Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
I can sort of get the reasoning for regulating civilian attire. I mean, I get that the service wants to project a positive image all the time. I also don't question the ability or the right of the service to regulate it. The military is a 24/7 gig and there are certain freedoms you give up when you join. I think most people understand that.
Still, isn't this a little too Orwellian? At least on that point. Isn't there also the possibility of harm that can, at least potentially, come from this?
I can spot an off-duty Marine from a mile. High and tight haircut, khakis and collared shirt tucked in (young, physically fit guy). I live in Annapolis and work in DC, so I'm confident that when I see this off-duty "uniform," I'm looking at a member of our Marine Corps. If I can spot them, anyone can. Right? Isn't blending in a better thing? At least maybe?
That's just what crossed my mind....
I get what you and others are saying about regulations and civilian attire. But honestly - someone tell me - can the military dictate what you wear when you are mowing the lawn at your house off base? Can they dictate your attire when you go out to a nightclub?
Nothing in what I read says anything about beach wear. The regs talk about cleavage and bare midriffs etc.
If a female soldier is on a dinner date with her intended at an expensive restaurant wearing a LBD - if her superior officer is dining there as well can she be expected to be 'counseled' on Monday morning?
This further brings me to my point - I don't really care what the regs are - ban tatoo's and fingernail polish. But the regs need to be clear and concise and and able to be enforced. Then they must be enforced consistently.