A
aesop081
Guest
284_226 said:
Did i ever say i believed it was ?
Its not about what is "fair"......Its about public perception
(USAF) Sergeant In Trouble For Playboy Spread
- Thread starter Blackadder1916
- Start date
Did i ever say i believed it was ?
Its not about what is "fair"......Its about public perception
cdnaviator said:
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you personally felt it was unfair, but I was more curious about what you think "the system" objects to about it. I'm not sure that public perception would be as negative as some might think. If the CF's objection to it is solely based on morality, then it's dangerous ground to be on, IMO. For example, what if a female CF member revealed publicly that she'd had an abortion - a highly controversial, yet legal act, that many people find immoral. Would she then be subject to a 129 charge? (which is what I think GW meant)
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
It's late. I had a dyslexic moment. 129.
A Medical procedure is a lot different from a Act of 'Exhibitionism'. The Abortion would be morally wrong to some Religious 'beliefs', but not to the Military Code. The Act of Exhibitionism would be morally wrong according to the Military Codes.
A Medical procedure is a lot different from a Act of 'Exhibitionism'. The Abortion would be morally wrong to some Religious 'beliefs', but not to the Military Code. The Act of Exhibitionism would be morally wrong according to the Military Codes.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Dogboy said:
Unfortunately, it is not your book that the Rules come from, but the USAF book.
George Wallace said:
I understand what you're saying, but both acts are judged by the public as to their morality. Over time, public opinion on both issues has come a long way. Women have gained the right to unimpeded access to abortion because of changing values/morals. Similarly, and to use a specific example, Penthouse started out as a soft porn magazine. Then it gradually became a bit more risque in the US version, but with black dots in the Canadian version. Eventually, even the black dots disappeared, and I have to assume it's because those who oversee what is and isn't acceptable in a print magazine have kept in tune with what is deemed to be indecent material under the law in Canada.
Assuming that morality was the sole underlying reason for the military's stance on the issue, wouldn't it be reasonable for the military to soften their stance if the changing values of the general public were softening as well?
A
aesop081
Guest
Dogboy said:
I dont belive that the public would see any such disinction. Thus my comment on public perception. We have all seen media reports that carry headlines such as " ........ is a member of the CF" even though their actions are done on a member's own time. I call it the "CNN factor"
284_226 said:
It is not an issue of morality. It is an issue of image. The image of a professional force. This is the perception that the USAF undoubtably wants to maintain (IMHO).
Edited to remove factual error.
cdnaviator said:
I'll agree with you insofar as stating that it is indeed important for any military to project the image of a professional force. However, if the day comes (and it's not for me to decide, but I don't think we're far off) that the military can no longer connect the dots between nudity and unprofessionalism, then it might be time to change the regs...
A
aesop081
Guest
284_226 said:
Do not think for a second that this is a MILITARY issue either. The same question of perception applies to any public official. Do you think that if a serving politician did the same, that him/her would continue to serve for long in that capacity ?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
284_226 said:
Morale, Respect, just a couple others.
She trains troops, what effect would this have on any and all troops that she is involved with, as well as the others on the base. Would not take a lot of imagination to hear the jokes.
Try really hard to put yourself in the troops place, what would your reaction be?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ok,
So I have the mag in question....excellent article by some guy...had words..I think >
Anyways...she's in uniform...parts of it anyways...the USAF features prominently in her interview.... whataya know I did read it
While she's hot and I like naked women as much as the next guy...I kept thinking about how I'd feel if one of my troops posed for pics like that with her saucy red hat...not good.
If you want to pose fine...but get out and pose a former USAF Drill Instructor
So I have the mag in question....excellent article by some guy...had words..I think >
Anyways...she's in uniform...parts of it anyways...the USAF features prominently in her interview.... whataya know I did read it
While she's hot and I like naked women as much as the next guy...I kept thinking about how I'd feel if one of my troops posed for pics like that with her saucy red hat...not good.
If you want to pose fine...but get out and pose a former USAF Drill Instructor
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
Poppa said:Ok,
So I have the mag in question....excellent article by some guy...had words..I think >
Anyways...she's in uniform...parts of it anyways...the USAF features prominently in her interview.... whataya know I did read it
While she's hot and I like naked women as much as the next guy...I kept thinking about how I'd feel if one of my troops posed for pics like that with her saucy red hat...not good.
If you want to pose fine...but get out and pose a former USAF Drill Instructor
If one posed in uniform, or parts of it while serving, then disciplinary action would certainly be warranted. In this case, she wore her uniform. UH D'uh...sucks to be her.
But if no uniform is worn in any of the pics (or visible really), then disciplinary action is uncalled for. To discipline a female (or male - Hey there's Playgirl), should this be the circumstance, while not discipling a single male who buys the magazine during his lunch hour while in uniform in a PX, is just the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I have to agree. It is a double standard to argue that she can't pose but at the same time say it is ok for someone in uniform to be seen carrying that same magazine. Public perception? What public? It also reminds me of the argument from http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52077.0.html about the rights of soldiers to wear t-shirts with political slogans when they are off duty.The Librarian said:
someday_031 said:
GO!!! said:
If we accept this argument then she has every right to pose in the magazine and worrying about public perception does, in fact, become a morality issue.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
More stuff : Sergeant in trouble for Playboy spread :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_re_us/playboy_military
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_re_us/playboy_military
Reading the story, I see that she is MARRIED and has two kids. I hope the kids are not old enough to read, or see their Mum in the nude in a magazine. Talk about a supreme lack of class, on her part. Can you say "discharge without honour " ?
