"a soldier who won't fuck ..."

The source may be up for grabs (was it Patton or Sheridan or J.E.B. Stuart or someone else?) but even the unsourced observation is interesting: "A soldier who won't fuck won't fight."

Possible translations: Framed in one way, the hard-wired imperative to propagate and nourish the human species forms the groundwork for the willingness to annihilate it. Framed in another, an activity that may be joyful and kind forms the basis of what can be cruel and bloody beyond naming.

Does the one come with the other ipso facto? If it is turned around would it be equally true, if true: A man who won't fight won't fuck?

Is this suggestion like the heads and tails of a single penny -- you can't have one without the other? Are these two facets as tightly woven as a DNA strand?

For the purposes of this mental bubble gum, I take a "soldier" to be a human being, since being a human being precedes whatever profession may evolve. And further, I set aside whether the observation may inspire pleasant or unpleasant reactions ... or symphonic moral and immoral crescendos. I just wonder whether the observation is true ... whether it holds water.

Generally, I'm inclined to think it does. But I am not about to claim a certainty worth fighting about.