• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's causing the increase in military sexual assualt?

Y

YoungConserv

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
601
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Is this just the exposure of abuse that already existed or is this the result of an increase in women in close quarters combat roles into a heavily male dominated testosterone heavy Enviorment?
 
Not sure, bit since I have seen numbers that 1 in 6 women and 25% of college aged women have reported rapes or attempted rapes against them in studies, I still do not see that this as strictly a military issue.
 
Fisher said:
Not sure, bit since I have seen numbers that 1 in 6 women and 25% of college aged women have reported rapes or attempted rapes against them in studies, I still do not see that this as strictly a military issue.
Click to expand...

The problem is the study that gives that 25% number counts suggestive glances as sexual assualt.
 
YoungConserv said:
The problem is the study that gives that 25% number counts suggestive glances as sexual assualt.
Click to expand...

Did you read the study or did you just assume this?
 
YoungConserv said:
The problem is the study that gives that 25% number counts suggestive glances as sexual assualt.
Click to expand...
See that's a big part of it. A glance or a look is not an assault. But Joe Public doesn't know the definitions of terms, all they see is a headline "X% of women in uniform assaulted yearly" and they assume rape.....when a good chunk of that is just a young PVT who didn't keep his eyes to himself while walking to chow and nothing at all happened.

A lot of non-assaults get called out and then that clouds over actual assaults.

IMO leave it to the commanders, the chain of command. No outside legislative systems; that would discourage reporting, and be ineffective in it's own right.
 
Deuce said:
And you didn't see fit to link it or anything
Click to expand...

It took me forever to find it when that study surfaced months ago I'm not gonna do that all again just to prove a point to a random guy on the Internet sorry. Belive me , don't or look it up I really don't care which you do as long as it doesn't waste my time.
 
Jerry said:
See that's a big part of it. A glance or a look is not an assault. But Joe Public doesn't know the definitions of terms, all they see is a headline "X% of women in uniform assaulted yearly" and they assume rape.....when a good chunk of that is just a young PVT who didn't keep his eyes to himself while walking to chow and nothing at all happened.

A lot of non-assaults get called out and then that clouds over actual assaults.

IMO leave it to the commanders, the chain of command. No outside legislative systems; that would discourage reporting, and be ineffective in it's own right.
Click to expand...

What in the **** are you talking about? You're blowing smoke out of your ass.

A LOOK is not sexual assault - under any definition.
25 CFR 11.407 - Sexual assault. | Title 25 - Indians | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a) A person who has sexual contact with another person not his or her spouse, or causes such other person to have sexual contact with him or her, is guilty of sexual assault as a misdemeanor, if:
(1) He or she knows that the conduct is offensive to the other person; or
(2) He or she knows that the other person suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders him or her incapable of appraising the nature or his or her conduct; or
(3) He or she knows that the other person is unaware that a sexual act is being committed; or
(4) The other person is less than 10 years old; or
(5) He or she has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control his or her conduct, by administering or employing without the other's knowledge drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance; or
(6) The other person is less than 16 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the other person; or
(7) The other person is less than 21 years old and the actor is his or her guardian or otherwise responsible for general supervision of his or her welfare; or
(8) The other person is in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over him or her.
(b) Sexual contact is any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of the person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, or for the purpose of abusing, humiliating, harassing, or degrading the victim.
Click to expand...
 
Aunt Spiker said:
A LOOK is not sexual assault - under any definition.
Click to expand...
A look is not sexual assault in the real world. But we're not talking about the real world. We're talking about law, and military law to boot.

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ -- Article 120, Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct.
A look is sexual assault if the victim claims the look placed her in "a state of fear". At best the "perpetrator" is looking at an article-15 for indecent conduct. More sever penalties if the look was sustained, shared by buddies, if alcohol was involved, if physical gestures or comments were included; and the state of stress the "victim" either experiences or can convince her superiors she experienced, and the political swing of those superiors.

This is how the law is carried out. If a female complains that you looked at her, you're in deep ****, even if you never did look at her at all (God help you if you did something and she's taking it out of proportion...she will be believed every time, and you will be punished for more than what you actually did).

Of course all of this does absolutely noting to help further integrate women into the service.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
A look is not sexual assault in the real world. But we're not talking about the real world. We're talking about law, and military law to boot.

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ -- Article 120, Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct.
A look is sexual assault if the victim claims the look placed her in "a state of fear". At best the "perpetrator" is looking at an article-15 for indecent conduct. More sever penalties if the look was sustained, shared by buddies, if alcohol was involved, if physical gestures or comments were included; and the state of stress the "victim" either experiences or can convince her superiors she experienced, and the political swing of those superiors.

This is how the law is carried out. If a female complains that you looked at her, you're in deep ****, even if you never did look at her at all (God help you if you did something and she's taking it out of proportion...she will be believed every time, and you will be punished for more than what you actually did).

Of course all of this does absolutely noting to help further integrate women into the service.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is covered under harassment or something but even by military definition sexual assault requires contact. It might just be a slap on the butt or a squeeze on a shoulder, but contact is required.

And sure, you can always get pinched for behavior unbecoming, but my impression the vast majority of such improper behavior goes unreported and/or unpunished. As with everything, though, it depends on the command climate of the particular unit.
 