Jim B Toronto.
Jim B Toronto.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Having not seen the photo spread, I can't absolutely assume the subject is an end all, the best of the best, Playboy playmate or just an average one that is considered special because of her employment so with that in mind I may be entirely in error as to her physical attractiveness.
If the subject is however, attractive enough, well endowed enough to make it onto the pages of Playboy, then there is in all likelihood, very few of her troopies that haven't already had their share of wet dreams and fantasies over her in real life. Does she or did she experience difficulties prior to her doing the photo shoot, with her troopies marginally objectifying her over her looks? Who knows? I'd hazard a guess and say that more than a few would have had her breasts in their gaze a few times - most people are attracted to the beautiful, the different, the sexual even if only in passing.
Would the subject, now baring her breasts in a magazine that's sole purpose is to objectify the female form for male audiences, have further difficulties with troop discipline because they now have seen her naked and she can't possibly be taken seriously or alternatively, having seen what lay below the clothing is no longer the mystique and fantasy makng? Who knows? The whole line of thinking that the troops will have problems now, taking her seriously has a minor flaw in it as it presumes she did not have any problems prior to the shoot.
As for the use of the uniform, I recall having a similar type of conversation with a young wife of a subordinate a few decades ago about her wanting to use their husband's uniform in a "glam" photo as she felt it was sexually provocative for him to see her in his uniform. Other spouses, piped up that they often "dress up" in hubby's uniform to role play and believed that the uniform was again, sexually provocative. Now maybe I am old fashioned, but I gave a little chat about how using the uniform of the CF in that manner was disrespectful to the uniform. I believe like, the office of the PM, the rank of a superior, my country's flag and the uniforms of those that serve are to be respected no matter what (even if one does not like the PM, the particular superior, one should and is required to be respectful to the office/rank etc.)In the case of the uniform, it is more than just an article of clothing, it embraces all that I believe in. It is a symbol of what my country stands for and to use it for a sex toy is plain disrespectful. So that said, in this case where the uniform was used as a prop, to increase the objectification of both the female form and the uniform for sexual gratification, I say the subject needs to be disciplined and discharged. That level of disrespect for the uniform of her country is beyond salvaging irrespective of her right to express herself as she sees fit, or the guaranteed freedoms (that yes, ironically the use of such a uniform gained for her).
I'm not feeling too sympathetic towards the subject as it apparent that being in Playboy has demonstrated that she has potential to pursue other career options.
If the subject is however, attractive enough, well endowed enough to make it onto the pages of Playboy, then there is in all likelihood, very few of her troopies that haven't already had their share of wet dreams and fantasies over her in real life. Does she or did she experience difficulties prior to her doing the photo shoot, with her troopies marginally objectifying her over her looks? Who knows? I'd hazard a guess and say that more than a few would have had her breasts in their gaze a few times - most people are attracted to the beautiful, the different, the sexual even if only in passing.
Would the subject, now baring her breasts in a magazine that's sole purpose is to objectify the female form for male audiences, have further difficulties with troop discipline because they now have seen her naked and she can't possibly be taken seriously or alternatively, having seen what lay below the clothing is no longer the mystique and fantasy makng? Who knows? The whole line of thinking that the troops will have problems now, taking her seriously has a minor flaw in it as it presumes she did not have any problems prior to the shoot.
As for the use of the uniform, I recall having a similar type of conversation with a young wife of a subordinate a few decades ago about her wanting to use their husband's uniform in a "glam" photo as she felt it was sexually provocative for him to see her in his uniform. Other spouses, piped up that they often "dress up" in hubby's uniform to role play and believed that the uniform was again, sexually provocative. Now maybe I am old fashioned, but I gave a little chat about how using the uniform of the CF in that manner was disrespectful to the uniform. I believe like, the office of the PM, the rank of a superior, my country's flag and the uniforms of those that serve are to be respected no matter what (even if one does not like the PM, the particular superior, one should and is required to be respectful to the office/rank etc.)In the case of the uniform, it is more than just an article of clothing, it embraces all that I believe in. It is a symbol of what my country stands for and to use it for a sex toy is plain disrespectful. So that said, in this case where the uniform was used as a prop, to increase the objectification of both the female form and the uniform for sexual gratification, I say the subject needs to be disciplined and discharged. That level of disrespect for the uniform of her country is beyond salvaging irrespective of her right to express herself as she sees fit, or the guaranteed freedoms (that yes, ironically the use of such a uniform gained for her).
I'm not feeling too sympathetic towards the subject as it apparent that being in Playboy has demonstrated that she has potential to pursue other career options.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
All I can say is why didnt we have Sgts. that looked like that when I was a young soldier,
I would serve under her anytime!.
Regards
I would serve under her anytime!.
Regards
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Thanks for proving my point Time...LOL
