• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Woman + Subs

LET73

Well-Known Member
It's naive to assume that no one's going to get pregnant on a sub. It happens at every single other operational command in the Navy, and while it's nice to think that submariners are that much more mission focused, they aren't. Smart people do dumb things all the time, even when they have occasional access to fresh air.

It's not just ships, either; I'm surprised no one has brought up the story about the baby born at Camp Bastion.
 

robav8r

Future performance not guaranteed . . .
None
Contributor
Yea, no. If someone as career oriented as a prior 4 star Director of the CIA couldn't stay away from the honey pot, how do you think a 21 year old MM3 on a boomer who hasn't seen the sun but has seen his female shipmate every day underway is going to do?
What do we covet Clarice? We covet what we see everyday :)
 

Silhouette

Well-Known Member
It's naive to assume that no one's going to get pregnant on a sub. It happens at every single other operational command in the Navy, and while it's nice to think that submariners are that much more mission focused, they aren't. Smart people do dumb things all the time, even when they have occasional access to fresh air.

It's not just ships, either; I'm surprised no one has brought up the story about the baby born at Camp Bastion.
If this was directed at me, I did not make that assumption or statement.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
If this was directed at me, I did not make that assumption or statement.
How are you not essentially making that argument? Yeah, people have a choice - that's not new. The fact that some percentage of people will choose to have sex while underway is a cold, hard fact. For you to suggest that it's technically possible to choose not to have sex changes nothing. If I'm hearing your point incorrectly, please elaborate, but I don't really get why you're making it if it exists strictly in the theoretical realm.
 

Silhouette

Well-Known Member
How are you not essentially making that argument? Yeah, people have a choice - that's not new. The fact that some percentage of people will choose to have sex while underway is a cold, hard fact. For you to suggest that it's technically possible to choose not to have sex changes nothing. If I'm hearing your point incorrectly, please elaborate, but I don't really get why you're making it if it exists strictly in the theoretical realm.
I wasn't making an assumption that there wouldn't be pregnancies on a sub. I was trying to make an argument that pregnancies don't have to happen just because a woman is present. I guess that is a theoretical argument. I think I'm veering off or tempted to veer off into threadjack territory at this point, though, so I will slowly back away now (hey, how did I end up in the Surface/Submarine area anyway...)
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
@Brett,

Look, I accept that the decision has been made and women are here to stay on submarines. I am just skeptical when someone quotes a mythical mathematical manning calculus (I say mythical because "they" haven't produced the study, either) that thinks women are going to be the panacea for the worst-case manning deficits, such as some seen circa late 1990s, that might recur again in 20 years or solve a tactical leadership problem that exists in a submarine force that hasn't fired a torpedo to sink an enemy combatant in decades by 'selecting' every candidate who raised her hand. So when people site these reasons in a discussion on the issue, I throw the BS flag on it.

@Mew: #3

Re pregnancy: What's more likely is conception occurs during off-crew or a port call and the boat finds out when it's highly inconvenient, forcing them to come off alert or off station. That doesn't necessarily require misconduct on anyone's part. But it's no more inconvenient than when someone breaks an ankle for playing football.
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
I wasn't making an assumption that there wouldn't be pregnancies on a sub. I was trying to make an argument that pregnancies don't have to happen just because a woman is present.
We all know submariners prefer men over women....100 men go down, 50 couples come up......can't get pregnant from butt sex. Since everyone claims it's not a choice, I don't see how throwing a few women onboard is going to change things....
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
We all know submariners prefer men over women....100 men go down, 50 couples come up......can't get pregnant from butt sex. Since everyone claims it's not a choice, I don't see how throwing a few women onboard is going to change things....
With all this talk of sex on subs, I'm actually kind of surprised it took this long for that joke to come out. :D
 
...are they capable of restraining themselves? If the honest answer is yes, then failure to exercise restraint should be a career-ender.
It is. I have known multiple people that have been administratively separated for having sex on board ship/fraternizing resulting in pregnancy. Both enlisted and officer ranks.

I'm surprised to see so much argument for the right (?) of people to have sex at inappropriate times and places.
I don't think anyone is arguing for the "right" to have sex underway, they are simply saying that it happens, and that it will happen no matter how much you legislate against it.

...what gets me more -- as I was trying to express above -- is the reluctance of leaders to pull the trigger in instances of blatant deployment dodging and orders violations in war zones.
Punishing a person for getting pregnant is one of those lighting rods that many leaders are afraid to touch. Many COs of surface ships simply transfer pregnant women off the ship as soon as a pregnancy materializes, even though they could keep them around until later in their pregnancy. From my perspective it seems that they just don't want to deal with the issue or the complications that it brings with it.
 

CommodoreMid

Whateva! I do what I want!
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Look, I accept that the decision has been made and women are here to stay on submarines. I am just skeptical when someone quotes a mythical mathematical manning calculus (I say mythical because "they" haven't produced the study, either) that thinks women are going to be the panacea for the worst-case manning deficits, such as some seen circa late 1990s, that might recur again in 20 years or solve a tactical leadership problem that exists in a submarine force that hasn't fired a torpedo to sink an enemy combatant in decades by 'selecting' every candidate who raised her hand. So when people site these reasons in a discussion on the issue, I throw the BS flag on it.
Considering all the nuke drafts in recent years, they're basically taking almost any dude who is willing to go as well. My ROTC class had a dude who had an NFO slot, a poli sci major who wasn't exactly a science whiz, who changed over to subs when they put an all call out for anyone who wanted to switch last minute. They rushed him for his nuke interview and, bam, going subs.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
It is. I have known multiple people that have been administratively separated for having sex on board ship/fraternizing resulting in pregnancy. Both enlisted and officer ranks.



I don't think anyone is arguing for the "right" to have sex underway, they are simply saying that it happens, and that it will happen no matter how much you legislate against it.



Punishing a person for getting pregnant is one of those lighting rods that many leaders are afraid to touch. Many COs of surface ships simply transfer pregnant women off the ship as soon as a pregnancy materializes, even though they could keep them around until later in their pregnancy. From my perspective it seems that they just don't want to deal with the issue or the complications that it brings with it.
Good points all. I'd like to point out that the applicable pregnancy instruction expressly prohibits any negative consequences for being pregnant, although it wouldn't mean that someone wouldn't be prosecuted for violating the no effing rule if the timeline was right. That said, most COs probably aren't going to touch that one unless there are aggravating circumstances.
 

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
Considering all the nuke drafts in recent years, they're basically taking almost any dude who is willing to go as well. My ROTC class had a dude who had an NFO slot, a poli sci major who wasn't exactly a science whiz, who changed over to subs when they put an all call out for anyone who wanted to switch last minute. They rushed him for his nuke interview and, bam, going subs.
I served with many nuke officers who were english, poly sci, and history, of course the number of them has steadily dropped. The bad part is that it is hard for them to get jobs in the nuke field after getting out.
 

LET73

Well-Known Member
If this was directed at me, I did not make that assumption or statement.
No, you didn't, and you're right that there don't have to be any pregnancies. Plenty of women deploy and don't get pregnant--I'd say the vast majority--but it's like anything else in the military where the actions of a couple of idiots have a disproportionate effect on everyone else. My point was that while it doesn't have to happen, it will, and anyone who puts his trust in 100% of sailors behaving themselves 100% of the time is fooling himself.
 

scoober78

(HCDAW)
pilot
Contributor
Unfortunately, there aren't many "safe" methods for retrieving mom-to-be from the surfaced ballistic missile submarine "that's supposed to be hiiiiiiding" aside from hoisting her into a helo from the pitching deck or transferring her to a RHIB (at night, in rolling seas).

I only ever operated with a surfaced sub once, and it was a logistical pain in the ass. No one would tell us exaactly where the sub would be until we were 25 minutes late for our on-top.
Uhhhh...no. We offload people routinely via tugs/pilot craft etc...

It's a bit beyond the scope and classification level of the forum, but suffice it to say that people can be routinely offloaded from a sub...even a boomer fairly expeditiously.
 

scoober78

(HCDAW)
pilot
Contributor
So, Fleet Admiral Brett, "diversity" is an initiative? "Demographic shifts are "initiatives"?

This begs the question: At what point is it reasonable for us bottom-feeders to expect "The defense of our nation" to be an 'initiative'?

Look KBay, I get where you are coming from, truly, but you are missing the forest for the trees. Is it right to place "initiatives" ahead of capabilities? In the long run, no. However, consider this argument...

We agree that defense of our nation and protection of it's vital interests is the highest priority of the military.
We agree that the best and brightest we can recruit are essential to maximizing our effectiveness.
Simple math tells us that just over half of the nation have two X chromosomes.

How in the @#$% can you try to make an argument that says excluding more than half of the potential "sample group" permanently, results in the best, most effective military long term?

Certainly, there will be some short term sacrifices in terms of economic outlay, inconvenience and even short term effectiveness...but in the end, there is no scenario where a force that relies on savvy minds, intelligence and trainable skills ends up further ahead by excluding half of the population from it's potential candidates.

Does anyone honestly think that the inclusion of African Americans makes the military weaker today? There sure as shit were teething issues, but we'll figure them out and be stronger for it in the end. We're asking the wrong question. The question isn't how can we put group X in job Y...it's how CAN'T we...
 
Top