn't the relationship that's prohibited. There are Captains married to Sergeants in the same unit, as long as one does not report to the other. That's okay. If the relationship is between two in the same chain of command, one or both will be put in a different position. To me that's not a no-frat rule.

I'm sure the issue of favoritism must come up when there is any personal relationship, whether romantic or otherwise. And yet it seems to me that personal relationships must be fundamentally essential to any successful military organisation. Without that, it is merely a set of individuals without any incentive to act other than selfishly.

Cogito wrote:I'm sure the issue of favoritism must come up when there is any personal relationship, whether romantic or otherwise. And yet it seems to me that personal relationships must be fundamentally essential to any successful military organisation. Without that, it is merely a set of individuals without any incentive to act other than selfishly.

*Personal* relationships are one thing. *Subordinate-superior* relationships are something else. I can have a close relationship with a squad-mate. I can gamble with her. I can shower her with gifts. I can borrow money from her. I can take her to the movies. I can sell her a life-insurance policy, or ask her to contribute to my favorite charity. These are not a problem, because she doesn't work for me.

Ah, but if I'm her boss, all these things suddenly take on a whole different appearance. They are the types of conduct regulated by the so-called 'no-frat' rules. Nothing there that prevents close, personal relationships, just *inappropriate* relationships.

Transwarp wrote:They are the types of conduct regulated by the so-called 'no-frat' rules. Nothing there that prevents close, personal relationships, just *inappropriate* relationships.

I am happy to accept your description of no-frat regs as accurate, but there's something about the system you describe which feels wrong to me, and the system that Ulva described doesn't suffer from that problem.

In my opinion it should not be considered wrong to have a relationship of any sort with a colleague/superior/inferior - whether that relationship is a romantic love, sexual, platonic friendship, financial, owed favor, common religious/political beliefs, supporting the same sports team, coming from the same home town or whatever. What is wrong and *should* imo be regulated against, is partiality when carrying out professional duties. The existence of relationships can't be avoided, but they should not ever result in preferential treatment.

Cogito wrote:What is wrong and *should* imo be regulated against, is partiality when carrying out professional duties. The existence of relationships can't be avoided, but they should not ever result in preferential treatment.

In a perfect world, you would be correct. Even in the civilian world, this *could* work. The regs are in place in the military for many of the same reasons (prevent abusive or coercive subordinate/supervisor relationships), but that is just a side-effect. The main purpose of the regs is to maintain good order and discipline within the unit. It's not enough to prevent favoritism; the mere appearance or suspicion of favoritism is enough to destroy morale and undermine the commander's authority. And as Rigel pointed out in an earlier post, that suspicion is bound to arise no matter how careful the involved parties are. It doesn't matter that no favoritism occurred, it doesn't matter that no proof or evidence of favoritism can be found, all that matters is that most of the subordinates who AREN'T sharing the commander's bed are going to see evidence of favoritism everywhere they look. The mere knowledge of such a relationship will most likely destroy any credibility the CO has with regard to his impartiality.

If Captain Smith REALLY loves Corporal Jones, then he needs to man up and resign from his leadership position so he can be together with her.

Yeah, it sucks, but it is part and parcel of the human condition.

Transwarp wrote:

Ulva wrote:we have a very strong legislation around our official workplaces (which the military is - officers are state employed), what you can and can't do, how you look at merit for promotion etc, and also how you deal with abuse and blackmail in a sexual context.

Ah! I read further down and find that the Swedish Military *DOES* have rules regulating conduct between superiors and subordinates. Rules that sound very much like the US Army's.

Not quite. The laws stipulate that you can't make someone injustice because of nepotism or mistreat someone because you're a superior blackmailing someone in to an unhealthy relationship or punish that individual because they didn't go along with it. However, there are, as far as I know, no rules or laws stopping you from having a relationship with someone in your chain of command (and in other sectors being boss having a relationship with an employee). The tradition here has been to turn a blind eye to any relationships going on. It's not unproblematic of course and sometimes people are stepping out of line, but for the most part the rule has been to not regulate personal matters but punish those who mistreat. When I was younger I found the relationship rules in multinational companies quite alien for instance, but I do understand the sentiment today. However, it is difficult since people will break such rules. It's not a question about if, they will, and it's just... well, you kind of put innocent people on the same side as those who are malicious. This is a very cultural thing and I'm pretty sure it has to do with the general view on sexual moral, hierarchy and what you make rules about and as you know, that differs quite a lot depending on where you are. The difference between Sweden and Germany in these matters for instance is HUGE and we're still neighbours.

