# Jessica Lynch Poses for Hustler **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 11, 2003, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jessica-lynch-poses-for-hustler/212659 "2003-11-11T19:36:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jessica-lynch-poses-for-hustler/212659/101 "2003-11-14T20:20:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.N. Jones \* > \*\* JRDelirious, I agree that my sister is, in the “dimwit” and “tramp” respects, sitting in judgment of Lynch without all the facts. \*\* That’s all I was saying in that sense, too. The facts are that she was involved in an act of improper behavior in-garrison; the problem is that _it’s being extrapolated to a deprecation of PFC Lynch as a **person** _ (and not necessarily by you). (And, even when that is known for a fact, cases are judged individually and the discipline applied goes all the way from throwing the book at them to a slap on the wrist. Which inconsistency is itself another problem – somewhere right now surely sit a couple of otherwise promising soldiers who probably DID get the full treatment for just about the same thing, and are wondering what’s different) \*\* > [@](#): > > But the armed forces are still working on integrating women into more and more stressful/demanding duty assignments, and when women like Lynch prove that some gals can’t hack it without acting in a grossly inappropriate manner, it does–and rightly so–get factored into the decisions about what her opportunities will be. \*\* Well, I’ll just have to differ as to how rightly so it’s factored. One woman == all women. \*\* > [@](#): > > Bottom line: Lynch displayed spectacularly poor judgment. Whether it’s because she’s 19 or under stress or just dumb or a combination of the above, it doesn’t change that fact. \*\* Excellent and true. But you see, if that were the extent of all the public reaction it would be fine. But you and I know it’s also being used in some quarters to “bring her down” – which is kind of unfair since she wasn’t the one who set out to create a myth. ---
**Author:** ![Atrael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Atrael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atrael)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jessica-lynch-poses-for-hustler/212659/102 "2003-11-14T21:01:26Z")
This is just going to be one of those days, I can already tell. I’ll say right now that it’s getting close to quitting time for me, and I don’t get online over the weekend. So any further debate will have to wait until I’m back in Monday. So, once more into the fray: \*\* Q.N. Jones\*\* I’ll quote the items I’m responding to, and attempt to include enough text to ensure that I’m not taking something out of context. > [@](#): > > But you have stated that she did “nothing wrong” and “nothing unprofessional” by stripping nude in front of male co-workers in Army barracks. I disagree. I think most civilians would disagree. I think most military persons would disagree. And I think the rules and regs enlisted personnel like Lynch do disagree. Again, let me re-state what I am saying. She was not, to my knowledge, and yours, stripping nude in front of **co-workers**. I said above that it is very very common for people that work in different commands to live in the same barracks. Unless of course you want to make the broad statement that since they’re all in the military, they’re all co-workers. Which to me is the same as saying that you’re a co-worker with every lawyer in the state…since you all pass the same bar exam. > [@](#): > > Finally, if there was any misstatement in the rules of about “fraternization,” or the terminology, they were my fault and not my sister’s. So take care before you pop off telling her to “pay more attention in training.” Furthermore, the last thing she needs is some man like you warning her about the dangers/problems of pregnancy on board a ship. Gimme a break. You seem to think that because she and I disagree with your lackadaisical stance about this issue, and because I misstated the rules about “fraternization,” that this is evidence that my sister is an idiot. Guess again. That was not my intention. However you stated: > [@](#): > > Why? Because they learned in no uncertain terms during basic (heck, from the time they began to be recruited) that fraternizing is not tolerated. In her words, it’s “such a big no-no that you’d have to be a (bleep)ing moron not to know it.” So I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that your sister felt somehow that this was fraternization. Which as far as I (or you, or your sister) know, it’s not. And while I’m sure your sister is a stand up sailor, she’s also a very new one. The point that I was trying to make to her (and you) was that she really hasn’t seen all aspects of Navy life, let alone how other military branches work. I have been stationed at Air Force, and Army bases, and worked with members of both of those enlisted ranks. So while I may not be able to speak on how it is for every single member at every location, I certainly have a better background to support my opinions than your sister has at this point. However, I do want to say that communicating in a one-off manner such as this can only lead to mis-understanding. So why don’t we keep this debate between us