Latest on "don't ask, don't tell"

[Ben Kenobi]

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/10/military-men-are-silent-victims-sexual-assault

There's the article in it's entirety. This being a family site, I won't post it to here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some men will rape other men before the repeal of DADT. Many more men will rape many more women before, during, and after the repeal of DADT. Now that we've established the useless of the statement, time to move on.

Well of course, but the question is whether incidence will increase and enforcement will decrease. I suspect both will occur.

[Ben Kenobi]

Among women, the number of victims who report their assaults is small. Among men, it is infinitesimal. Last year the services received 2,530 reports of sexual assault involving female victims - and 220 involving male victims.

Thank you for confirming what I said. This is a problem if we are getting less than 10 percent reported, as it indicates there are significant barriers to reporting homosexual rapists.

[rah]

I'd want to see the study and how the classifications were done. I remember a survey that I worked on for the federal government awhile back on sexual harassment in the federal workplace. It was paid for by another government agency that was created just to study and fix harassment issues. Needless to say that if there wasn't a lot of it going on, it wouldn't be funded in the future.

That asked if the person had ever experienced a list of things.
the list ranged from being raped all the way down to someone looking at you in a longing way.
When they reported back to congress they said that about 80% (i don't remember the exact amount) of women had been sexually harassed at their workplace. This number was so high I went back and looked at what activities they would have had to consider sexual harassment to get it up to 80%. I had all the raw data and saw that they had to have included "ever overheard an off color joke in the workplace" Not exactly hardcore harassment, but they never reported what made up that 80% and were funded for another decade.

If out of the 22,000 that reported "harassment" only resulted in 220 reports, I would highly suspect that the definition used in reporting from the survey is suspect.
(I will ignore that the survey was in 2006 and the 220 reports were from 2008)

[Asher]

Thank you for confirming what I said.

That is NOT what you said, you pathetic dishonest ****.

You said:

men are a higher proportion of sexual assaults within the forces and yet, 10x as many women report being assaulted as the men.

Reality:

6.8 percent of women and 1.8 percent of men said they had experienced unwanted sexual contact

Since when does this make it a higher proportion?

The reason men don't report sexual assault has more to do with heterosexual insecurity and shame, it has nothing to do with anything in this thread.

[rah]

Asher I thought the same thing, but he will come back and say that's not what he meant.
He'll say the raw numbers of 22000 men vs 14000 women means that the men make up a higher proportion of the 36000 total. I agree that his wording is dishonest also.

[Asher]

If that's what he meant, he failed. That's not what he said.

[rah]

And you expected what?
I was working on the exact same response as you did, but saw your's and didn't bother to finish mine.

[Tuberski]

Well of course, but the question is whether incidence will increase and enforcement will decrease. I suspect both will occur.

I agree it will happen more. An outed gay soldier will more likely be assaulted now that they don't have to hide their homosexuality.

But, I also think it would be much more heavily enforced.

ACK!

[DinoDoc]

Then you are even a bigger moron and bigot.

I don't really understand the bigot charge in this instance at least in so far as there is no basic right to serve in the military and we already tolerate and enshrine many other forms of "discrimination." The only meaningful area for both sides of this discussion is if DADT or its repeal would have a signifigant negative impact on the armed forces.

[Ming]

His gay bigotary can be read in just about every post he makes when discussing gays. If you don't see it, fine... but many others do. He hides behind his religion to justify his hatred of gays. But feel free to defend him if you so wish... but most people see through his act.

[MrFun]

I don't really understand the bigot charge in this instance at least in so far as there is no basic right to serve in the military and we already tolerate and enshrine many other forms of "discrimination." The only meaningful area for both sides of this discussion is if DADT or its repeal would have a signifigant negative impact on the armed forces.

If serving in the military is not a basic right, then why has the military opened up to blacks, women, and so on? Hell, even the very article you linked to earlier drew a correlation between the issue of racial desegregation in the military with the current issue of DADT. If serving in the military then is not a basic right, why can't the military simply be an institution exclusively for white, straight men?

[DinoDoc]

His gay bigotary can be read in just about every post he makes when discussing gays.

He may or may not be bigoted against gays but his opinion of them or your reaction to it isn't relevent to this debate.

[Asher]

Ben doesn't have any sensible or rational argument to this debate, so his bigotry as the source for his irrational arguments is very much relevant to this debate.

[Theben]

I see the repeal of DADT as no different then saying that it should be open season on the women in the forces; you are removing one of the restraints in place.

I like this.

Basically Ben has such a low opinion of the U.S. armed forces that he feels if rules aren't in place the soldiers will rape everything in sight that has a hole, gay or straight. Awesome.