Is that a trick question? Rapes happen, no matter where the person is. Isn't one technically too many?
Here is another fact that most do not want to bother to think about.
A "military rape" happens whenever a person in the military is raped. It also happens if a rapist is a member of the military.
So if Sergeant Jones rapes Sergeant Smith, it is recorded as a military rape.
If Petty Officer Steve Kelly rapes Miss Janice Long, that is also a military rape, since PO Kelly faces not only the criminal justice system, but the UCMJ (it goes in the figures, but in a different way).
But, if Lance Corporal Anderson is raped by Mr. Howard, a civilian, that is also counted as a
"military rape", even if Mr. Howard has absolutely no connection with the military in any way.
When I was downrange, they caught a serial rapist on our base. He assaulted at least 15 individuals (of both sexes), but he was a civilian contracted to fix the on-base busses. So all of those he attacked were "military rapes", even though the rapist had never served in uniform.
This also often skewes the numbers, since the majority of those tracked in the system are military victims of rapes. That does not mean their rapist was military at all.
And to make things even more murky, in reality the military does not really track "rape". What they track is "sexual assault", which is not nessicarily the same thing. If I grope somebody and try to force them into a compromising situation but they resist or I back out at the last minute, that is indeed a "sexual assault". And the military tracks it as such. But it is
not an actual rape.
Actually the rate of rape in the military is lower than it is for the comparable civilian populace.
Such as the civilian press always equating sexual assault with rape.
Add attempted rapes to actual rapes in the civilian community, and I am sure it is much higher then what the military is reporting.
Add to that the demographics of those in the military is almost exclusively in the primary range of such attacks, where as in the civilian world they literally cover everybody that skews it ven more.
But back to the original topic. One big problem is that the Marine Corps is unlike any other service in how it trains it's recruits. Today the navy only trains in one location, so it is all co-ed. The same in the Air Force, all recruits are trained in only one location.
As far as I am aware, all of the Army trains it's recruits co-ed, with the exception of Fort Bragg (Infantry and Armor). The Army tends to do "One Station" training, where your basic and advanced training is all at the same base. And with 2 of the 3 main combat arms only training at Bragg, that is the one exception. The exception to that is Fort Sill, which trains not only Artillery (all male) but Air Defense Artillery (co-ed), so their basic training is of course co-ed.
The Marine Corps however has 2 training camps. Males can go to MCRD San Diego or Paris Island, depending on where in the country they live. All females however go to Paris Island. Making any changes there will be minor, but I doubt there are enough female recruits to justify moving some to San Diego. And like the Army, all of their advanced training is co-ed, except those where females are not at this time able to enter (once again, combat arms).
So do we make MCRD San Diego co-ed? How much is that going to cost, and do the results justify the cost? Me, I have to say no it is not justified. As far as women in combat units, I have already talked about my feelings in that area. I see most of it as PC claptrap that is going to result in a lot more returning from conflicts in bodybags. But in the name of political correctness, some are willing to see that even if it destroys the lives and bodies of the large percentage that are not able to handle it.