posters, that way I don’t mis-understand her words, and she doesn’t mis-understand my viewpoint. > [@](#): > > Finally: just because some behavior is common among the enlisted ranks, it does not make it right, does not make it professional, and does not mean it’s okay under military rules and regs. Trust me, I’m well aware of what many (not most, in my sister’s experience) enlisted men and women get up to. Drug use, sexual misconduct, et cetera ad infinitum. Just because it’s common doesn’t mean it’s OK. This is true, I’m not arguing that it was **right**. What I am saying is that it has no reflection on her character at all. There are a lot of behaviors that are not ok under the rules and regulations that each and every one of us break every day. Some more important than others. Looking at your state for example, [do you signal correctly?](http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/169/19.html) [Or set your brake the right way?](http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/169/36.html) Now, you might say that these are pretty petty laws, and not really the same as say manslaughter. And you’re right. Just like the Article 134 you mentioned. Specifically the Article states: > [@](#): > > Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. [Here’s](http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/UCMJ.pdf) a link to the entire UCMJ of the Department of the Navy. (warning, .pdf file). If you research a bit more, the charge if indecent exposure is more carefully defined as a subset of that, text of which can be found [here](http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl134-28.htm) I’ll quote the basic parts of it. > [@](#): > > (1) That the accused exposed a certain part of the accused’s body to public view in an indecent manner; > > (2) That the exposure was willful and wrongful; and > > (3) That, under the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. > > Explanation. **“Willful” means an intentional exposure to public view. Negligent indecent exposure is not punishable as a violation of the code.** See paragraph 90c concerning “indecent.” > > Lesser included offenses. Article 80—attempts > > Maximum punishment. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months. (bolding mine) So, I’m not sure how a picture taken in a barracks room constitutes indecent exposure. And while I’m sure your friend in his 5 years in the JAG may have come across items such as this, he should also know that a small percentage of infractions against regulations make it to the JAG. Most are handled at the NJP level. If he honestly thinks that a group of people getting naked together in a barracks room would have made it to the JAG, and that they’d have been able to convict on it, then we’ll just have to disagree on that. The only way I can imagine that this would even have ever come up is if there was a complaint about them making noise, or partying to much, or being drunk and loud, which would have had base police there, and several other charges. However, bringing someone up on a 134 because they’re posing topless in a barracks room with a few guys would never make it to court. And if he’s honest, he’ll admit the same. I wish **Monty** would stop by here. He’s worked in the JAG section as well, and his view would be welcome. > [@](#): > > Were we talking about a woman who was on leave, and not on military property at the time, I would think the issue was somewhat different. Would it really? What if she was on leave, but was just hanging out in her room at the barracks? Or not on leave, but at a topless beach? Does liberty count? A weekend pass? That’s a pretty fine line you’re drawing, and not so easily defined, IMHO. > [@](#): > > If the workers have to live on property owned by their employer because of the demands of the job (as when an enlisted person is staying in barracks or when a fireman is at the firehouse), stripping off in front of co-workers is unprofessional because you are both living and working at your job–essentially, you are on the job at all times. > > If a person strips off for fun in front of co-workers in another place or in their own home, well, let’s just say I recognize that reasonable minds will differ about whether it’s unprofessional or not. > > If a person strips off for fun away from property owned by their employer and not in front of co-workers, it’s got no bearing on their professionalism at all. > > So, no, it’s NOT like saying I’m unprofessional for getting drunk in the privacy of my own home (which I, and not my employer, own). 1. Again, everyone that lives together, doesn’t work together. 2. You may feel that the barracks = job site, but that doesn’t make it so. While both are on government property, that doesn’t make it the same. The base clubs are on government property too, so nobody should be drinking at all, because drinking on the job site is illegal. 