Homosexual Rape In The Military

[seer]

What don't ask don't tell really means:

Though women are more likely to be the victims of rape in the military, male-on-male rape is still a serious problem sweeping the U.S. armed forces.

In a recent GQ article, more than a dozen veterans and current service men came forward to tell of their sexual assault, and how the military institution failed time and time again to bring their predators to justice or get them the psychiatric help they needed.

When a man enters the military he is ten times likelier to be sexually abused, and in 2012 alone there were an estimated 14,200 reports of male rape.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-stories.html

[KingsGambit]

Only 7% of MSP cases that go to trial result in a conviction in the military? That is insane.

[Manwë Súlimo]

I didn't read the article, but is this really homosexual rape based on lust or rape based on power? There's a huge difference.

[KingsGambit]

Also, is there any evidence other than conjecture that this has anything to do with DADT?

[Spartacus]

Also, is there any evidence other than conjecture that this has anything to do with DADT?

It's a seer thread. What do you think?

[Psychic Missile]

Also, is there any evidence other than conjecture that this has anything to do with DADT?

Also, DADT hasn't existed for about four years now.

[seer]

I didn't read the article, but is this really homosexual rape based on lust or rape based on power? There's a huge difference.

It is still homosexual rape by definition.

[seer]

Also, DADT hasn't existed for about four years now.

So what? Now homosexuals can serve openly - that only makes the problem worse.

[Kristian Joensen]

So seer, are you for banning homosexuals from "serving" in the military?

[Spartacus]

So what? Now homosexuals can serve openly - that only makes the problem worse.

Could you flesh out your reasoning a bit? kthnx.

[seer]

Could you flesh out your reasoning a bit? kthnx.

Sure, if you put men who are sexually attracted to men in ever increasing, closer proximity, to other men, you are going to have more of this.

[fm93]

It is still homosexual rape by definition.

No, it absolutely is not. "Homosexual" refers to an attraction to people of the same sex. If these rapes were done based on power/dominance rather than lust, it by definition isn't homosexual. It's simply male-on-male, and there remains no reason to think that allowing homosexual soldiers to serve would worsen a rape problem that isn't based on homosexuality. Especially if you're implying that they're somehow more likely to rape.

[seer]

So seer, are you for banning homosexuals from "serving" in the military?

Completely! Though as a former Marine, I did serve with a couple of guys who were gay - I never had a personal problem with them but I tried not to shower with them.

[seer]

No, it absolutely is not. "Homosexual" refers to an attraction to people of the same sex. If these rapes were done based on power/dominance rather than lust, it by definition isn't homosexual. It's simply male-on-male, and there remains no reason to think that allowing homosexual soldiers to serve would worsen a rape problem that isn't based on homosexuality. Especially if you're implying that they're somehow more likely to rape.

That is just stupid. It is a homosexual act if a man rapes another man. The motivation is immaterial. It is lust and power.

[fm93]

That is just stupid. It is a homosexual act if a man rapes another man. The motivation is immaterial. It is lust and power.

So you're letting your preconceived biases and prejudices override facts like the actual definition of the word "homosexual." How typical.

If straight men raped other men to show dominance, it's not homosexual, precisely because there ISN'T any lust involved. And even if you want to re-define "homosexual" to include those types of rapes, that's far different from saying that men who are actually homosexual are a serious threat to rape.