Prohibitively expensive maybe?
Can't be. The repercussions of allowing it are far more expensive.
Has it been so far?
Yes, obviously. Soldiers are lost and perform their duty with less enthusiasm, divides are created in the unit, respect for military law wanes, women are less likely to volunteer, higher ups are prosecuted for failure to oversee their units...
Financially, it's definitely less expensive to prosecute.
Then why aren't there more prosecutions? Why do some intend on covering it up?
I don't think any intend to cover it up (except for a few psychos, that are found in every large group of people). Some people get away with it, just like in the civilian world, and some are prosecuted. As noted in the OP article, the Navy is promoting the reporting of such incidents actively (the army has mandatory classes about such things, to encourage awareness and reporting).
Yeah, I think if we want to have a real discussion about rape in the military we should do it in its own thread.
Why is the military indifferent to rape?
"Sexual Assault" is a very wide range of accusations. Did they release what their definition of "sexual assault" is?
I presume "assault" means "battery" (physical aggression) and not a threat as it does in states that use the term battery.
I blame no one.........There are enough problems on a Navy Combatant without adding women to the equation and its not just the males...Liberals want to ake the Navy a social experiment with women or gays and it just won't work
You would think with all the gays in the military now there would be huge increases on gay sexual assaults as well if NP were correct. OOPS....guess you got that one wrong at well Navy.
Article 120, "rape and sexual assault", has about half a dozen definitions, as well as Article 125, "sodomy". The SAPR military site references both Articles 120 and 125 when they refer to "sexual assault" prevention.
According to the definitions under Article 120, rape and sexual assault are two different things. So if they are reporting "sexual assault" as a general term, then it covers everything from rape down to inappropriate touching(slap on the ass).
You would think with all the gays in the military now there would be huge increases on gay sexual assaults as well if NP were correct. OOPS....guess you got that one wrong at well Navy.
You would think with all the gays in the military now there would be huge increases on gay sexual assaults as well if NP were correct. OOPS....guess you got that one wrong at well Navy.
Moderator's Warning: |
Would it make you feel any better if the people that committed those acts did them outside the Navy?
What Navy Pride is saying is that he enjoys not being around women for extended periods of time. ***** makes him uncomfortable.
I'm pretty sure he has a thread about ~'sexual assault claims by males are up' (due to increased reporting, but don't tell him).
I betcha that the victims are thankful for a completely different environment. :roll:They do but the environment is completely different.
Whether you like it or not my left wing friend its a fact...In either case unwanted sexual advances are wrong....The difference is my left wing friend that in the Navy ships spend a long time at sea. In the civilian community that is not the case...In the civilian community you can go home at 1600. At sea aboard a ship its 24/7. That is what I meant by the environment which you seem not to get.I betcha that the victims are thankful for a completely different environment. :roll:
Navy Pride: how was this dilemma taken care of before women were on ships? I think you know. A sailor had a picture from a magazine and he proceeded in cleaning his cannon. So be it then, why not now?Whether you like it or not my left wing friend its a fact...In either case unwanted sexual advances are wrong....The difference is my left wing friend that in the Navy ships spend a long time at sea. In the civilian community that is not the case...In the civilian community you can go home at 1600. At sea aboard a ship its 24/7. That is what I meant by the environment which you seem not to get.
The Navy had plenty of problems before women were added to the equation aboard combatants. All the "Feel Good Liberals" did is add a another huge problem with women. Liberals want to make the military a social experiment be it with gays or women and it just does not work. The Navy is there to protect this country and nothing more. That seems to be what Libs like you forget.Navy Pride: how was this dilemma taken care of before women were on ships? I think you know. A sailor had a picture from a magazine and he proceeded in cleaning his cannon. So be it then, why not now?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?