- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
I am not so sure why this discussion has turned into a debate purely about sailors having intimate contact with each other on board submarines. Hasn't that been going on for as long as there have been submarines?
Women on Submarines
- Thread starter SubSquid
- Start date
PIMA, you know that when someone has an agenda, there is a fast answer for everything; how dare you point out the obvious and use logic! All your questions are valid and her answers were just standard talking points, she hasn't been able to call you a sexist (yet lol) but, that will be next
We all know this is a done deal, it's just too funny to watching some scream from the rooftops that the sky is falling and women need to be allowed to fill combat billets! It's another agenda item weakening the system, the same old playbook thrown out, with some veracity [here] I might add too
I have a couple of questions:
1) If the Navy is trying to diversify it's officers core to look more the enlisted ranks, will this be a step forward in that area? Also, didn't I once hear here that enlisted people liked to look up to a department head that looked like the they do?
2) Will Selective Service start making 18 year old females register since they're good to go in all combat situations?
I for one am in favor of loading up all combat MOS positions with females, don't expect to see the ranks to swell either but...do get ready to pay a boatload (taxes!!! or shortage somewhere) for improvements needed to house the few
I am not so sure why this discussion has turned into a debate purely about sailors having intimate contact with each other on board submarines. Hasn't that been going on for as long as there have been submarines?
How'd that old joke go....100 on and 50 couples off lolThe first contingent will be two first tour officers and an E-6/E-7 from the surface nuclear community so there will be enlisted on the boats from the get go.Pima said:
Anyone who has been following this would have realized that there are no conspiracies, no unthought out hurdles, but a logical schedule. There will be minor modifications required to accept the junior enlisted, converting the boat's library into a berthing space. Congress only approved women on subs last month. Nothing could be done prior to this. SSGNs/SSBNs going into the yards in the future for scheduled upkeep will have this modification as a part of their rework. The first converted boats will not be coming out of the yards for approximately two years. In the mean time, the officers and senior enlisted will be on board the other subs, gaining experience so that they can provide experienced mentorship when the spaces finally exist for the junior enlisted to commence reporting aboard. A logical well-thought-out plan.
And the junior enlisted will be crammed back even tighter to accommodate the new lucky ladies. Will the gals be forced to hot rack?
I've spent a day on a Boomer, so, tell me mongo, how is this "a logical well-thought-out plan"
Yeah Mongo, we talked about this at length last year before your moniker [here] arrived, when it was first announced, remember? I believe someone tried to put out the discussion then with the "PC Conspiracy" inflammatory comment then too.
It's the same plan they announced then...nothing, move some enlisted back. We also saw the beautiful new plans for the 'new' efficient Boomer, with berthing addressed, enlisted [men] take a back seat. It's good for them though, they are only evil sexist peon men lol Uh oh! I guess my discussion is over because I don't fall into the politically correct line and pointed out the logical obvious lol
As I said, it's fun to watch the rhetoric when the brass says it's going to be good for very few and tough cookies for realist moral, it's social engineering and only we know what's right lol
I'm looking forward to the "Openly Homosexual" debate, that one's going to be a doooozy! lol
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
The fact is I have said multiple times I am for women in combat positions with caveats.
I have 2 DS's and 1 DD. I love all 3 of them, however, I will not sacrifice one for the other. This is how I perceive the current combat/sub situation. People are saying that the male members must sacrifice for the female members. I take the equality approach i.e. if you want to play with the boys don't ask for them to change the rules. Step up and play with the boys on their terms, no lady tee box.
At the same time the military must acknowledge that women have unique needs to their gender. The AF went through this decades ago when they allowed women in fighters. It was a bumpy road, but they did get through it. The same will be true for subs and combat. It will be difficult, but eventually it will work out and when our grandchildren enter the military they will have problems comprehending this was ever an issue.
I currently feel that the nitty gritty issues have not been addressed, instead the motivation is a true PC issue. I think that the Navy is like a parent, people are saying did you think about this what if? They are responding like a parent, that will never happen.
I highly doubt that anyone on this board will change their position. Each side will throw out questions to the opposition, but neither side will bend. I believe it is good that the thread continues for a myriad of reasons. First, lurkers will become informed of the finesse issues regarding women. Second, cadets are learning more about subs and combat here than any book could ever teach them.
Back on topic
If Mongo is correct he stated it is an E6/7, which means 1 female, thus I highly doubt she will hot rack
Gray Hog,
It slid down the slippery slope of intimacy because that would be a silly nitty gritty fact that the Navy must address. If they acknowledge sex MAY occur, then they must accept that pregnancy MAY happen. They need to acknowledge what the plan is for a pregnant submariner.
Additionally, throw this into the mix. Are they going to test each female submariner for pregnancy before they deploy? Take a married submariner who gets deployed, 3 weeks into the tour she realizes that she is pregnant. She can logically get an OOPS pregnancy the night before she deployed. It is not just about sex on the sub. Now they have to remove her.
Bullet back in 04 was in Kuwait being deployed forward to the Green Zone, the night before going forward, the female O3 that reported to him, came and said "I am pregnant, I can't go". They were in Kuwait, she was married and got pregnant before deployment. An O3 that had been in the green zone was required to remain until they could get another replacement. FYI, they were in Kuwait for 2 weeks due to staging. The service member she was replacing haad a family who was counting the hours until he got home, but due to her pregnancy, there were children being informed that Daddy couldn't come home yet. Pregnancy happens and in the military it has an effect on more than just your family. Her pregnancy affected many people who relied on her to be a soldier first, woman second.
We need to address the nitty gritty, I am tired of the military jumping into the fire without realizing the repercussions. When the AF said let women fly in fighters, they jumped without thinking. To this day 20 yrs later they still do not have a female flight suit. Back in the beginning they forgot to address a nitty gritty issue like pittle packs (big deal when you are flying across the pond). They also had additional issues such as reconfiguring the squadrons to create bathrooms with showers for females.
The first female selected for subs will be the equivalent of Jeannie Flynn, Nicole Malachowski (Fifi-1st T-bird), and Shannon Faulkner. They will be on the cover of Time, Newsweek, Navy Times, etc. Women will feel their success or failure. Jeannie and Nicole proved every man wrong, unfortunately Shannon proved men right. I personally know Jeannie and Fifi. The thing I admire about them is that they demanded to take the shot from the men's tee. For every girl out there they are 2 women should admire and try to emulate.
I have 2 DS's and 1 DD. I love all 3 of them, however, I will not sacrifice one for the other. This is how I perceive the current combat/sub situation. People are saying that the male members must sacrifice for the female members. I take the equality approach i.e. if you want to play with the boys don't ask for them to change the rules. Step up and play with the boys on their terms, no lady tee box.
At the same time the military must acknowledge that women have unique needs to their gender. The AF went through this decades ago when they allowed women in fighters. It was a bumpy road, but they did get through it. The same will be true for subs and combat. It will be difficult, but eventually it will work out and when our grandchildren enter the military they will have problems comprehending this was ever an issue.
I currently feel that the nitty gritty issues have not been addressed, instead the motivation is a true PC issue. I think that the Navy is like a parent, people are saying did you think about this what if? They are responding like a parent, that will never happen.
I highly doubt that anyone on this board will change their position. Each side will throw out questions to the opposition, but neither side will bend. I believe it is good that the thread continues for a myriad of reasons. First, lurkers will become informed of the finesse issues regarding women. Second, cadets are learning more about subs and combat here than any book could ever teach them.
Back on topic
If Mongo is correct he stated it is an E6/7, which means 1 female, thus I highly doubt she will hot rack
Gray Hog,
It slid down the slippery slope of intimacy because that would be a silly nitty gritty fact that the Navy must address. If they acknowledge sex MAY occur, then they must accept that pregnancy MAY happen. They need to acknowledge what the plan is for a pregnant submariner.
Additionally, throw this into the mix. Are they going to test each female submariner for pregnancy before they deploy? Take a married submariner who gets deployed, 3 weeks into the tour she realizes that she is pregnant. She can logically get an OOPS pregnancy the night before she deployed. It is not just about sex on the sub. Now they have to remove her.
Bullet back in 04 was in Kuwait being deployed forward to the Green Zone, the night before going forward, the female O3 that reported to him, came and said "I am pregnant, I can't go". They were in Kuwait, she was married and got pregnant before deployment. An O3 that had been in the green zone was required to remain until they could get another replacement. FYI, they were in Kuwait for 2 weeks due to staging. The service member she was replacing haad a family who was counting the hours until he got home, but due to her pregnancy, there were children being informed that Daddy couldn't come home yet. Pregnancy happens and in the military it has an effect on more than just your family. Her pregnancy affected many people who relied on her to be a soldier first, woman second.
We need to address the nitty gritty, I am tired of the military jumping into the fire without realizing the repercussions. When the AF said let women fly in fighters, they jumped without thinking. To this day 20 yrs later they still do not have a female flight suit. Back in the beginning they forgot to address a nitty gritty issue like pittle packs (big deal when you are flying across the pond). They also had additional issues such as reconfiguring the squadrons to create bathrooms with showers for females.
The first female selected for subs will be the equivalent of Jeannie Flynn, Nicole Malachowski (Fifi-1st T-bird), and Shannon Faulkner. They will be on the cover of Time, Newsweek, Navy Times, etc. Women will feel their success or failure. Jeannie and Nicole proved every man wrong, unfortunately Shannon proved men right. I personally know Jeannie and Fifi. The thing I admire about them is that they demanded to take the shot from the men's tee. For every girl out there they are 2 women should admire and try to emulate.
Last edited:
Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
Stop making up stuff out of the blue.
Here is a diagram of a possible modification for enlisted personnel on an Ohio class sub:
http://militarytimes.com/multimedia/interactive/sub_berthing
Wiki says an Ohio class has 15 officers and 140 enlisted. This would allow for 24 female enlisted aboard. This is a long way off. First they will go with female officers and no sleeping accomodation is necessary.
Totally incorrect. Let’s look at the officer picture only. The enlisted is similar. Read these forums. There are exaggerated horror stories at USNA about mids being ‘drafted’ for subs. More likely, they are not getting their first choices. The military has always been about success and performance being related. Do good and you will get what you want. The nature of the beast is that the higher academic performers are the only ones that can be considered for submarines. They should get their first choice. They aren’t. Some are being moved into the submarine force. Also, the bar is being lowered. Non-technical majors. Lower academic standings. Consequently, the drop out rates at Nuclear Power School are on the rise. Also, the Navy is presently forced to pay a bonus to entice volunteers. Flunkiing out of a school is detrimental to ones career. Doing well at USNA and then not getting ones first choice is detrimental to ones morale and might affect future performance. What is wrong with this picture when there are highly qualified women sitting across the aisle who would give anything in the world to fill these billets?Pima said:
No one is being forced to hot rack. No male is being forced to sacrifice. The boat is losing a library. That is all. These are SSBNs/SSGNs, not attack boats. A world of difference in the amount of available space. And like I said before, no boat deploys at 100% strength and there are also extra racks, both officer and enlisted for temporary riders for any number of reasons. Not a big deal.
The initial female enlisted will berth with the female officers in a stateroom.
And pregnant sailors will be medivaced off submarines exactly as now they are being medivaced off surface ships.
Last edited:
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
That will make great morale. The enlisted female gets to sleep in officer quarters while the men hot rack!
That is also going to be a morale issue. They lose a library, and she gets to sleep in OFFICER Quarters. You actually believe that the male members will be thrilled about this? That they will not be ticked that they hot rack and lost a down time diversion? That they will not harbor some anger regarding how their life had to change for her? Additionally, they have to deal with an insecure wife who thinks they may cheat on her? Let's be real these wives exist and a sailor who has to deal with her additional fears is not performing at 100% due to the stress from home.
Here is my final issue that every time someone defends this position they open up a new argument.
That enlisted female is going to bunk with a female officer. What happened to no fraternization?
Do you think they will not bond? You, yourself, stated that positions are interchangeable. The female officer will know this person from personal experience. How can she write an EPR or EER (performance review or evaluation) ?
Maybe the Navy is different than the AF, but fraternization among enlisted and officer is still frowned upon. Are you really about to state that sleeping in a small area will not create a fraternization issue?
Hot racking? How many sailors hot rack on a SSBN right now? It will be the same number after women are on board. Zero.JAM said:
Fraternization, bonding, insecure wives? You are grasping at straws. An officer's stateroom is a stack of 3 bunks high. And a place to stand up. And a few lockers. IT IS A PLACE TO SLEEP. AND SLEEP ONLY. Underway, everyone will spend half the day (12 hours) standing watch and the other half performing division duties, etc. There are curtains over the racks. They will probably never see each other. And the single initial female will be senior enlisted, most likely a CPO. The boat's sentiments will be in her favor for having to bunk with a couple of Ensigns. No resentment. No bonding.
Pima, you are grasping at imaginary straws. JAM has a good point.
Look, guys and gals, we are not in a position to debate the particulars (nor does what we say matter).
The Navy leadership (with the guidance of their professional experts) has decided that gender integration aboard subs is the right thing to do and they will make it happen, despite the issues and challenges.
The important thing here is that the decision regarding the integration of women was not based upon or influenced by an attempt to try to be poitically correct (nor, conversely, by anyone's attempt to perpetuate an outdated gender bias). It was based upon operational necessity. The Navy assessed the costs/risks and weighed them against the benefits/rewards and decided it was the right thing to do now. That is how it should be.
As I have been trying to say all along, it is not about ability or fairness or career opportunities; it is not about what people can/can't do or should/shouldn't be allowed to do; it is about the needs of the service in accomplishing its mission to defend the nation and deciding how to do that with the least cost in blood and treasure.
Challenges? Sure. Will they be overcome? Certainly. Will the cost of doing so be outweighed by the benefits? The Navy thinks so and I do not second-guess them in that decision any more than I second-guess the modern professionals in the ground combat roles who believe the costs of gender-integrating their ranks outweigh the benefits at present.
It's about winning wars and protecting American lives.
The Navy leadership (with the guidance of their professional experts) has decided that gender integration aboard subs is the right thing to do and they will make it happen, despite the issues and challenges.
The important thing here is that the decision regarding the integration of women was not based upon or influenced by an attempt to try to be poitically correct (nor, conversely, by anyone's attempt to perpetuate an outdated gender bias). It was based upon operational necessity. The Navy assessed the costs/risks and weighed them against the benefits/rewards and decided it was the right thing to do now. That is how it should be.
As I have been trying to say all along, it is not about ability or fairness or career opportunities; it is not about what people can/can't do or should/shouldn't be allowed to do; it is about the needs of the service in accomplishing its mission to defend the nation and deciding how to do that with the least cost in blood and treasure.
Challenges? Sure. Will they be overcome? Certainly. Will the cost of doing so be outweighed by the benefits? The Navy thinks so and I do not second-guess them in that decision any more than I second-guess the modern professionals in the ground combat roles who believe the costs of gender-integrating their ranks outweigh the benefits at present.
It's about winning wars and protecting American lives.
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
As I have stated I have no NAVY ties. This thread informs me step by step. You are stating nobody on a SSBN hot racks, correct?
For posters and lurkers please give a full detail of an SSBN.
HMM, grasping at straws? I don't think so! I think I am addressing the nitty gritty. You were all about career enders if officers had relationships, but now you want to say fraternization is not a player!
You are saying that "IT IS A PLACE TO SLEEP. AND SLEEP ONLY". Obviously, as I have stated previously, you are not a woman! Not to be too stereotypical, but we have a habit of yakking about personal issues. In your scenario, you work 12 hr days, go to your bunk, change into pjs, and shut off the lights. You actually make it appear that your bunk mate is the same as a stranger on a street. Are you stating that if a bunk mate doesn't see their mate crying after receiving a phone call at home they will not try to assist them emotionally?
HUH? You are inferring that they will be joyful that the female gets to bunk with 3 people instead of racking with 10 times as much. That they will be high fiving her for her perk based on sex.
Talk about grasping at straws, please find me an E6/7 male member who wouldn't love to be in quarters that he shares with 2 other people like her?
Again, I don't know SSBN's are you stating that all E6/7 sleep with only 2 other sailors.
Finally, let's address insecure wives. You responded, but never addressed them. Do you think submariner wives are thrilled with this idea? Do you believe it is not creating an upheaval with them, thus creating stress with the AD member.
It isn't a straw theory, it is reality. It is a nitty gritty issue that the Navy must address for good morale. You may want to believe it is stupid, insane, etc., but I remember when Bullet was with the 82nd jumping into Haiti and I had to deal with wives calling me about inane things. They exist.
Not really a good idea, as there are many things aboard this leg of our nuclear triad that should not be discussed in a public forum. Coming from someone who served in the land-based portion of the triad (ICBMs), you can hopefully understand me when I ask that no one give a "full detail" of a boomer over the internet.
Last edited:
Who cares?
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
I think you misunderstand, I am not asking for mission details, I am asking about berthing issues. For example, do all E6/7's berth in a sim manner as the officers? Or do they berth with all enlisted.
I.E., in the AF O1/2/3 have a different requirement regarding berthing than O4/5/6.
As far as the wives, you are correct, THEORETICALLY, who cares? However, realistically it will come into play if the military member is having marital issues based on the fact that they are insecure. I assume a submarine crew is @120+/-. Get 20% of wives who aren't happy and you will have a morale issue.
Morale issues play into the equation.
Again, not a Navy Wife, but I can tell you from an AF standpoint, wives in a command position can cause more problems than you ever want to address. A command wife is a support system for the other wives. Get one that is insecure or unhappy with this decision and you can have a big issue on your hands, 19 yo wives look to the commanders wife to calm their fears, she is a proxy Mom. They are no different than how military members trust each other. Wives can never ever help a military member's career, but they can hurt it very quickly.
For example, when Bullet was an O3 FCC we had a wife who believed in the big girl system. They were deployed for 120+/- in Korea on short notice (left in 7 days). This wife with her big girl theory caused so much damage that the morale in the squadron was killed. Wives were up in arms and the military members morale was shot to sh*t. They came home and the commander who defended his wife's action was immediately relieved of duty because of no confidence.
Bullet will tell you as his ALO det was preparing to jump into Haiti, I was inundated with phone calls from wives wanting me to patch them in to talk to their spouse during lockdown. The reasons ranged from a child wanting to talk to Daddy to a circuit breaker issue. I too was a single Mom with 3 sm children (4,2 and 4 mos old). I knew that these excuses were not allowable, so guess what I had to do? I had to get a babysitter, drive to their home and be a shoulder or their handyman.
He will also tell you of stories with wives who managed to work the system and found out the lockdown location. They would stand by the fence and scream their DH's name.
To say who cares about the spouse is absolutely ridiculous when it comes to real AD life.
I.E., in the AF O1/2/3 have a different requirement regarding berthing than O4/5/6.
As far as the wives, you are correct, THEORETICALLY, who cares? However, realistically it will come into play if the military member is having marital issues based on the fact that they are insecure. I assume a submarine crew is @120+/-. Get 20% of wives who aren't happy and you will have a morale issue.
Morale issues play into the equation.
Again, not a Navy Wife, but I can tell you from an AF standpoint, wives in a command position can cause more problems than you ever want to address. A command wife is a support system for the other wives. Get one that is insecure or unhappy with this decision and you can have a big issue on your hands, 19 yo wives look to the commanders wife to calm their fears, she is a proxy Mom. They are no different than how military members trust each other. Wives can never ever help a military member's career, but they can hurt it very quickly.
For example, when Bullet was an O3 FCC we had a wife who believed in the big girl system. They were deployed for 120+/- in Korea on short notice (left in 7 days). This wife with her big girl theory caused so much damage that the morale in the squadron was killed. Wives were up in arms and the military members morale was shot to sh*t. They came home and the commander who defended his wife's action was immediately relieved of duty because of no confidence.
Bullet will tell you as his ALO det was preparing to jump into Haiti, I was inundated with phone calls from wives wanting me to patch them in to talk to their spouse during lockdown. The reasons ranged from a child wanting to talk to Daddy to a circuit breaker issue. I too was a single Mom with 3 sm children (4,2 and 4 mos old). I knew that these excuses were not allowable, so guess what I had to do? I had to get a babysitter, drive to their home and be a shoulder or their handyman.
He will also tell you of stories with wives who managed to work the system and found out the lockdown location. They would stand by the fence and scream their DH's name.
To say who cares about the spouse is absolutely ridiculous when it comes to real AD life.
It is not worth addressing. Pima, women have been going to see on most of our 250 surface ships for the last 25 years, compromising 15-20% of the crew and doing their job. Subs will be no different.Pima said:
You want me to describe a SSBN? LOL. So you can pick it apart? Maybe you should have know what one was before you started this conversation.
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
Mongo,
I am requesting that info because it is important, not only to me, but other posters and lurkers when trying to ingest the importance of this decision.
I don't think it is insane to explain the berthing issues if you are informed. I also don't think it is wrong to pick anything apart. I assume you and I are on the same page and want the best for every member of the Navy regardless of sex. To state that you do the research yourself, when you insinuate that you have the knowledge does not assist in defending your position. Why not share it? Don't you think that by sharing your knowledge you are informing many people, while clarifying the inaccuracies regarding the subject of women on subs. Stating I should search it myself hurts many potential military members. Your comment of do it yourself is truly against the premise of the existence regarding this site.
Granted, I may pick it apart, but with your knowledge, you are the one that will prove my accusations based on true facts regarding the sub.
As far as the surface ships, you have still yet to acknowledge that it is easier to medi-vac a pregnant sailor on that ship then it is to do it on a sub.
Tell me why it isn't worth addressing the wives? DO you subscribe to the theory if the military wanted you to have one they would have issued you one? Or do you subscribe to the theory Military first, family second? Are you suggesting that wives don't impact the military member? Are you stating that once underway the military member can forget about their loved ones back home 24/7? I am not talking life or death in a war time issue, I am discussing a routine deployment.
I am requesting that info because it is important, not only to me, but other posters and lurkers when trying to ingest the importance of this decision.
I don't think it is insane to explain the berthing issues if you are informed. I also don't think it is wrong to pick anything apart. I assume you and I are on the same page and want the best for every member of the Navy regardless of sex. To state that you do the research yourself, when you insinuate that you have the knowledge does not assist in defending your position. Why not share it? Don't you think that by sharing your knowledge you are informing many people, while clarifying the inaccuracies regarding the subject of women on subs. Stating I should search it myself hurts many potential military members. Your comment of do it yourself is truly against the premise of the existence regarding this site.
Granted, I may pick it apart, but with your knowledge, you are the one that will prove my accusations based on true facts regarding the sub.
As far as the surface ships, you have still yet to acknowledge that it is easier to medi-vac a pregnant sailor on that ship then it is to do it on a sub.
Tell me why it isn't worth addressing the wives? DO you subscribe to the theory if the military wanted you to have one they would have issued you one? Or do you subscribe to the theory Military first, family second? Are you suggesting that wives don't impact the military member? Are you stating that once underway the military member can forget about their loved ones back home 24/7? I am not talking life or death in a war time issue, I am discussing a routine deployment.
See my post # 105 where I stated that there is no difference.Pima said:
Because the wife issue was addressed 25 years ago on surface ships and to acknowledge and accomodate for it now would be a giant step backward in policy.Pima said:
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that the United States Navy should adopt a submarine force manning policy that appeases potential insecure spouses who do not like the idea of their husbands serving in a professional capacity with female sailors? This should be their consideration? Not maybe, how to solve the manning problem in the submarine fleet so that national security objectives can be effectively met? I'm sure that'll go over well.
I'm certain that there will be incidents of pregnancy/unauthorized contact on subs, as there have been on surface ships in the past. The people guilty of these incidents will be punished accordingly, and yes, there might potentially be a degradation to operating status while the replacement is obtained (if even needed, as Mongo has pointed out). The Navy has had to deal with individual discipline issues since John Paul Jones was around, it's a reality of the service. Potential problems with the discipline of a few law-breakers hardly constitutes a reason to shape policy for the entire submarine fleet. The reality is that the discipline issues will always exist, no matter the policy. It's the cost of doing business. There will always be a few bad apples.
I was on active duty once upon a time, and I say "who cares," but whatever. My advice to one of these hypothetical insecure spouses is to suck it up and try trusting your husband. If that is impossible, maybe it's time to re-think your marriage. It isn't the Navy's job to address the insecurities in your marriage. Your husband is a professional sailor, he has a mission to accomplish, and his female shipmate is also a professional. They are both out there to accomplish a mission, not to play hanky panky. End of story.
Last edited: