If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   The US military enjoys sex, violence, and sexual violence   (battleland.blogs.time.com) divider line 157
    More: Obvious, U.S., U.S. military, Palm Center, UCLA School of Law, Aaron Belkin, San Francisco State University, adulation, sex crimes  
•       •       •

14943 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jul 2012 at 4:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-19 07:09:26 AM  

jso2897: SchlingFocker: jso2897: These truths cast shadows on the false mental images they cherish.

I don't see any truths in the article.

I see things that might sound like they could be true, with a large amount of conjecture, but with no citations or data to back up his opinion.

It's one side of the truth. If it was purely false, and everybody knew it, no one would be upset. Patent falsehoods evoke laughter - anger only comes from unpleasant truths.
people have trouble with necessary evils. When they find themselves saddled with something by necessity, they feel compelled to somehow glorify it or make it out to be a good - and that is what we do with the military.
The reality is that the military is not a grand, glorious, bold, noble enterprise. It is an institution whose function is to kill people and break things. We try to dress it up with touching speeches, and flags and meadls and parades - but it's really just a bunch of hairless, killer apes being killer apes.
We need to have a military if our society is to survive, and societies must survive if Man's slow, gradual betterment is to continue. But our attempts to glorify the enterprise lead to inevitable cognitve dissonance.
Of course, those who wish to disbelieve the rather obvious (to any halfway aware person who has ever been in the military) observations in this article will dismiss them as made-up lies -- it's predictable primate behavior.


If you knew much about the way we go about our business, I think you might rephrase the whole "service-members are all grown apes who do evil for us" mantra.

The whole "military only just kills shiat and blows things up" paradigm has shifted, very significantly, in the past 10 years. Whether or not that is a good thing is up for debate. However, COIN and SFA models of war are totally different from the slash n burn, kill em all gorilla chest thumping destruction machine model you seem to think we represent.
 
2012-07-19 07:11:32 AM  
TFA said male twice. The author must really love men.

/NTTAWWT
 
2012-07-19 07:12:37 AM  

jso2897: Let's be fair. he probably assessed the liklihood of writing about these subjects without pissing somebody off, realized he couldn't, and didn't bother to try.
These are not subjects you can discuss without pissing people off. These truths figures pulled out of his ass, and poor examples of logic cast shadows on the false mental images they cherish.
Of course the article is offensive - how could it not be


FTFY.

It could not be offensive by telling the truth.

No source for his male rape claim. Completely BS that anyone in the military has an attitude of "take it like a man" when a man is raped.

There is this bit, "Consider former Justice Sanda Day O'Connor's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 case in which retired military leaders urged the court to uphold the constitutionality of affirmative action. Justice O'Connor wrote that if affirmative action is a good idea for the military, it must be appropriate for the rest of the country.

I support affirmative action. But when this kind of militarist thinking permeates civilian society"

He misses the boat here in thinking this is "militarist thinking". If affirmative action works (and I don't think it does) in an organization where performance is that important (life or death) then it works in more mundane, less intense fields.
 
2012-07-19 07:12:55 AM  

SchlingFocker: jso2897: The statistical evidence supporting it would fill a hundred pages

Any links to to these reams of data?


Why don't you read his book? That would probably answer your questions better than what is a very, very brief interview where he lays out some of his bigger ideas.

Maybe the guy is wrong, but your over-the-top reaction indicates you've got some real issues.
 
2012-07-19 07:21:55 AM  

eiger: SchlingFocker: jso2897: The statistical evidence supporting it would fill a hundred pages

Any links to to these reams of data?

Why don't you read his book? That would probably answer your questions better than what is a very, very brief interview where he lays out some of his bigger ideas.

Maybe the guy is wrong, but your over-the-top reaction indicates you've got some real issues.


So if you ever express doubt about something an author has written in a book based on a interview you have real issues?

This guy is a seems to have a huge ego problem (taking a lot of credit for DODT) and isn't too big on honesty (by his own admission in the first line). "I wrote the book to apologize for the activist work that I had done to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." The repeal strategies that I pursued required me to glorify the military as well as American foreign policy more broadly.
 
2012-07-19 07:23:23 AM  

daveUSMC: jso2897: SchlingFocker: jso2897: These truths cast shadows on the false mental images they cherish.

I don't see any truths in the article.

I see things that might sound like they could be true, with a large amount of conjecture, but with no citations or data to back up his opinion.

It's one side of the truth. If it was purely false, and everybody knew it, no one would be upset. Patent falsehoods evoke laughter - anger only comes from unpleasant truths.
people have trouble with necessary evils. When they find themselves saddled with something by necessity, they feel compelled to somehow glorify it or make it out to be a good - and that is what we do with the military.
The reality is that the military is not a grand, glorious, bold, noble enterprise. It is an institution whose function is to kill people and break things. We try to dress it up with touching speeches, and flags and meadls and parades - but it's really just a bunch of hairless, killer apes being killer apes.
We need to have a military if our society is to survive, and societies must survive if Man's slow, gradual betterment is to continue. But our attempts to glorify the enterprise lead to inevitable cognitve dissonance.
Of course, those who wish to disbelieve the rather obvious (to any halfway aware person who has ever been in the military) observations in this article will dismiss them as made-up lies -- it's predictable primate behavior.

If you knew much about the way we go about our business, I think you might rephrase the whole "service-members are all grown apes who do evil for us" mantra.

The whole "military only just kills shiat and blows things up" paradigm has shifted, very significantly, in the past 10 years. Whether or not that is a good thing is up for debate. However, COIN and SFA models of war are totally different from the slash n burn, kill em all gorilla chest thumping destruction machine model you seem to think we represent.


Don't get me wrong - as Man evolves, so will the military - and the U.S. military has always been a leader in that regard, and I am mostly pretty proud of them. Our military addressed civil rights long before the rest of society was ready to, they have made real progress on gay rights, and they are certainly trying to address this problem, even if some aren't happy with the pace of progress.
I am well aware that our miltary is improving - and I believe that Man as a whole is improving - I am an optimist. But I'm not blind, and I know that as long as we have to fight wars to keep our civilization intact, there will be unpleasant costs incurred. It is a necessary evil, and living with necessary evils, and seeing them for what they are, is just awareness - it isn't a philosophical position.
Finally, the best thing to be done about any of this is to treat war as a last resort, and try like hell to avoid getting in them. In the meantime, we have to address these problems as best we can.
 
2012-07-19 07:26:43 AM  

PunGent: I was interested in the civilian/military rates as well; it looks complicated


It is.

The military is composed of the highest-risk category of people, young males and females with easy access to large quantities of alcohol.

But, the military also works to screen out people whose history would suggest an inclination toward criminal behavior such as rape and assault.

Couple that with the ideals of teamwork and respect that are the cornerstone of the military, and what some people might consider to be "common knowledge" might not be as accurate as they think.
 
2012-07-19 07:32:16 AM  

jso2897: I am mostly pretty proud of them.


This statement doesn't seem to jive with this:

The reality is that the military is not a grand, glorious, bold, noble enterprise. It is an institution whose function is to kill people and break things. We try to dress it up with touching speeches, and flags and meadls and parades - but it's really just a bunch of hairless, killer apes being killer apes.
 
2012-07-19 07:32:40 AM  
Well no arguments there. Point taken.
Wait... civility on FARK? WTF?
 
2012-07-19 07:39:34 AM  

natas6.0: methinks this hack is passing off a personal fantasy as reality


This.
As for the military enjoying sex, violence, and sexual violence, well, it is the military.
Derpity.
 
2012-07-19 07:46:14 AM  

SchlingFocker: jso2897: If it was purely false, and everybody knew it, no one would be upset.

I ain't even mad.

