[raydan]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

raydan raydan:

Brenda Brenda:

And people are still bitching that women in the military are the problem and that it should be an 'all male' thing.

Maybe men should just grow up and keep their dick in their own pants.

UGH.

The military will start being "normal" (note the quotation marks) when the demographics of that institution starts to look like what we find in the general population.

That assumes though that the general population all have the same motivation to join the military. But they don't, and never will.

I had thought about that but still threw it out. I would not have used the word "motivation" though, can't think of something better but people who join the military don't have the same "psychological makeup" as the general population.

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

One last thing Bart... if you won't even entertain the idea that a lot of the men-on-men assaults are not done by homosexuals, there's no use in trying to argue with you.

If a man smokes pot then he's a drug user even if it's just once. Same principle.

And since it is the argument of the homosexuals themselves that there is no cure for sexual orientation and that someone who is gay today is gay tomorrow then you'll appreciate that I am applying their own rules to this topic as a matter of consistency.

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

...people who join the military don't have the same "psychological makeup" as the general population.

Quite true.

[raydan]

Military sexual trauma, defined as any unwanted sexual activity, including harassment, sodomy, rape, verbal remarks, grabbing and pressure for sexual favors, affects thousands of men each year. Victims are most often young, low-ranking enlistees who fall prey to peers’ and superiors’ desire to demean or humiliate others. The acts are rarely homosexual in nature but rather an effort to feel powerful or dominant over others.

http://www.recoveryranch.com/articles/t ... -military/

[Khar]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

tl;dr version of this is that homosexuals are the majority of rapists and sex offenders in the US military.

Time to begin correcting this post as well.

First, the article straight out says:

Many sexual assaults on men in the military seem to be a form of violent hazing or bullying, said Roger Canaff, a former New York State prosecutor who helped train prosecutors on the subject of military sexual assault for the Pentagon. “The acts seemed less sexually motivated than humiliation or torture-motivated,” he said.

In other words, just like prisons. Just like frats. Just like the priesthood (you didn't respond to that post, maybe you will respond to it now), where the evidence is overwhelming that straight men conducted the rape, and that when gay men were allowed, it lowered it. I bet now that people can report without fearing reprisals, we will see a lot more people coming forward to complain about acts performed by predominantly straight army personnel.

What raydan posted is not just valid, it's widely accepted to define such situations where massive amounts of sexually active men are put together into the same space, devoid of the ability to otherwise act. It's also the fact that homosexual acts have utility well outside sexuality; these incidents include things like "teabagging," and that is massively common as a prank between straight men. Hell, I've had straight guys come up behind me who know I'm gay and cuddle without my permission and so forth, and that's in day to day life. These are all included in the stats (as they should be). But if you reported this in the past, thanks to DADT, people felt like they would be thrown out of the military or be getting someone else thrown out. In other words, the repeal of DADT made reporting far more safe.

Second? The article is wrong. It fails to adequately understand the report; those who got the survey know that it actually asked about "unwanted sexual contact," and not "sexual assault." Here's a comment denouncing the topic from a judge advocate in the military:

$1:

In the days since the Defense Department's May 7 release of its 2012 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, the media and lawmakers have been abuzz. The report's estimate that last year 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact prompted many to conclude, incorrectly, that this reliably estimated the number of victims of sexual assault.

The 2012 estimate was also significantly higher than the last estimate, causing some to proclaim a growing "epidemic" of sexual assault in the military. The truth is that the 26,000 figure is such bad math—derived from an unscientific sample set and extrapolated military-wide—that no conclusions can be drawn from it.

Yet three bills have been introduced in Congress since the report's release, all intended in various ways as a response to the findings. This week the Senate Appropriations subcommittee, which has power over the Pentagon budget, will hold a hearing where military leaders will be questioned about sexual assault in the armed forces.

It is disheartening to me, as a female officer in the Marine Corps and a judge advocate devoted to the professional practice of law in the military, to see Defense Department leaders and members of Congress deal with this emotionally charged issue without the benefit of solid, verifiable data. The 26,000 estimate is based on the 2012 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Military. The WGRA survey was fielded throughout all branches of the military in September and November 2012. As the report indicates, "Completed surveys were received from 22,792 eligible respondents," while "the total sample consisted of 108,478 individuals." In other words, one in five of the active-duty military personnel to whom the survey was sent responded.

I am one of those who responded to the survey after receiving an email with an online link. None of the males in my office received the email, though nearly every other female did. We have no way of knowing the exact number of male or female respondents to the 2012 WGRA survey because that information wasn't released.

The term "sexual assault" was not used in the WGRA survey. Instead, the survey refers to "unwanted sexual contact," which includes touching the buttocks and attempted touching. All of that behavior is wrongful, but it doesn't comport with the conventional definition of sexual assault or with the legal definition of sexual assault in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as enacted by Congress.

The estimated 26,000 service members who fell victim to unwanted sexual contact in 2012 is higher than the 19,000 estimate based on the 2010 WRGA survey (the survey wasn't conducted in 2011). Does this mean that there was a 34% jump in just two years? The data are too unreliable to tell. Before 2010, the Defense Department did not extrapolate military-wide in this manner, and for good reason. If you apply the same extrapolations to the 2006 WGRA survey results, you arrive at a far higher number—34,000.

These numbers vary widely because incidents involving unwanted sexual contact cannot accurately be extrapolated military-wide using this survey. The number of active-duty personnel is more than one million. The U.S. military as a whole is 14.6% female. Though the 2012 survey does not specify the gender composition of its respondents, the 2010 respondents were 42% female (10,029 women and 14,000 men).

Nevertheless, to achieve the 26,000 military-wide estimate in 2012 (and 19,000 in 2010) over half of the victims must have been male. Of course, male victims do exist, but empirically males do not constitute anywhere near the majority of victims of unwanted sexual contact—no less sexual assault.

Here is what we do know: The actual number of reported sexual assaults in the military in 2012 was 3,374, up from 3,192 in 2011. These figures include reports by civilians against service members. Of the 3,374 total cases reported last year, only 12%-14% were reported by men.

We also don't know how actual sexual-assault rates in the military compare with civilian society. Last year's National Defense Authorization Act asked the Defense Department to undertake two major studies that would review judicial proceedings and compare the military system with best practices in civilian jurisdictions. Both studies are set to begin this summer.

The military isn't averse to changing to assure that all its service members, especially women, are treated justly. But change should come as a result of supportable data.

Each and every sexual assault is tragic and infuriating. But given the military's recent emphasis on awareness of the problem and insistence that victims come forward, it's no surprise that this number has gone up.

We in the military justice system want victims to come forward, and to seek accountability through the system. We want them to feel empowered to report, and to know that their command will take the allegation and their recovery seriously. An increasing number of reported sexual assaults, at least in the next few years, should be viewed as a positive sign that this message is being heard.

In my five years in the Marine Corps, I have seen revolutionary change regarding how military leadership addresses sexual assault. Ask the military service member closest to you whether the military takes sexual assault seriously. They will likely talk your ear off about increased training requirements, speeches from their leadership, videos they have watched and workshops they have attended. They can tell you what they have learned about bystander intervention, about alcohol and impaired judgement, and about the hefty consequences within the military justice system for sexual assault.

I often talk to young men and women interested in joining the military, and I find that women especially seek me out to gain the perspective of a female officer. In the past year or so, these potential female recruits have grown increasingly wary, asking many follow-up questions about whether women are treated fairly and respectfully. I tell them that serving in the military doesn't turn a woman into a victim. I am a proud Marine, surrounded by outstanding military personnel from every service who take this problem seriously, male and female alike.

This is well established. It's being torn apart. I've seen the study, and the entire thing is an abuse of statistical process. I'm literally shocked they think they can draw any conclusions from it. And I'm damn well not alone on that front either. There is a growing number of suggestions to make the polling actually rigorous, so a decision can be made on viable data rather than on what they did do it on.

$1:

That's a lot of reading to do but the net of it is that the inmates who dominate others of the same sex entered prison exhibiting indicators of same-sex orientation. That they were heterosexual outside of prison was determined with most of these individuals simply to indicate that they were aligning their observed behaviors with the prevailing views of their social group, not that they were heterosexual.

Ah, the magic of control+f.

"Although race has been a significant correlate in sexual assault studies, sexual orientation has also been a characteristic that researchers have identified as important. By conducting a study of prison sexuality within a California medium-security prison for men, Wooden and Parker (1982) were two of the first researchers who examined homosexual victims of inmate sexual assault. Of the 200 inmates who responded to questionnaires, 14% indicated that they had been sexually assaulted while incarcerated. In all, 2% of the bisexuals, 9% of the heterosexuals, and 41% of the homosexuals reported being sexually assaulted by other inmates.

Nacci and Kane (1984) also examined the relationship between sexual orientation and sexual assault by randomly surveying 330 inmates from 17 federal correctional institutions. Results revealed that 70% of homosexual and bisexual inmates had been sexual assault targets. The researchers believed that since homosexual/bisexual identification and insertee roles are associated, the target must be perceived as one who is (or may be) willing to occupy passive female roles (Nacci & Kane, 1984, p. 47). Targets were also more likely to be White, young, and reside in their current facility less than 1 month prior to their attacks.

Using a descriptive case study of 40 inmate sexual assault victims and sexual assault perpetrators housed in a midwestern state prerelease center, Chonco (1989) reiterated previous research that had presented Black inmates as aggressors and added that homosexual inmates could also become sexual assaulters. However, Chonco contended that victims of sexual assault often exhibited behaviors associated with female stereotypes, while at the same time also arguing that all inmates were equally vulnerable to sexual assaults within the facility. Sexual assault victims tended to be younger, attractive, members of prison gangs, perceived as weak by other inmates, and fearful"

In other words, your silver bullet is that... gay men get raped more? The only positive thing about this review is that it said that gay men could become rapists. The main indicator of the rapist-rapee relationship was largely that black men raped white men, and that is an unfortunate statistic. The only time when gay men were the larger statistic of "aggressors?" Well, read up to the consensual sex section, at a prison used specifically to house a large number of gay men:

Wooden and Parker (1982) completed one of the most comprehensive studies of same-sex sexual behavior of adult males in prison. In a random sample of 200 inmates in a California prison, it was discovered that 65% of the sample had taken part in one or more same-sex sexual acts while incarcerated. Ironically, most (78%) of the inmates identified themselves as heterosexual, only 11% identified as bisexual, and 10.5% considered themselves homosexual. Of the inmates who acknowledged participation in consensual same-sex sexual behavior, 52% reported having received oral sex, 20% had performed oral sex on another inmate, 38% had performed anal sex on another inmate, and 20% had been anally penetrated. Unfortunately, the prison in which this research was conducted was used by the California Department of Corrections to house many of the known homosexuals; thus, the sample over represented “effeminate homosexuals” and “vulnerable heterosexual youngsters” (p. 9)."

So apparently the majority of prison rape is conducted by straight men against gay men. Great job at reinforcing the point the others here are making. The research bears out by the way; the above is sourced from a later article, while the second is sourced directly from your article (since, yes, I do happen to have access to that database). It is time, Bart, for you to recognize the difference between homosexual behaviour and being a homosexual. Prison rape is essentially that. Raydan was quite right in his comment.

$1:

There have been several civil rights lawsuits by inmates demanding that homosexual prisoners be segregated from the general population to protect the general population from sexual assault.

<etc, etc>

And I wouldn't be surprised if those civil rights claims are as old as the picture in your post, although they may have a point; homosexual persons are at a massively higher risk of being sexually assaulted by their straight counterparts, and I have a feeling that is why the California correctional services were adamant about separating out the gay people "at risk" so as to keep them safe from the general population of the prison.

[raydan]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

raydan raydan:

...people who join the military don't have the same "psychological makeup" as the general population.

Quite true.

But you can probably say the same thing for a lot of occupations.

[raydan]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

raydan raydan:

One last thing Bart... if you won't even entertain the idea that a lot of the men-on-men assaults are not done by homosexuals, there's no use in trying to argue with you.

If a man smokes pot then he's a drug user even if it's just once. Same principle.

And since it is the argument of the homosexuals themselves that there is no cure for sexual orientation and that someone who is gay today is gay tomorrow then you'll appreciate that I am applying their own rules to this topic as a matter of consistency.

Rape is rarely sexual, Bart... you should know that.

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

Military sexual trauma, defined as any unwanted sexual activity, including harassment, sodomy, rape, verbal remarks, grabbing and pressure for sexual favors, affects thousands of men each year. Victims are most often young, low-ranking enlistees who fall prey to peers’ and superiors’ desire to demean or humiliate others. The acts are rarely homosexual in nature but rather an effort to feel powerful or dominant over others.

http://www.recoveryranch.com/articles/t ... -military/

I really don't care to explain away the motivations of rapists. Rapists don't do what they do because of some deep seated need to express power, they do it because they're selfish vermin with no empathy or concern for the feelings of the people they victimize.

[Xort]

raydan raydan:

The military will start being "normal" (note the quotation marks) when the demographics of that institution starts to look like what we find in the general population. Of course, the brass will have adoption of no-nonsense way of dealing with assaults... one strike and you're out... by that time.

The US military has a rate of sexual assault and rape lower than the general populations' sexual assualt rate (not counting rapes). (which makes the military rate even lower)

The miliary is already a lot better than the general population.

[raydan]

Xort Xort:

raydan raydan:

The military will start being "normal" (note the quotation marks) when the demographics of that institution starts to look like what we find in the general population. Of course, the brass will have adoption of no-nonsense way of dealing with assaults... one strike and you're out... by that time.

The US military has a rate of sexual assault and rape lower than the general populations' sexual assualt rate (not counting rapes). (which makes the military rate even lower)

The miliary is already a lot better than the general population.

Haven't looked at the numbers, Xort. Hard to confirm though, since most assaults, in or out of the military, are not reported.

[BartSimpson]

Khar Khar:

(Edited for space - no insult intended)

Khar, if the arguments for prison behavior are extended into public behavior then the gay rights people would lose their minds.

If, as is being asserted with the prisons, that sexuality can be situational, then it can also be situational in public and, therefore, people can CHOOSE to act or not to act in those situations.

In which case the argument of restorative therapy (that someone who was coerced into homosexual behavior can be restored to a normal hetersoexual orientation via therapy) is valid.

[Brenda]

raydan raydan:

Military sexual trauma, defined as any unwanted sexual activity, including harassment, sodomy, rape, verbal remarks, grabbing and pressure for sexual favors, affects thousands of men each year. Victims are most often young, low-ranking enlistees who fall prey to peers’ and superiors’ desire to demean or humiliate others. The acts are rarely homosexual in nature but rather an effort to feel powerful or dominant over others.

http://www.recoveryranch.com/articles/t ... -military/

Rape is hardly ever about sex, regardless of gender. Rape and sexual assault is always about power. Nothing more, nothing less, no matter where or in what line of work.

[raydan]

Another one...

Myth: Male rape is homosexual rape.

Fact: Rape is about power and control, not about sex, sexual attraction, or sexual orientation. Boys and men, regardless of their sexual orientation, are usually raped by heterosexual males who rape to demean and humiliate them, the same as men who rape women. A man who rapes another man does so to exert power and control over him, which has nothing to do with being attracted to him.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/sexualabuse/ed ... myths.html

[Khar]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Khar Khar:

(Edited for space - no insult intended)

Khar, if the arguments for prison behavior are extended into public behavior then the gay rights people would lose their minds.

If, as is being asserted with the prisons, that sexuality can be situational, then it can also be situational in public and, therefore, people can CHOOSE to act or not to act in those situations.

In which case the argument of restorative therapy (that someone who was coerced into homosexual behavior can be restored to a normal hetersoexual orientation via therapy) is valid.

Good, so we see you have already relented on your original argument in this thread, which was ill conceived, insulting and straight out wrong. Considering your very own cited source proved this, I have no idea why we even had to talk about that at all. With the fact that this thread is not about public behaviour, but very obvious, very limiting circumstances (male predominant environment), the point is all the more efficacious. But since you're trying now to use this as a slant on all of homosexuality, I might as well respond...

The difference between the public and the limited environments is easily considered thusly; straight men do engage in activities of unwanted sexual behaviour against other men in normal circumstances, and in situations where they are in a majority male environment they do have a history of resorting to homosexual behaviour, either in seeking power (as both raydan and Brenda have quite rightly pointed out is the predominant cause of rape, hence already killing a large portion of your "they must all be gay" argument) or gratification (which is hardly limited to gay men, thanks).

Does it stop them from being straight? No. It means that there are obvious reasons for them to engage in the acts; those of a lack of power, wanting to humiliate someone else, or having absolutely zero chance of sleeping with a women and turning to men as a result. The difference is that gay men are predominantly interested in homosexual acts of a consensual nature, and straight men are predominantly interested in heterosexual acts of a consensual nature. The fact that they can and do periodically jump the fence into homosexual behaviour (hey look, thats the B in LGBT) does not end the definition of them being "straight" or "gay."

And to be frank, if you want to get into an argument on this, the degree of evidence now compiled that indicates homosexuality to be innate far outstrips anything on the topic here, and in no way contradicts other studies. Indeed, the term raydan uses (Situational sexual behavior) is an entire field of study that directly explains how the homosexual-heterosexual dichotomy is broken when straight men sometimes engage in homosexual behaviour -- that dichotomy still exists. I recommend giving that a read if you are still confused. Trying to use that argument against a guy who has absolutely zero interest in a vagina and knows that for sure, and has known since he was in the single digits in age, was poorly conceived. There are no tension in these stances.

You can choose to engage in homosexual behaviour as a straight man. You do not choose to be a straight man. One is an action. The other is a state of being. There is a world of difference there, one that is linked directly to one's identity. You really shouldn't be ignoring that any less than ignoring why people rape others.

[Public_Domain]