I adore Sweden!

Ulva wrote:This is a very cultural thing...

I think you're right.

Ulva wrote:It's not unproblematic of course and sometimes people are stepping out of line

I'm sure they do. Culture does not negate human nature.

Ulva wrote:well, you kind of put innocent people on the same side as those who are malicious.

Actually the rules are in place to protect the innocent. In cases like these there is rarely going to be any evidence. Most of the time it boils down to what people were thinking, and it is notoriously difficult to prove bias or impartiality. Just curious, but if a boss and subordinate are in a relationship, and another subordinate claims favoritism, who decides who is innocent? Is the subordinate's claim given more weight than the boss's? If so, now you have the potential for malicious subordinates making invalid claims. It seems either way, someone is going to get hurt.

Better to nip the problem in the bud, I think. A wise leader will not put himself in such a position.

Transwarp wrote:if a boss and subordinate are in a relationship, and another subordinate claims favoritism, who decides who is innocent?

I would hope that the boss could counter that sort of claim by providing records of past decisions and/or explaining how they managed whatever it was that was being disputed. For example, if the claim is that "she never gets given guard duty" then hopefully the logs would show that "she" served the same amount of guard duty as everyone else.

Cogito wrote:I would hope that the boss could counter that sort of claim by providing records of past decisions and/or explaining how they managed whatever it was that was being disputed. For example, if the claim is that "she never gets given guard duty" then hopefully the logs would show that "she" served the same amount of guard duty as everyone else.

That's exactly how the boss will counter. I'll even stipulate that it's true (I believe most leaders engaged in such activity would tend to bend over backwards making sure they are completely impartial.) But, alas, even random chance (such as flipping a coin) will sometimes yield results that appear non-random. The human brain is wired to look for patterns and correlations. Even if it's a complete coincidence, Private Duffy will begin to think it strange that HE was on duty during the last three USO shows, while Private Jones had front row seats sitting next to Lieutenant Smith.

How do you handle THAT case? Lieutenant Smith (completely innocent!) explains how he tries to do the duty roster by alphabetical order, but the week of the second USO show, Murphy went on sick call, so everybody got moved up one day, And four months later when that third USO show came to the post, Jones was TDY to Brigade HQ for the 'Soldier of the Year' board (Hmmm... suspicious how the LT nominated her for THAT. OK, her PT scores are high and she qualified expert on the range, but so did Roberts...) Anyway, she got plugged back into the duty roster immediately after her return to make up for the night she missed, but that pushed Duffy to USO night again, and nobody realized it was the third show he'd missed until after he complained to the IG. I mean really, how are we supposed to remember who was on duty four weeks ago, much less four MONTHS ago?

So there are three possible outcomes to this scenario, and only one of them is good. The possible outcomes are: (1) Lieutenant Smith will be vindicated, because he really was just following his system (remember, I am stipulating his innocence), and Duffy will realize he was mistaken and withdraw his complaint with no hard feelings. (2) Lieutenant Smith will be found to have abused his authority and reprimanded for his actions (even though he did nothing wrong). (3) Lieutenant Smith will be absolved of all wrong-doing by the chain of command, but Private Duffy will still be convinced he was screwed, because, after all, what are the odds that someone will have duty for three USO shows in a row?

I submit that because of human nature, the only good outcome (1), is also the least likely outcome. I submit that even with the best of intentions, the APPEARANCE of partiality is impossible to avoid. Any parent can tell you that it's difficult to be completely and totally impartial with your own kids, because their needs are different. One plays soccer while the other plays baseball. You buy them both new shoes, but baseball shoes cost more than soccer shoes! (or vice-versa, I really can't remember any more) Is it fair you bought more expensive shoes for one than you did for the other? You get the idea.

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!