Sarcogito said:
Maybe that is covered under harassment or something but even by military definition sexual assault requires contact. It might just be a slap on the butt or a squeeze on a shoulder, but contact is required.

And sure, you can always get pinched for behavior unbecoming, but my impression the vast majority of such improper behavior goes unreported and/or unpunished. As with everything, though, it depends on the command climate of the particular unit.
Click to expand...

Yes - I read thrugh it all and found mentioning of 'fear' being in regard to 'rape' and so on:

Threatening or placing that other person in fear.
The term 'threatening or placing that other person in fear' for the charge of 'rape' or the charge of 'aggravated sexual contact' means a communication or action that is of sufficient consequence to cause a reasonable fear that non-compliance will result in the victim or another person being subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.

Threatening or placing that other person in fear.
In general. The term 'threatening or placing that other person in fear' for the charge of 'aggravated sexual assault, or the charge of 'abusive sexual contact' means a communication or action that is of sufficient consequence to cause a reasonable fear that noncompliance will result in the victim or another being subjected to a lesser degree of harm than death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.
Click to expand...

I think that - in a real case - just checking out someone's ass isn't going to qualify for any of the above.
 
Sarcogito said:
Maybe that is covered under harassment or something but even by military definition sexual assault requires contact.
Click to expand...
From page 4 of my last link:
Threatening or placing that other person in fear. In general. The term 'threatening or placing that other person in fear' for the charge of 'aggravated sexual assault, or the charge of 'abusive sexual contact' means a communication or action that is of sufficient consequence to cause a reasonable fear that noncompliance will result in the victim or another being subjected to a lesser degree of harm than death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.
Click to expand...
 
Jerry said:
From page 4 of my last link:
Click to expand...

But doesn't that mean the person is using fear, such as a threatening stare, for the purposes of accomplishing "aggravated sexual assault" or "abusive sexual contact"? Both of which, in the end, require physical contact.
 
YoungConserv said:
Is this just the exposure of abuse that already existed or is this the result of an increase in women in close quarters combat roles into a heavily male dominated testosterone heavy Enviorment?
Click to expand...

That there is more recorded and reported doesn't mean that there is actually more happening.
 
Sarcogito said:
But doesn't that mean the person is using fear, such as a threatening stare, for the purposes of accomplishing "aggravated sexual assault" or "abusive sexual contact"? Both of which, in the end, require physical contact.
Click to expand...
I know, but that's not how it's being enforced. That's certainly not how the culture I've been under handles it.

I hated going to FOBs in Afghan because you had to have 100% eye-ball control at all times. Not so bad outside when you can wear tinted eye-pro, but keep your guard up indoors.

Especially when someone with rank picks up on you trying to stay out of trouble....they think you're up to something. The sad truth is the battle-buddy system is as much to protect you from being accused of something by a female solder as it is to keep you from getting killed by the enemy.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
I'd bet the opposite. Less is reported than happens.
Click to expand...
"Reported". That's another term Joe Public takes for granted. Joe Public doesn't realize we have a non-judicial system of punishment. If Private Snuffy does something stupid, let's say he takes advantage of a close quarters situation in passing to cop a feel....and GI Jane tells her 1st-line about it...there may not ever be paperwork on it, but that NCO will make Private Snuffy pay a price. Maybe smoke him for an hour, extra duty, etc.

There's probably not gong to be paperwork don on that, but it still happened, it was still "reported", and it was still dealt with.
 
Jerry said:
"Reported". That's another term Joe Public takes for granted. Joe Public doesn't realize we have a non-judicial system of punishment. If Private Snuffy does something stupid, let's say he takes advantage of a close quarters situation in passing to cop a feel....and GI Jane tells her 1st-line about it...there may not ever be paperwork on it, but that NCO will make Private Snuffy pay a price. Maybe smoke him for an hour, extra duty, etc.

There's probably not gong to be paperwork don on that, but it still happened, it was still "reported", and it was still dealt with.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your unfounded conjecture... I'll stick with what actually happens against just saying so.

Go up to any woman, then ask her to describe a time a sexually inappropriate situation happened to her. Don't ask "IF" one happened, ask when it happened.
 
I didn't have a problem with women in the military or in combat roles, as long as they qual'd without concession... but this is starting to make me wonder if it was really such a hot idea after all.

I mean, there's fair, and then there's what happens in the real world, and the two are rarely the same...
 
poweRob said:
Go up to any woman, then ask her to describe a time a sexually inappropriate situation happened to her. Don't ask "IF" one happened, ask when it happened.
Click to expand...
Why would I do that? What would I accomplish by conducting this survey which draws it's data from a pool sample of one individual?
 
Jerry said:
I do not condone sexual assault in the service, but I am inclined to believe that there is much less actual 'assault' going on than is reported. It's a very complicated issue.

4 Big Players Emerge In Military Sexual Assault Debate : It's All Politics : NPR
Click to expand...

That's a twist that I haven't heard. So instead of vastly under reporting sexual assaults as has been the case in all previous studies of the matter you now believe women are making up false charges instead? That's sounds pretty far-fetched to me. More likely is that more women are now reporting instead of being afraid as was so often the case in the past.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom