Fraternization in Starfleet

[DevilEyes]

My impression, based on many years of Trek watching, is that the only rule is, "Will it make a good story?" If it will, it's allowed (although usually only for an episode or so, because we viewers have such short and immature attention spans ), and if it doesn't, it isn't.

The in-universe rule is that there don't seem to be any rules - at least not really strict ones. People in the command structure seem to generally hold back, but there are notable exceptions, of course.

This is one of my biggest Trek peeves, in fact. I know it's fiction, I know such a thing as Starfleet doesn't exist, but why not have at least some rules to give this fictional world a much-needed dose of reality? Because the plain fact is that captains and first officers, at the minimum, should not be involved with someone under their command. Humans may, I supposed, eventually evolve beyond the need for such a rule, but it's going to take a lot longer than 300 or 400 years, I can promise you that.

Much bigger things have changed is society, and much bigger taboos been broken over the last 100 years or less.

 

[Kaziarl]

My impression, based on many years of Trek watching, is that the only rule is, "Will it make a good story?" If it will, it's allowed (although usually only for an episode or so, because we viewers have such short and immature attention spans ), and if it doesn't, it isn't.

The in-universe rule is that there don't seem to be any rules - at least not really strict ones. People in the command structure seem to generally hold back, but there are notable exceptions, of course.

This is one of my biggest Trek peeves, in fact. I know it's fiction, I know such a thing as Starfleet doesn't exist, but why not have at least some rules to give this fictional world a much-needed dose of reality? Because the plain fact is that captains and first officers, at the minimum, should not be involved with someone under their command. Humans may, I supposed, eventually evolve beyond the need for such a rule, but it's going to take a lot longer than 300 or 400 years, I can promise you that.

Much bigger things have changed is society, and much bigger taboos been broken over the last 100 years or less.

Yes, but in this case it hasn't changed in... well ever. Thats why the rule is currently there. If you are in a position of power, and you have someone you care about, you're going to be inclined to use that power in favor of them. Its not that it's completely a bad thing, but it does tend to interfere with better judgement. I'll have to go back and watch TOS, cause I don't remember them saying there wasn't a rule against it, so in-universe there very well may not be. Does it happen? sure, all the time. Does it happen today? even more often. Is it a good idea? Only if you can keep yourself objective when it comes to making command decisions.

 

[JustKate]

Well put, Kaziarl. I'd just like to add one thing, and that's in response to this:

Much bigger things have changed is society, and much bigger taboos been broken over the last 100 years or less.

I absolutely disagree. A society in which people aren't tempted to favor or protect those they love over those they merely like or serve with would be a much bigger change than anything we've seen so far. An even more profound change would be a society in which such favoritism is so unknown that other people don't ever even wonder about it.

In fact, I don't even like the idea of a society in which humans (or any other species for that matter) wouldn't have a strong drive to protect those we love best. Or maybe it would be better to say that I am incapable of imagining such a society and the kind of people who would be a part of it. It sounds...well, totally alien to me - far more alien than Vulcans or Cardassians or even the Horta.

I think we're looking at this in totally different ways, Devil Eyes. You are thinking of a societal taboo. I am thinking about the way humans - and many other species, for that matter - have evolved, and that transcends any human society. Taboos against non-marital sex or canabalism began, evolutionarily speaking, the day before yesterday. In contrast, the instinct of humans to protect their loved ones in preference to everybody else has been around, as Kaziarl noted, since pretty mich forever. Since before there were humans. It in fact exists in many non-human species right now. So it is much more fundamental, and therefore would take a much more fundamental change to eliminate. And so long as that instinct has not been eliminated, rules to control such protective behaviors will have to exist as well.

Edit: I would, however, like to think that the instinct to dominate those you have power over (which is the reason why some people these days like to have relationships with subordinates) would have been eliminated or at least controlled in the next few hundred years. But...I don't know about that, either. I hope so.

 

[Dingo]

I saw the episode Lesson again, and based on what Picard said it appears that there is no rules against people of different ranks getting involved. Now the petty jealousy and other second and third order effects of such relationships, those things could be tricky and things both parties in the couple would seriously have to consider.

However the drama that results from such a pairing can be an episode in and of itself, so I guess that's why Trek-verse has no fraternization rules.

 

[Praetor]

I'm inclined to think Starfleet doesn't have rules about this, because Starfleet doesn't need rules about this. The more evolved beings of Trek should be responsible enough to know when and when not to begin a relationship with a fellow officer.

That said, I imagine most Captains shy away from relationships with their subordinates for the obviously complicated situations that might ensue. Below the Captain, XO, and second officer, I think it's pretty much fair game. The Riker/Troi example would probably be one good example of a marriage that works - as ship's counselor, how likely is it that he's going to have to give an order that she has to go on some mission she won't return from?

Also, regarding "Balance of Terror," I always got the impression, based on their phaser room conversation, that one of the two - Tomlinson or Martine - would be transferring or resigning after their marriage. Given that it was the sixties, the intent was probably that Martine was going to be a homemaker. But one might argue that Tomlinson was going to be the one transferring or resigning, or that a simply command chain change was going to be made to put her no longer under his direct command.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I would think it depends on the size of the "rank-gap".

Kirk, after all, had no real qualms about romancing the occasional lieutenant....

But I think with Rand, the gap was far too wide, as far as Starfleet is concerned--although "The Naked Time" certainly implies that Jimbo wishes it would be otherwise.

And...with Archer and T'Pol, I think there may have been a conflict of interests....

 

[Blueicus]

Let's not forget the Worf/Dax relationship, and that episode where he sacrifices the mission to save his wife (I believe many of you hate the episode, but it is canon). Perhaps Starfleet simply decides that allowing the freedom of fraternization is worth the risk of the occasional tragedies that occur, and in general the couples would be able to exercise "better judgement".

 

[Timo]

Who knows, Starfleet might even expect a commanding officer to exhibit this "fraternizing attitude" towards all underlings, not just those he or she was intimate with. The reverse of today's preference of cool detachment... That is, if Picard treated LtCmdr Darren preferentially or protectively because of their affair, Picard would be at fault not because of what he was doing now, but because of what he had not been doing earlier with all his other underlings.

If you hesitate to send your beloved one to the fray, but don't hesitate to send Worf, LaForge or Wesley, then the fault lies in the latter attitude, not the former...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kaziarl]

Well, it is a slightly different situation for one major reason. They are on the ship far longer then you would be on a ship or military base in todays military. Starfleet may have decided that it was going to happen, even if there were rules against it.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

Humans and various aliens in Star Trek's time are supposed to be more sensible than the ones in our time -- maybe people don't have problems with loving an officer under their command as frequently in the future? They've already given up the concept of money and formed a global government; maybe it's not that hard for them to just keep their priorities straight and their hormones in check.

 

[Silversmok3]

As far as I understand the US military code,nomcoms cannot have unduly close relationships with offices,and officers cannot date officers in the same command structure.

In my opinion,being in space makes both the temptation and the need for a rule like that even more so.In space,all you hang around are your coworkers,and in battle the last thing you want to do is order the captain or XOs woman or husband to their deaths.Could you imagine the issues between Riker and Picard had number one sent her on an away mission ,and she became a casualty?

In my opinion,if it's a bad idea to date your coworker at a 9-5 office,it's really not a good idea to date within a military or rank structure like Starfleet.

 

[Gorn Captain]

I dont mean any disrespect to the military, but I don't understand why folks persist in citing what happens in the U.S. Army as a guide for what happens in Starfleet. Apart from the obvious fictional nature of Starfleet, it doesn't make sense. They are centuries apart and in a different culture. We wouldn't interpret current military policy based on what happened in Napoleon's army.

 

[Dingo]

I dont mean any disrespect to the military, but I don't understand why folks persist in citing what happens in the U.S. Army as a guide for what happens in Starfleet. Apart from the obvious fictional nature of Starfleet, it doesn't make sense. They are centuries apart and in a different culture. We wouldn't interpret current military policy based on what happened in Napoleon's army.

Perhaps because it is the nearest frame of reference they have for Starfleet. I'm not saying I neccesarily agree with it, but that is probably what any number of viewers use for interpretation of Starfleet regs.

 

[CoveTom]

I dont mean any disrespect to the military, but I don't understand why folks persist in citing what happens in the U.S. Army as a guide for what happens in Starfleet. Apart from the obvious fictional nature of Starfleet, it doesn't make sense. They are centuries apart and in a different culture. We wouldn't interpret current military policy based on what happened in Napoleon's army.

Largely because the structure, rank system, customs, etc. of Starfleet have always been based, in large part, on the United States Navy. There are certainly major differences. But the U.S. Navy is the closest modern counterpart we have to Starfleet.

 

[hyzmarca]

There are many reasons for rules against fraternization, with potential favortism being the least of concerns. More important is quid pro quo favor trading, with sex being exchanged for promotions or preferred assignments, either in the form of sexual harassment by superiors or outright prostitution by the subordinates. Worse though, in a hazardous situation, particularly in a combat zone, it is very easy for a superior to use the threat of dangerous duty to extort sex out of a subordinant. Such extortion generally goes beyond sexual harassment and rises to the level of rape due to the real life-threatening danger involved.

 

[Praetor]

There are many reasons for rules against fraternization, with potential favortism being the least of concerns. More important is quid pro quo favor trading, with sex being exchanged for promotions or preferred assignments, either in the form of sexual harassment by superiors or outright prostitution by the subordinates. Worse though, in a hazardous situation, particularly in a combat zone, it is very easy for a superior to use the threat of dangerous duty to extort sex out of a subordinant. Such extortion generally goes beyond sexual harassment and rises to the level of rape due to the real life-threatening danger involved.

Exactly.

 

[Kaziarl]

I dont mean any disrespect to the military, but I don't understand why folks persist in citing what happens in the U.S. Army as a guide for what happens in Starfleet. Apart from the obvious fictional nature of Starfleet, it doesn't make sense. They are centuries apart and in a different culture. We wouldn't interpret current military policy based on what happened in Napoleon's army.

Largely because the structure, rank system, customs, etc. of Starfleet have always been based, in large part, on the United States Navy. There are certainly major differences. But the U.S. Navy is the closest modern counterpart we have to Starfleet.

And actually... we do compare current military to that of old. When I was in, our sergeants were always talking about napoleon's army, and the roman army. The fact of the matter is that those old traditions are close to the heart of the military, and there is really no reason why that wouldn't continue into the 24th century.

 

[Gorn Captain]

I dont mean any disrespect to the military, but I don't understand why folks persist in citing what happens in the U.S. Army as a guide for what happens in Starfleet. Apart from the obvious fictional nature of Starfleet, it doesn't make sense. They are centuries apart and in a different culture. We wouldn't interpret current military policy based on what happened in Napoleon's army.

Largely because the structure, rank system, customs, etc. of Starfleet have always been based, in large part, on the United States Navy. There are certainly major differences. But the U.S. Navy is the closest modern counterpart we have to Starfleet.

And actually... we do compare current military to that of old. When I was in, our sergeants were always talking about napoleon's army, and the roman army. The fact of the matter is that those old traditions are close to the heart of the military, and there is really no reason why that wouldn't continue into the 24th century.

I'm not sure I made my point clearly enough. I am a historian, and I am aware that the Army War College they study the tactics of Hannibal, etc.

What I am saying is that fraternization is a policy that is based on the social mores of the time, and in that sense, what might or might not happen in the 23rd century has no origin in current military policy, any more than Starfleet would induct recruits at the age of seven like in Sparta. Comparison of certain things might apply, but I just don't think policy would.

 

[Praetor]

More to the point, are we really given to accept that basic human needs and tendencies for romantic companionship, and the resulting emotional confusion and tumult, are going to give way totally and no longer be a distraction from work, or are we just going to learn when and why to say no to giving in to them?

 

[CoveTom]

What I am saying is that fraternization is a policy that is based on the social mores of the time...

But I'm not sure that it is. The policy against fraternization is not simply based on some idea that it's "inappropriate" for an officer to be involved with an enlisted person, for example. It goes alot deeper than that. It helps prevent a whole slew of things such as sexual harassment, sexual coercion, abuse of power, favoritism, etc. And in situations where one person in the relationship might be able to order or not order a person into a lethal combat situation, those concerns become magnified tenfold over what they are in the average workplace.

Now, I suppose you could argue that people have changed so fundamentally by the 23rd or 24th century that such concerns are no longer an issue. But I think we saw from how conflicted Picard was in "Lessons" that such is not necessarily the case. Of course, Picard wasn't trying to abuse his power. But, still, he had a natural tendancy to protect the woman he was in love with and his officers, in particular Riker, were worried about potential favoritism.

Even if we argue that people will have evolved beyond sinister motives, the desire to protect the ones closest to you is a fundamental instinct that I think -- and hope! -- will not have changed, even 300 years from now. And, as such, those types of issues will always remain relevant.