I just think he should be able to put forth some hard data and citations proving his assertion that the military produces a higher rate of sexual assaults and violence than found in society at large.


You mean like the article on FARK two weeks ago that pointed out incoming navy recruits had twice the rate of attempted or committed rape than the population average? Yes, I know-- that's not what the military produces, just what it attracts. However, the article I linked does point out that rape, and the cover up after the fact, is prevalent IN the military.
 
2012-07-19 07:51:19 AM  

SchlingFocker: jso2897: I am mostly pretty proud of them.

This statement doesn't seem to jive with this:

The reality is that the military is not a grand, glorious, bold, noble enterprise. It is an institution whose function is to kill people and break things. We try to dress it up with touching speeches, and flags and meadls and parades - but it's really just a bunch of hairless, killer apes being killer apes.


I am not ashamed of what I am. I am proud of myself, and of my species, because we are improving. that is all that can be asked - improvement.
But yeah - I'm a killer ape. Just like you. Deal with it. I deal with it by trying to be less of a killer ape, and to leave my little apelets a world in which they can be even less of one. And so on.
That's human progress - it is slow, painful, and none of us ever live long enough to see more than a few glimmers of it in our lifetimes - but that's OK.
We are getting better.
 
2012-07-19 07:52:10 AM  
Most valid point was that the armed forces should really be scaled back...a lot. I've never been one to invest tons of money in killing our own or in destroying their mental soundness permanently. Granted it IS voluntary, but the fact that so many join to me is merely a symptom of much bigger problems.

/murder is murder, even if you're "serving your country"
 
2012-07-19 07:52:14 AM  
As an aside, whenever an article headline is a question, I tend to give it less weight.

"Could the earth be hit by a giant alien armada?"

/was just watching apocalypse porn on Discovery
 
2012-07-19 07:53:30 AM  
 
2012-07-19 07:54:31 AM  

Ruiizu: Most valid point was that the armed forces should really be scaled back...a lot. I've never been one to invest tons of money in killing our own or in destroying their mental soundness permanently. Granted it IS voluntary, but the fact that so many join to me is merely a symptom of much bigger problems.

/murder is murder, even if you're "serving your country"


False equivalency is false equivalency, even if you're "posting on anonymous interwebs."
 
2012-07-19 07:55:07 AM  

jso2897:

That's human progress - it is slow, painful, and none of us ever live long enough to see more than a few glimmers of it in our lifetimes - but that's OK.
We are getting better.


"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
probably my favourite proverb. doesn't really mesh with the current state of the world though
 
2012-07-19 07:55:29 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
'There is no sex in their violence'
 
2012-07-19 07:59:57 AM  

XveryYpettyZ: You mean like the article on FARK two weeks ago that pointed out incoming navy recruits had twice the rate of attempted or committed rape than the population average? Yes, I know-- that's not what the military produces, just what it attracts. However, the article I linked does point out that rape, and the cover up after the fact, is prevalent IN the military


I wonder why that could be. I wonder how the military differs fromt he population average in terms of age. I wonder if there is some age group that is more likely to attempt or commit rape?
 
2012-07-19 08:02:46 AM  

SchlingFocker: No shiat. I'd like to see some basis for those numbers.


How about the DoD-published report on sexual assault, which estimates about 19,000 incidents of sexual assault with about 12% of those involving male victims. That comes out to a number pretty close to his 2,200.

Presumably those aren't all male-on-male assaults, but his number is well within the range of plausibility.
 
2012-07-19 08:05:53 AM  

liam76: XveryYpettyZ: You mean like the article on FARK two weeks ago that pointed out incoming navy recruits had twice the rate of attempted or committed rape than the population average? Yes, I know-- that's not what the military produces, just what it attracts. However, the article I linked does point out that rape, and the cover up after the fact, is prevalent IN the military

I wonder why that could be. I wonder how the military differs fromt he population average in terms of age. I wonder if there is some age group that is more likely to attempt or commit rape?


My GOD you are a stupid fark.

FTFA: A Navy study conducted anonymously reported that 15 percent of incoming recruits had attempted or committed rape before entering the military, twice the percentage of an equivalent civilian population

Equivalent. That wouldn't mean comparing 18 year-olds with a population that includes people in nursing homes.
 
2012-07-19 08:05:59 AM  

Ruiizu: Most valid point was that the armed forces should really be scaled back...a lot. I've never been one to invest tons of money in killing our own or in destroying their mental soundness permanently. Granted it IS voluntary, but the fact that so many join to me is merely a symptom of much bigger problems.

/murder is murder, even if you're "serving your country"


Well, that is where one is confronted with that sticky moral problem - the necessary evil. Mankind pretty obviously requires civilization to improve as a species - and civilizations must hold themselves intact, and maintain their central value systems if they are to advance. We are only beginning to learn to rudiments of dealing with one another without violence - and until we do, civilizations will have a need to protect themselves. So we are confronted with the difficult task of making an inherently destructive institution as honorable, useful, and egalitarian as we can. Like so much in life, the only acceptable choice is the hard one.
 
2012-07-19 08:08:34 AM  

profplump: SchlingFocker: No shiat. I'd like to see some basis for those numbers.

How about the DoD-published report on sexual assault, which estimates about 19,000 incidents of sexual assault with about 12% of those involving male victims. That comes out to a number pretty close to his 2,200.

Presumably those aren't all male-on-male assaults, but his number is well within the range of plausibility.


His number was "rape", not sexual assault.
 
2012-07-19 08:08:51 AM  

PunGent: I was interested in the civilian/military rates as well; it looks complicated...haven't had my coffee yet:

http://www.answers.com/topic/rape-by-military-personnel


SchlingFocker: Couple that with the ideals of teamwork and respect that are the cornerstone of the military, and what some people might consider to be "common knowledge" might not be as accurate as they think.


Complicated or not, you could at least look at something other than 25-year-old peacetime data. The DoD publishes reports on sexual assault, which if biased would presumably be biased in favor of the military.

SARP Annual Reports

I'm not saying the article author isn't a douche, but there are actual facts available for use in this discussion, and they aren't all opposed to the author, even if he did a poor job citing them
 
2012-07-19 08:14:57 AM  
US military rallying cry- "Remember Tailhook".
 
2012-07-19 08:14:58 AM  

XveryYpettyZ: liam76: XveryYpettyZ: You mean like the article on FARK two weeks ago that pointed out incoming navy recruits had twice the rate of attempted or committed rape than the population average? Yes, I know-- that's not what the military produces, just what it attracts. However, the article I linked does point out that rape, and the cover up after the fact, is prevalent IN the military

I wonder why that could be. I wonder how the military differs fromt he population average in terms of age. I wonder if there is some age group that is more likely to attempt or commit rape?

My GOD you are a stupid fark.

FTFA: A Navy study conducted anonymously reported that 15 percent of incoming recruits had attempted or committed rape before entering the military, twice the percentage of an equivalent civilian population

Equivalent. That wouldn't mean comparing 18 year-olds with a population that includes people in nursing homes.


I am the stupid fark because I assumed you were intellegent enough to quote the article you posted correctly?

And nice work moving the goal posts from "population average" to "equivalent civilian population". Was that done out of dishonestly or stupidity, because it is clearly different than what you first said.
 
2012-07-19 08:16:20 AM  
"If you were in charge, what is the one thing about the U.S. military you would change? Why?

I would shrink our military dramatically, because the most significant threats facing our country are not military threats, because Pentagon spending wastes money that should be spent on education and because excessive military strength undermines our security."

Aaaand I'm done here...
 
2012-07-19 08:16:51 AM  

liam76: His number was "rape", not sexual assault.


Yes. And his number was male-on-male. I wasn't linking irrefutable proof of the exact calculations he used to obtain the number. But there is actual statistical evidence, presented by the DoD, that a significant number of reported sex crimes involve male victims, and the general scope of the numbers he provided are in-line with the DoD report.

I'm not saying the author is necessarily right, or that his methods are valid. All I'm saying is that particular number, which he didn't cite any evidence for, and you didn't cite any counter-evidence against, is within the realm of possibility.

Luckily I linked the entire 736 page report -- which believe it or not I haven't had time to read in the last 7 minutes -- so you can drill down to the more specific details therein and confirm or refute the estimate I provided from the executive summery data.

And if you're going to be this argumentative and pedantic, you might also note that the article author didn't provide a specific definition for "rape", and the common usage of the term "rape" is much more broad than that in use in legal and statistical contexts, so assuming the author meant the specific crime of rape under the UMCJ is probably inaccurate as well.
 
2012-07-19 08:20:42 AM  

winkman: Aaaand I'm done here...


Yeah, that bit does make him hard to take seriously. Even if his points were all valid and his statistics well-cited (and neither of those are true) that kind of "ignoring the ostensible point of my article, allow me to make a blatantly biased an inflammatory statement" crap is one of the defining points on the high end of the douche scale.
 
2012-07-19 08:24:34 AM  
Did subby make an obscure reference in the headline, or do I just play too many Japanese video games?
 
2012-07-19 08:25:56 AM  

profplump: Yes. And his number was male-on-male. I wasn't linking irrefutable proof of the exact calculations he used to obtain the number. But there is actual statistical evidence, presented by the DoD, that a significant number of reported sex crimes involve male victims, and the general scope of the numbers he provided are in-line with the DoD report.


Not from what you posted.


profplump: All I'm saying is that particular number, which he didn't cite any evidence for, and you didn't cite any counter-evidence against, is within the realm of possibility.


So you believe any statistic that is "within the realm of possibility" until you can find proof it is wrong? Even from a guy who has admitted to a bit of exageration to get his politcal goals int he past?



profplump: And if you're going to be this argumentative and pedantic,


Pointing out that rape isn't the same as sexual assault is "argumentative and pedantic"? You pointed out yourself that the report doesn't mention the number of "male-on-male" assaults, does that make you "argumentative and pedantic"?


you might also note that the article author didn't provide a specific definition for "rape", and the common usage of the term "rape" is much more broad than that in use in legal and statistical contexts, so assuming the author meant the specific crime of rape under the UMCJ is probably inaccurate as well

and I am the pedantic one?
 
2012-07-19 08:33:14 AM  

liam76: XveryYpettyZ: liam76: XveryYpettyZ: You mean like the article on FARK two weeks ago that pointed out incoming navy recruits had twice the rate of attempted or committed rape than the population average? Yes, I know-- that's not what the military produces, just what it attracts. However, the article I linked does point out that rape, and the cover up after the fact, is prevalent IN the military

I wonder why that could be. I wonder how the military differs fromt he population average in terms of age. I wonder if there is some age group that is more likely to attempt or commit rape?

My GOD you are a stupid fark.

FTFA: A Navy study conducted anonymously reported that 15 percent of incoming recruits had attempted or committed rape before entering the military, twice the percentage of an equivalent civilian population

Equivalent. That wouldn't mean comparing 18 year-olds with a population that includes people in nursing homes.

I am the stupid fark because I assumed you were intellegent enough to quote the article you posted correctly?

And nice work moving the goal posts from "population average" to "equivalent civilian population". Was that done out of dishonestly or stupidity, because it is clearly different than what you first said.


Buddy, I want you to take a deep breath and think: if somebody has ever committed or attempted rape, would there be a time in their life after that point where they would NOT have committed or attempted rape? Your initial point, " I wonder how the military differs fromt he population average in terms of age. I wonder if there is some age group that is more likely to attempt or commit rape?" presupposes that just because somebody is YOUNG they are more likely to have committed or attempted rape. That makes you a stupid sarcastic jackass. In fact, younger people are more like TO rape, older people are more likely to have, at some point, done it. Limiting it to equivalent population makes it a fair comparison.
 
2012-07-19 08:33:22 AM  

mikewadestr: I live in an area where there are a lot of military families. When ever the husband is away on duty I pork the wife. Best part is is that if the wife complains I ask them: "Do you want to have the crap beaten out of you by me or your husband?"


my idol! ^^^^^^ carry on sir!
 
2012-07-19 08:35:09 AM  
They'd be a much more efficient force if they could find enjoyment in sexual violence alone.
 
2012-07-19 08:38:08 AM  
www.cartoonstock.comwww.cartoonstock.comwww.cartoonstock.com
 
2012-07-19 08:43:41 AM  

XveryYpettyZ: Limiting it to equivalent population makes it a fair comparison


You still don't get that your Weeners was about, "population average " which is different than "equivalent population"?

Have fun with that.
 
2012-07-19 08:46:38 AM  

liam76: XveryYpettyZ: Limiting it to equivalent population makes it a fair comparison

You still don't get that your Weeners was about, "population average " which is different than "equivalent population"?

Have fun with that.


Enjoy your wiener too.

/I guess there are also some things about fark filters you still don't get.
 
2012-07-19 08:51:06 AM  
Is Sexual Violence Endemic to the U.S. Military?

I don't know, but the commanders of every overseas base I ever stepped foot on seemed to think so. Part of the entrance briefing at all of them was a warning for women to not be out of barracks alone after dark.
 
2012-07-19 08:53:27 AM  

TsarTom: Sex and violence?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x220]


APPROVES

www.metal-archives.com
 
2012-07-19 08:57:02 AM  

Boatmech: Omahawg: the navy wives of san diego get lonely during west pac.

i'm glad i was there for them

[failblog.files.wordpress.com image 500x395]


Wow. More like epic fail on this post. Just about all servicemembers serving a 1 year combat tour get two weeks of leave back at home station sometime during their tour. Just think about that for a minute.

Idiot
 
2012-07-19 08:59:28 AM  

ReapTheChaos: This is the biggest load of shiat I've read in a while. 20 years on the military and I never saw any evidence to support any of the things this moron claims. I would refute his points but it's just not worth my time.


I've been in Korea seven years and I've read more than a few pieces in the news about soldiers raping the local women. It's a big enough problem that us American civilians are now treated like second class citizens and have to watch our backs because we might get jumped. Soldiers here do nothing but give the rest of us Americans a bad name. America's heroes, my ass.
 
2012-07-19 09:03:52 AM  

SchlingFocker: jso2897: Well, since it is a fact well known to everyone, including military leaders who are trying to do things to remedy it, he probably didn't figure anybody was clueless enough to dispute it.

It's known that rape and violence occurs in the military?

Sure.

Does rape and violence among military members exist at a higher rate than in society, as he seems to suggest?? He's offered no evidence of that.

Military leaders are working to end it because it exists. They want to hold the military to a higher standard than society at large.


How can they hold the military to a higher standard when they are recruiting from the bottom of the barrel?
 
2012-07-19 09:04:43 AM  

Deacon Blue: A bunch of kids, away from home, and under stress. shiat is going to happen. It isn't right, and should be addressed/punished, but I don't think you can stop a certain percentage of these guys from going to far with the shenanigans.


I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, that's why people like doglover and SchlingFocker who think that 2,200 male/male rapes on a yearly basis is impossible are either crazy, or haven't thought about it very much. The US military is made up of nearly 3 million active and reserve personnel, mostly men under the age of 35. 2200 rapes is a 0.075% incidence rate. If anything I'd expect it to be higher.

It's the hushed nature of it and the assertions that it doesn't happen that exacerbates the issues around it.
 
2012-07-19 09:05:33 AM  
This is pure bullshiat. I know that sexual violence occasionally occurs, but I served in two branches of the military and I never saw or even heard of any incidences of it. A culture of sexual violence in the military simply does not exist.
 
2012-07-19 09:10:59 AM  

Babwa Wawa: It's the hushed nature of it and the assertions that it doesn't happen that exacerbates the issues around it


I don't think anyone in this thread said that.

I just have a hard time acceptingt he figures froma guy who hasn't backed them up with anything and has outright admitted he wasn't completely honest in the past for his political aganda.
 
2012-07-19 09:14:03 AM  
i.imgur.com

2,200 rapes (assuming author is correct) out of 1.45 million troops = 0.0015%, versus around 10% of all rapes (about 19,000 men in 2005 statistics) in the general population.
 
2012-07-19 09:14:16 AM  
Article filled with gut feelings which approximate reasonable suppositions but which also lack documentation. I would like to assume that the authors book has that documentation and that it was simply omitted from the interview for brevity's sake.

My own gut feelings in response to his?

1) There is too much glorification of the military generally. We spend a lot of time as a nation worshiping institutions and we are willing to forgive and forget vast atrocities committed by individuals in an attempt to preserve the image or integrity of the institution to which they belong. (e.g. Penn State). Oddly enough, this protection seems to end the moment the individual is no longer a contributing part of that institution. That is why I imagine we have had such a poor record with our wounded veterans over the last 50 years.

2) Its oddly conspicuous for the author to single our male on male rape in the article. Is male on female less heinous? The only slack I can cut him is that he might be acting on the assumption that the reporting rates for male on female rape are at a higher percentage than male on male. The latter can only be guessed at because of the dearth of reported data on the subject.

3) His speculation as to the cause of elevated risk for sexual assault sounds rudimentary and also forced. I would contend that the risk of sexual assault increases anytime you remove a population from the trappings of civilization. Summer camp or desert deployment, the appearance of existing in a world removed from societal norms will push some people over the edge (the edge in this instance being the part of your brain that prevents the thought "Cute girl. I would like to fark her" from becoming, "Cute girl. I'm going to fark her."

Kudos to author for thought provoking premise.
 
2012-07-19 09:34:10 AM  
A professor of political science at San Francisco State University, he founded and directs the Palm Center, a think tank that conducts research into gender and military issues that is part of the UCLA law school.

This guys job is to conduct sexual studies for a think tank that he has named the palm center.
It really lessens the credibility of his study to find out that this wanker lawyer is a professional troll.
 
2012-07-19 09:34:15 AM  
I think it's funny that people are assuming the guy is wrong because he has an agenda.

I was reading an article last week about another author who had written on rape in the military. The most shocking stat was that men joining the military are some 3x more likely to have had a history of sexual assault than the general population. This kind of trashes the idea that joining the military or going to war changes the men. It just makes it easier to do what they have a history of doing anyway.

As for the gay rape... Look at how many soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines we have. 2,200 is probably a low number. Male rape is a lot more common that you guys want to admit, and men are much less likely to report it, inside or outside the military.
 
2012-07-19 09:39:32 AM  

SharkTrager: I think it's funny that people are assuming the guy is wrong because he has an agenda.

I was reading an article last week about another author who had written on rape in the military. The most shocking stat was that men joining the military are some 3x more likely to have had a history of sexual assault than the general population. This kind of trashes the idea that joining the military or going to war changes the men. It just makes it easier to do what they have a history of doing anyway.

As for the gay rape... Look at how many soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines we have. 2,200 is probably a low number. Male rape is a lot more common that you guys want to admit, and men are much less likely to report it, inside or outside the military.


Sorry friend, but you don't know what you are talking about. The shocking stat you quote is pure bullshiat. If one has a "history" of sexual assault - by which I suppose you mean having committed the crime - one will probably have a criminal record. Felony convictions disqualify one from joining the military.

Go join the military and you will see for yourself that these sort of exposes are either politically motivated or written by people who just hate the military.
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report