3. And if a person strips for friends in their residence that just happens to be on employer owned property, that’s wrong? Again, you’re under the assumption that everyone that lives in a barracks works together. > [@](#): > > Ahem–the JAG (now in the Naval Reserves, rather than active duty) down the hallway tells me that, once again, I am in the right. and > [@](#): > > This particular JAG served for five years on active duty and has one year in the reserves. He chiefly works on cases in which a serviceman or woman is being court martialed for their naughty behavior. In other words, he’s a civilian now. Just like I am. And as I said above, if he honestly thinks that she would have been brought up on charges bases only on the fact that she posed semi-nude in a picture that was taken in a barracks room, then we’ll just have to disagree. And while I read the SJA reports every month, and saw a lot of guys get brought up and discharged, I never once saw anything like this. Usually, charges that include 134 have a whole slew of other regs the person has broken. > [@](#): > > _From your friend, the JAG_ > You are correct.\*\* Assuming she stripped\*\*, she would be in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice - Indecent exposure. At a court-martial, she would face a possible punishment of six months confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct discharge. Did she do this before or after her rescue? Just kidding. (Bolding mine) Again, I don’t think you’re stating the fact to this person correctly. Did you go up to him and say “This girl was stripping in front of co-workers while on her job”, or did you say “She was in her barracks room, and posed semi-nude with a couple of buddies”. Big, huge difference in the two statements. > [@](#): > > It’s certainly not a trifling issue when scads of enlisted men and women like Atrael and Lynch think it’s perfectly OK to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I realize this might not seem like the most important part of it, but they had a choice about whether or not they enlisted. If Atrael and Lynch don’t agree with military law, well, perhaps they should’ve just stayed home. As I referenced above, I’m sure you break all kinds of laws every day. So do most people. Maybe if you don’t agree with obeying the State and Federal laws of the US, you should just move? And again, I’m not convinced she even broke a regulation, after reading through the every article of the UCMJ, I don’t see one that says anything about having a naked picture taken with you and a few friends in your barracks room. The only thing that even comes close, is the **general** 134, and that is always paired with another charge. > [@](#): > > Also, it doesn’t matter if you are on or off duty. From the day you enlist until the day you are discharged, you are under the jurisdiction of the Military law - no matter where and no matter when. Actually, to be correct, anyone that retires, or receives disability is also subject to the UCMJ. > [@](#): > > He told me he once had a case in which a group of enlisted men and women went to a strip bar together. An enlisted woman decided to participate in Amateur Night. She was charged with indecent exposure under the Code of Military Justice. So whether others wanted to see it or not apparently isn’t an element of the crime. That is a true statement. But again, what did you tell him? That she stripped in front of co-workers in public? Or that she had some nude photo’s taken of herself and a few friends in her barracks room? There is a difference, even though you’re not seeing it. > [@](#): > > (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner\*\* in the workplace\*\* Again, a barracks, is not a workplace. > [@](#): > > Lynch broke the law of the military. She could’ve gone to prison or been discharged for what she did. (Incidentally, she also had a relationship with another enlisted person (her now fiance), even though she knew it was against the rules about fraternization.) It seems clear that she didn’t take these laws and rules very seriously. Trying to be as polite as possible here, but please, please do not use terms if you do not understand their full meaning. It is not , **not** fraternization to have a relationship with another enlisted member. It is only fraternization if there is a direct superior/subordinate work relationship. In other words, she cannot date her supervisor, but she can date another enlisted guy in a different division. No matter what his rank. There are thousands of couples that are **married** and both enlisted, are you saying that each and every one of them is breaking the law? > [@](#): > > I could care less about her thong panties, or that she showed her tits off in pictures. What I’m upset about is that so many people here seem to think it’s OK for an enlisted woman to break the law and that it doesn’t reflect in any way on her character because she’s “too young to know any better.” I find this offensive and disturbing for so many reasons, including: I’m not saying that it’s ok for enlisted anyone to break the law. I am saying that **she did not break the law**. Can you see the difference? And while again, she might, might be charged under 134 for bringing shame on the military, that’s only because the pictures became public. It would be no different than if someone made a tape of themselves, and a partner having sex in their own home, and it somehow became public. Technically it would fall under 134, doesn’t mean I’d think it was right. But again, that’s a “catch-all” article, and you could fit just about anything under it if you really wanted to, but it would still be a stretch for her to be convicted of it. Possible, but unlikely. > [@](#): > > 1. People seem to think it’s OK for military personnel to break the rules and laws they agreed to follow. This seems to be because people consider the law “prudish.” I find it kind of prudish myself, but it’s still a freaking law. And as I said, every time you change lanes without signaling, or make a turn without turning your signal on at least 100 feet before the turn, or follow to close in traffic, or fail to wear your seatbelt, you’re breaking the law. I find those laws kind of silly, but it’s still the law. So, in closing, aside from all the technicalities that we’re both throwing back and forth, my position is this: While her behavior may not have been the most shining example of a person’s character, it is certainly not something she should either be ashamed of, or punished for. In a broader sense, this is the same issue that Lieutenant Frederica Spilman faced when she choose to pose for Playboy. Her being in the Navy was grounds to bar her from showing her body as she saw fit. And even in that case, she was allowed to resign, and did not lose her commission. In as high a profile case as that was, if the JAG choose not to pursue charges, I have a hard time believing that a few photos of a person taken with friends in the barracks would get a harsher punishment. Finally, how about we agree to dis-agree on this one. I can see that neither one of us is going to change our minds, so why don’t we just let it go? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jessica-lynch-poses-for-hustler/212659/103 "2003-11-15T00:27:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Q.N. Jones : I can’t blame you, Zoe, for not wanting to debate this–I’m sick of it myself, and this is my last post on the matter too. [/quote] You misunderstood me, **Jones**. It was the meaning of “unprofessional” that I won’t debate further." As has been explained to you previously, _fraternization_ policies apply to certain relationships between officers (and warrant officers) and enlisted personnel. They are not meant to regulate fraternization _among_ enlisted personnel. If your sister and her colleagues had had a party on company time at Target (other than on break) I feel certain that that would have been considered inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Parties in the barracks are not considered inappropriate. I don’t mind debating. I used to teach debate. But you seem to have taken this debate really personally with a lot of personal defensiveness and anger. I honestly don’t understand that and I don’t understand why you and others have been so personally judgmental of Jessica Lynch. I neither condon nor condemn her behavior. She certainly isn’t worth the verbal stoning that she has received. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jessica-lynch-poses-for-hustler/212659/104 "2003-11-15T00:33:56Z")
Rather, I should say that her behavior isn’t worth the verbal stoning she has received. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jessica-lynch-poses-for-hustler/212659/105 "2003-11-15T00:45:20Z")
Rather, I should say that her behavior isn’t worth the verbal stoning she has received. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jessica-lynch-poses-for-hustler/212659/106 "2003-11-15T06:32:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.N. Jones \* > \*\*Really, I need to know. I’m only 26. At the next attorney retreat, I’m thinking of stripping off for my male co-workers and having some pictures taken. After all, we’re just hanging around on our down time, and I’m too young to know better. Right? > \*\* Ah, attorneys. Such a moralistic, priggish bunch. They’ve definitely got it all over mere human beings in terms of being willing to pass judgement on others. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jessica-lynch-poses-for-hustler/212659/107 "2003-11-15T06:35:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dropzone \* > \*\*Sorry, Atrael, but a barracks IS a place of business (if you are injured on base it is the military equivalent to a Workman’s Comp case, right?) and as long as you are on your base you are MY (taxpayer drop’s) employee. I’m not paying you to fuck or run around half naked. \*\* You’re not paying soldiers to sleep and eat, either. Must piss you off to no end that they insist on doing so every day. ---
**Author:** ![Cubsfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Cubsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cubsfan)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jessica-lynch-poses-for-hustler/212659/108 "2003-11-15T08:24:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.N. Jones \* > \*\*My understanding is that the explicit rule in the military is that there is to be no fraternizing between military personnel who belong to the same command. > > So no, they’re not allowed to fuck each other OR to strip naked for each other. \*\* Coming from a current military officer, who was also enlisted for 5 years, I can say that you have zero idea what you are talking about and you sound like a total idiot. And **dropzone** lives in some fantasy land where he has some sort of control over young airmen and soldiers just because he pays taxes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jessica-lynch-poses-for-hustler/212659.md?page=5)