Sexual Assaults on Female Soldiers: Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[windcatcher]

my earlier post about sexual assults on women in the millitary on 20/20 (years ago) came with undercover video as proof.

I believe also, that it does occur in the military and with a greater frequency than in society at large. I also believe that there are many confident and moral men and women of character in the military, and many men would come to the defense of a lady being assaulted by a fellow soldier if they are aware.

However, the military also depends upon cohesion of its forces, that also means trusts shared between members within a unit or division. Complaints are not encouraged, however minor or serious, as it presents a problem for leadership's responsibility to maintain discipline and coheasion.

Sexual assaults do not typically occur in conditions other than isolation so there's seldom the supporting evidence of witnesses. It's not something that a man would brag about, and, for a woman so traumatized, its not likely something she'd talk about to anyone but a close friend first, and even then with dis-ease.

On the one side, the military can do all that it can to discourage opportunities for isolation. On the other hand, a woman who trust a male soldier who has gained her trust in social or duty situations, may still be a victim in an isolated situation, much as young women frequently find themselves in with date rape. As with the guard tower, the military can demonstrate caution with some assignments. But the duties and co-hesive trust of soldiering demand integrity in such assignments which may inadvertantly create isolation, and complaints involving a victimazation or an attempt, by one (or more) soldier due to such advantage needs serious investigation and discipline.

 

[targus]

Very poor dodge.

No dodge at all. It was a very direct response. I'm sorry that you don't like it. :laugh:

What is your response to the Washington Times? It is a very conservative newspaper.

What is there to respond too?

"...about one-third of female veterans visiting the Veterans Administration for health care..." is a specific and limited subset of the entire military services population.

I do not know that it is valid to extrapolate this finding to the military popluation in general.

Do know that such an extrapolation is valid? What is your basis for doing so?

This really is not a liberal nor conservative topic. It is a topic everyone should be interesting in dealing with eliminating if possible.

Do you agree?

Sure - but I do not agree that the solution is to exagerate the frequency of occurences.

So tell me what exactly are you doing to deal with or eliminate the problem?

Other than your usual self important stroking of your self imagined moral superiority?

Or is such conduct acceptable to you?

And there it is - the infamous Crabby backhanded slandering of someone who does not share Crabby's opinion. :thumbs:

 

[donnA]

Sexual assaults do not typically occur in conditions other than isolation so there's seldom the supporting evidence of witnesses.

the 20/20 report wasn't isolation.

 

[targus]

the 20/20 report wasn't isolation.

So the assaults documented in the 20/20 report were done in broad daylight in the presence of witnesses?

 

[Crabtownboy]

So the assaults documented in the 20/20 report were done in broad daylight in the presence of witnesses?

What level of rape and sexual assault is acceptable to you?


Oh, and you didn't answer my question about the Washington Times article.

 

[targus]

What level of rape and sexual assault is acceptable to you?

None.

Still spreading the backhanded slander and patting your own morally superior back I see.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question about the Washington Times article.

I answered the question in the last post.

Perhaps you should clean your glasses and bump up the font size before going back and re-reading it - that is if you even read it at all.

 

[Crabtownboy]

None.

I answered the question in the last post.

Perhaps you should clean your glasses and bump up the font size before going back and re-reading it - that is if you even read it at all.

You waffled around, but never address the question or issue.

Even conservative newspapers acknowledge there is a problem with articles such as the one I quoted.

You have given opinion, but no backup. Where is your proof of no problem or an exaggerated problem. Don't give you your math, it doesn't add up correctly.

 

[targus]

You waffled around, but never address the question or issue.

Even conservative newspapers acknowledge there is a problem with articles such as the one I quoted.

You have given opinion, but no backup. Where is your proof of no problem or an exaggerated problem. Don't give you your math, it doesn't add up correctly.

To save you from having to go back and re-read what you obviously haven't read to begin with...

The Washington Times article said "...about one-third of female veterans visiting the Veterans Administration for health care..."

This is a specific and limited subset of the entire military services population.

I do not know that it is valid to extrapolate this finding to the military popluation in general.

Do know that such an extrapolation is valid? What is your basis for doing so?

Since you are the one offering this article as the basis of proof for the frequency of assaults on women in the service it is incumbant upon you to explain why such an extrapolation is valid.

If you can not do so - then you can not generalize the one-third figure to the general military services population.

And failing to do that - YOU'VE GOT NOTHING.

 

[windcatcher]

No dodge at all. It was a very direct response. I'm sorry that you don't like it. :laugh:



What is there to respond too?

"...about one-third of female veterans visiting the Veterans Administration for health care..." is a specific and limited subset of the entire military services population.

I do not know that it is valid to extrapolate this finding to the military popluation in general.

Do know that such an extrapolation is valid? What is your basis for doing so?



Sure - but I do not agree that the solution is to exagerate the frequency of occurences.

So tell me what exactly are you doing to deal with or eliminate the problem?

Other than your usual self important stroking of your self imagined moral superiority?



And there it is - the infamous Crabby backhanded slandering of someone who does not share Crabby's opinion. :thumbs:

How about what are you doing to deal with or eliminate the problem.......
or even show concern over the issue.

You're just fighting with Crabby.
While I often disagree with him on many issues..... this is not his issue. This is an issue which has been in the news..... and you should have some opinion on it if not so busy fighting with Crabby.

FYI, this OP is not about Crabby's moral sense, and your own appearance is in question by your casual denial or dismissal of the problem.

 

[targus]

How about what are you doing to deal with or eliminate the problem.......
or even show concern over the issue.

You're just fighting with Crabby.
While I often disagree with him on many issues..... this is not his issue. This is an issue which has been in the news..... and you should have some opinion on it if not so busy fighting with Crabby.

FYI, this OP is not about Crabby's moral sense, and your own appearance is in question by your casual denial of the problem.

It is not a casual denial.

It is an attitude of defending the honor of those who serve against casual and unsubstantiated slander.

Give me solid numbers and not just guesses and we can talk about it.

And yes - it is also about Crabby's moral sense. He has a history of starting threads that malign others with no actual facts to back it up - and then questioning the integrity of those who don't jump on board with him.

His research into a topic is typically poor - as can be seen by his link in this thread to an article titled "Bogus GI rape photos used as Arab propaganda - Pictures purporting to be U.S. troops actually taken from porn sites" as proof of this particular allegation.

It is obvious that he doesn't actually read most of what he links to - he just questions everyone else about it.

He just throws the mud against the wall to see what will stick.

 

[Crabtownboy]

How about what are you doing to deal with or eliminate the problem.......
or even show concern over the issue.

You're just fighting with Crabby.
While I often disagree with him on many issues..... this is not his issue. This is an issue which has been in the news..... and you should have some opinion on it if not so busy fighting with Crabby.

FYI, this OP is not about Crabby's moral sense, and your own appearance is in question by your casual denial or dismissal of the problem.

Amen and Amen. This is an issue that should be addressed. It should not be just fluffed off as not important.

 

[windcatcher]

It is not a casual denial.

It is an attitude of defending the honor of those who serve against casual and unsubstantiated slander.

Give me solid numbers and not just guesses and we can talk about it.

And yes - it is also about Crabby's moral sense. He has a history of starting threads that malign others with no actual facts to back it up - and then questioning the integrity of those who don't jump on board with him.

His research into a topic is typically poor - as can be seen by his link in this thread to an article titled "Bogus GI rape photos used as Arab propaganda - Pictures purporting to be U.S. troops actually taken from porn sites" as proof of this particular allegation.

It is obvious that he doesn't actually read most of what he links to - he just questions everyone else about it.

He just throws the mud against the wall to see what will stick.

This is not an attack on soldiers of honor whether women or men. But it is a question about the male attitude which pretends rape and sexual assault is not their problem or they have their own ego so wrapped up in these issues that they, intentional or not, twist it to make it the 'woman's fault' or disparage complaints because some may be bogus.

Like I said before:
Women in the military presents a problem, even with adjustments attempted to protect them. If this is so..... just imagine how deviants in the military will magnify this problem.
Crabby opened that can of worms..... if you read carefully.
In another thread he even supported that change.
Did you address sexual assault of military women by fellow soldiers?..at best only marginally. Another poster even tells of his daughter being 'hit' on while on duty. Her outcome was fortunate. But you ignore the problem.
And you have a great opening to address queers in the military..... which you ignore, but you 'bite' because Crabby posted and you don't agree with his source.

I already addressed questions within the source material..... But I've heard enough reports of this problem in the military though the years that I neither doubt that it occurs, nor do I believe that it discredits the honor of our service personnel unless the leadership does nothing to stop, prosecute, prevent, or correct. Ignoring does nothing but indicts the Pentagon's establishment for doing nothing.

The saddest story I ever heard involve the corpse of a physician's daughter returned to the family, supposedly due to suicide...... when she was deployed and was assaulted and reported..... and her wounds as detailed on the autopsy suggested her death was staged as a cover-up prior to investigation, and could not have been self inflicted.

As noble as our soldiers are.... and this title is used for women as well as men, they are all human and some in uniform are just as capable of brutality as those who are out. These scumbags don't deserve the term 'honorable' and 'discharged' in the same sentance. That's my bottom line.
v
v
v
v
v
Criminal scumbags, whether or not in uniform, don't deserve the term 'honorable' and 'discharged' in the same sentence.