14,000 men in the US military were raped last year. Little to none of them reported it.

[Kathinka]

Really? Are you seriously suggesting that male and females be forced to sleep in the same room, use the same restrooms, and the same open showers?

I believe the British military is in favour of that. They also have strict rules about not having sex with fellow personnel on deployments, though.

Which, btw, means absolutely nothing in practice.

There are also strict rules, actually, laws that criminalizes fraternizations (and even just plain ol' cheating on your spouse) in the US military.

Guess what happens on every deployment?


This is a point I'm simply baffled by. You guys seriously think putting a bunch of young ame and female together, sleeping in the same room, using the same bathroom, and even taking showers together, is a good idea?

it's not as bad as it sounds. i served four years in the czech army, in the infantry to boot, where you don't always encounter the most gentle and cerebral fellas, and i mostly showered with the males for reasons of time constraints (there was no separate shower for girls, so the practice was for the girls to shower first and lock up the shower, and after that the guys would go. that of course would mean that one or two females would slow down the entire process by taking up 20 or so showers) and there was no trouble with it. zip, none. no problem.

 

[kyp275]

Again, the British military manage to do that sort of thing.

Got a link? Though I got a feeling we're all talking about something else.

it's not as bad as it sounds. i served four years in the czech army, in the infantry to boot, where you don't always encounter the most gentle and cerebral fellas, and i mostly showered with the males for reasons of time constraints (there was no separate shower for girls, so the practice was for the girls to shower first and lock up the shower, and after that the guys would go. that of course would mean that one or two females would slow down the entire process by taking up 20 or so showers) and there was no trouble with it. zip, none. no problem.

When there are no facilities, you make do with what you have. It's the same thing here when we're out in the field. In some FOBs there's only one shower trailer, obviously everyone is going to have to share it.

But it's a different matter when we're in garrison, or when accommodation IS available. I think what you and thaluikhain are thinking about is what you said, taking turn sharing limited facilities. What I've been talking about since the beginning isn't just limited to those scenarios, but across everything - sharing the same barracks room (sometimes only 2 people to a room), using the same restroom, the same shower, AT THE SAME TIME, even back in garrison.

As in, the females will walk into the restroom at the same time the guys will be doing their business at the urinals with their junk out, and when they're taking showers, it's going to be a bunch of naked men and women all together at the same time a la starship trooper style.

That's what it means to not have segregated living area and facilities,

 

[Thaluikhain]

Again, the British military manage to do that sort of thing.

Got a link? Though I got a feeling we're all talking about something else.

Documentaries on youtube, where they followed female British personnel in an artillery base at Afghanistan.

The women shared accommodations, including sleeping quarters, with the men, who said they just got used to seeing them naked. But still would draw penises on all their stuff.

 

[kyp275]

Again, the British military manage to do that sort of thing.

Got a link? Though I got a feeling we're all talking about something else.

Documentaries on youtube, where they followed female British personnel in an artillery base at Afghanistan.

The women shared accommodations, including sleeping quarters, with the men, who said they just got used to seeing them naked. But still would draw penises on all their stuff.

So basically what I said, they were in the field.

Now, what do they do in garrison again?

 

[Vivi22]

That's a lot of homosexuals raping people. What gives? I thought we were all cool.

Who said all of the perpetrators are gay? Rape is more about power and control than about sexual orientation. And someone sodomizing another man with a broom handle for example is still rape. I think people would be surprised how many people that are perpetrating these crimes aren't actually homosexual.

 

[Vivi22]

I need more solid proof. Where are scans of their brains, results of a lie detector test and a chemo and a normal analysis of their insides (particularly for semen or any kinds of bruises). Anyone can tell that they have been raped. Even more - this is a good way to ruin your enemy's reputation and career.

Historically speaking, making rape allegations is a great way to destroy your own career in the military. Especially if you're a man who's claiming to have been raped.

I highly doubt anyone coming forward is doing so just to "ruin an enemies reputation and career," because military culture and justice is just that fucked up that it would do the exact opposite. It's slowly starting to change, but we're still a long way away from the time when anyone actually needs to be all that concerned that someone is making false allegations just to hurt someone else.

But the numbers here are overblown to say at best.

Citation needed.

Yes, a heterosexual men without any way to have a stress relief for years, surrounded in a company of men tend become a little but a homosexual tendency. No, they usually either use a hand or (if they can) some female in a kilometre radius.

It's cute that you think men raping men happens because of homosexuality. It is extremely rare that that's actually the case.

Assaults like these are in minority, and should be dealt by their respective command officers, and not by carrions, that are journalists.

Commanding officers are the last people who should be dealing with rape allegations from their subordinates. That is literally the worst way to handle this sort of situation because, again, historically they have almost always done everything in their power to sweep it under the rug, and even discharge the victims for things as contrived as admitting to engaging in homosexual activity. The military is a fucked up organization, and letting it police itself when criminal accusations are made is every bit as stupid as it is to let police investigate themselves when they're accused of criminal activity.

 

[Adam Lester]

I don't mean any offense, but can someone explain how these things typically happen? Is it a man or a group of men who sodomizes another? Also, doesn't most people in the military carry a pistol? How come the rapist hasn't been shot in any of these 14000 cases?

As a former Navy guy, nope. We were only allowed to carry on security watches. When not in use, the folk in charge of the armory lock them up and only distribute them at the beginning of your watch.


But yeah, sexual assault's a problem effecting both sides. Sometimes it's military-on-military, others military-on-civilian or civilian-on-military.

 

[kyp275]

Historically speaking, making rape allegations is a great way to destroy your own career in the military. Especially if you're a man who's claiming to have been raped.

I highly doubt anyone coming forward is doing so just to "ruin an enemies reputation and career," because military culture and justice is just that fucked up that it would do the exact opposite. It's slowly starting to change, but we're still a long way away from the time when anyone actually needs to be all that concerned that someone is making false allegations just to hurt someone else.

First off, those that actually do make military a "career" are few. The vast majority of the personnel are enlisted, and many typically stays on for one, maybe two (4 years per usually) enlistments, nor is it a job you can stay on just because you want to.

Second, as far as false allegations... let's just say you have no idea how fucked up some people can be.

Citation needed.

To be fair, citations are needed in both directions.

Commanding officers are the last people who should be dealing with rape allegations from their subordinates. That is literally the worst way to handle this sort of situation because, again, historically they have almost always done everything in their power to sweep it under the rug, and even discharge the victims for things as contrived as admitting to engaging in homosexual activity. The military is a fucked up organization, and letting it police itself when criminal accusations are made is every bit as stupid as it is to let police investigate themselves when they're accused of criminal activity.

There are two sides to every coin. Generally I agree that when possible, an independent third party should be the investigative authority. However, that's not always possible, and in situations like that the CO should have some authority in the matter.

Also, regardless of what you think, homosexual activity WAS banned until recently. Regulation is regulation, regardless of whether you like it or not, will have to be followed.

Lastly, as you've demonstrated that you have no actual experience nor much knowledge about the military, I do take offense to your overly broad and matter-of-fact assertions such as "the military is a fucked up organization", and please feel free to imagine me hurling your preferred expletives at you.

 

[Kathinka]

But it's a different matter when we're in garrison, or when accommodation IS available. I think what you and thaluikhain are thinking about is what you said, taking turn sharing limited facilities. What I've been talking about since the beginning isn't just limited to those scenarios, but across everything - sharing the same barracks room (sometimes only 2 people to a room), using the same restroom, the same shower, AT THE SAME TIME, even back in garrison.

As in, the females will walk into the restroom at the same time the guys will be doing their business at the urinals with their junk out, and when they're taking showers, it's going to be a bunch of naked men and women all together at the same time a la starship trooper style.

That's what it means to not have segregated living area and facilities,

yeah, that's what i mean too. that's how it was for me (and for a time for a second girl in my platoon that was there for a while). i'd walk into the restroom or the showers, and there'd be guys there doing their thing. or vice versa, people coming and going in while i was showering. i slept in a room with five dudes, in deployment it was a bit more private (two per container) but all that was true for being garrisoned in the barracks. it seriously wasn't as big of a deal as people might think.

 

[Vivi22]

First off, those that actually do make military a "career" are few. The vast majority of the personnel are enlisted, and many typically stays on for one, maybe two (4 years per usually) enlistments, nor is it a job you can stay on just because you want to.

Second, as far as false allegations... let's just say you have no idea how fucked up some people can be.

Yes, your semantic argument about what constitutes a military career has completely... failed to refute the point I made actually. Interesting, but not overly relevant in the end. As for how fucked up people can be, I'm actually well aware of it. Just as I'm aware that the military has a rather sordid history of blaming and punishing the victim. If you want to pretend that all 14,000 cases are nothing but false allegations, you're really going to have to back that one up.

To be fair, citations are needed in both directions.

Actually no. You see the link in the article mentions the numbers being reported and where they come from. With even the most modest amount of source checking you'll quite quickly learn that the 14,000 cases in question is a number that was reported by the damn Pentagon. So if you want to claim that number is overblown, you're going to need to provide some actual evidence. Because the Pentagon has looked into it and doesn't agree with you. If you'd like, you can even check out their report here: http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/research/2012_Workplace_and_Gender_Relations_Survey_of_Active_Duty_Members-Survey_Note_and_Briefing.pdf

Sorry, but you need to develop a better handle on when citations are needed. In this case, the citation has been provided. If you'd like to call it into question, you're welcome to find some valid criticism of their methodology, or present some evidence which contradicts this which is at least as credible. Either way, it will require slightly more work on your part than simply sitting there stating that the numbers are overblown. If that's the best you've got you have no argument.

There are two sides to every coin. Generally I agree that when possible, an independent third party should be the investigative authority. However, that's not always possible, and in situations like that the CO should have some authority in the matter.

That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Having a CO investigate their own soldiers is never an acceptable idea. Ever. When it comes to one soldier making allegations against another, the CO more than anyone else has reason to try and sweep it under the rug to cover his ass. Even the mere appearance of any bias in handling cases like this should never be tolerated, and you can never have a CO deal with it without it at least appearing that they can not be impartial.

What your describing as being acceptable in the course of meeting out justice is as far from acceptable as you can possibly get in a first world country these days. That sort of thing would never fly in the civilian justice system, and there's absolutely no reason why it should be accepted as part of military justice either. If you do accept it, then you can never guarantee with any degree of certainty that justice was actually served.

Also, regardless of what you think, homosexual activity WAS banned until recently. Regulation is regulation, regardless of whether you like it or not, will have to be followed.

So your point is that now that rape victims can't be discharged for homosexual behaviour because they were raped that anyone who might want to sweep it under the rug will have to try a bit harder? I agree. And I certainly hope you're not actually suggesting that every regulation will always be followed by every soldier regardless of circumstance and how much trouble it may land them in. Because that'd be quite the fictional utopia you must live in if you think that's the case.

Lastly, as you've demonstrated that you have no actual experience nor much knowledge about the military,

That's quite funny since on the topic of sexual assault in the military I seem to know a great deal while you seem barely capable of acknowledging it even exists. Might want to watch what you assume friend.

I do take offense to your overly broad and matter-of-fact assertions such as "the military is a fucked up organization", and please feel free to imagine me hurling your preferred expletives at you.

Take all the offense you want at it, still isn't going to change that the military is a strange beast which has spent decades institutionalizing questionable behaviour, and left victims of crimes almost completely powerless in the search for justice. Granted, this is starting to change, but it's still an organization with a lot of entrenched tradition and beliefs that are going to be hard to get around to make sure the sort of systemic abuses that have lead to victims of sexual assault, male and female, being punished for it, and even being charged with crimes themselves in some cases.

And that you even argue in favour of continuing to allow CO's for instance to have the sort of power which has created these systemic problems is downright frightening. If you were in the military, I'd love to know what they did to you to leave you with such a skewed sense of what the word justice means to actually believe that CO's investigating and disciplining their soldiers in criminal matters is acceptable.

So yeah, if you're offended then good. You should be. And maybe if you stop and think about any of this for more than a few seconds and leave the apologist attitude and excuse making out of it you might even recognize that the thing you should be offended by here is the way the military has historically handled these matters. Go ahead and actually look into it some more. Educate yourself. Any organization that can knowingly allow the sorts of things to happen to victims of sexual assault which have happened to victims of sexual assault in the last several decades at least is the very definition of a fucked up organization.

 

[spartan231490]

While I'm not sure where the numbers came from (being entirely unsure how one figures out the number of unreported crimes) it really is appalling that something like this happens at all. This seems to be something that the military really has an issue with and I'm really wondering what they're doing to try and change this if they're doing anything at all. I've known a few rape victims in my life and it really does wreak havoc on men and women alike. I can only imagine what that's like when you add in the feeling of having nowhere to turn.

I believe these numbers are only the reported crimes, but I can't tell for sure. The article OP linked seems to imply that, but it is not very well written. The source document is gigantic and not well differentiated, so I can't find a method.

 

[spartan231490]

That's a lot of homosexuals raping people. What gives? I thought we were all cool.

It's not rape, it's MST, military sexual trauma, which refers to any sexual assault or "repetitive, threatening harrassment of a sexual nature".

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Actually no. You see the link in the article mentions the numbers being reported and where they come from. With even the most modest amount of source checking you'll quite quickly learn that the 14,000 cases in question is a number that was reported by the damn Pentagon. So if you want to claim that number is overblown, you're going to need to provide some actual evidence. Because the Pentagon has looked into it and doesn't agree with you. If you'd like, you can even check out their report here: http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/research/2012_Workplace_and_Gender_Relations_Survey_of_Active_Duty_Members-Survey_Note_and_Briefing.pdf

Sorry, but you need to develop a better handle on when citations are needed. In this case, the citation has been provided. If you'd like to call it into question, you're welcome to find some valid criticism of their methodology, or present some evidence which contradicts this which is at least as credible. Either way, it will require slightly more work on your part than simply sitting there stating that the numbers are overblown. If that's the best you've got you have no argument.

First and foremost, using the word 'cases' is incorrect: there were not 14,000 reported cases of male sexual assault or rape (if you read the entirety of the 726 or so page report for 2013, the actual # of reported sexual assaults, male and female, is about 3,700). It's actually not even 14,000 allegations; it's 14,000 suspected instances. If you crunch the numbers, the 14,000 (or 38 a day) comes from the fact that around 1.8% of men (in the 2013 survey) said they had experienced "unwanted sexual contact" in the last year. Do the math with the number of men in the Active US Military and it comes out to around 14,000.

Now, as I pointed out earlier, there are several very big problems with this:
1: It's anonymous, and it's being given largely to 18 and 19 year olds who might not be the most mature folks on the planet, some people are going to BS and lie.
2: The definition of 'unwanted sexual contact" is very broad and somewhat vague. For example, if someone slaps me on the ass, it can be considered 'unwanted sexual contact'. But to equate that to sexual assault or rape is a pretty big leap.
3: The survey isn't nearly as big as you might think, as they only received 22,792 surveys. This sounds like a lot, but when you consider that there are over 1,000,000 people on active duty, it comes out to only around 2%.

 

[sageoftruth]

I was positive this would be a TACO News article when I clicked the link. This is surprising.

 

[Plunkies]

Um....These numbers are crazy. And I don't mean "crazy" as in surprising, but "crazy" as in literally unbelievable.

There are 1.5 million active duty U.S. troops in various branches of the military.

The current rape rate in the US is about 25 per 100,000 people.

14k rapes a year would make the military's rape rate a whopping 930 per 100,000 people.

Now, does that sound even remotely believable? That joining the military makes it 37 times more likely you're going to get raped?

That's like 10 times worse than South Africa, and South Africa thinks raping children cures them of aids.

 

[kyp275]

Yes, your semantic argument about what constitutes a military career has completely... failed to refute the point I made actually. Interesting, but not overly relevant in the end.

/shrug, think what you will. Though I'm fairly certain when people use the word career, they refer to long-term employment, but I guess to you a stint at McDonalds is also a "career".

If you want to pretend that all 14,000 cases are nothing but false allegations, you're really going to have to back that one up.

Please point out where In my post I said that. I'm not going to wait though, because I didn't. I specifically refuted your claim that people don't make false allegations.

Actually no. You see the link in the article mentions the numbers being reported and where they come from. With even the most modest amount of source checking you'll quite quickly learn that the 14,000 cases in question is a number that was reported by the damn Pentagon. So if you want to claim that number is overblown, you're going to need to provide some actual evidence. Because the Pentagon has looked into it and doesn't agree with you. If you'd like, you can even check out their report here:
http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/research/2012_Workplace_and_Gender_Relations_Survey_of_Active_Duty_Members-Survey_Note_and_Briefing.pdf

I'm pretty sure people's problem isn't with the numbers, but rather how the number was interpreted in the article. I think earlier in the thread someone pointed out how the number was extrapolated based on the survey that categorized vague answers such as unwanted sexual advances or some such as rape.

Either way, it will require slightly more work on your part than simply sitting there stating that the numbers are overblown. If that's the best you've got you have no argument.

Funny, considering how I actually didn't say anything of the sort. Is there anything else you'd like to try to put into my mouth while you're at it?

That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Having a CO investigate their own soldiers is never an acceptable idea. Ever. When it comes to one soldier making allegations against another, the CO more than anyone else has reason to try and sweep it under the rug to cover his ass. Even the mere appearance of any bias in handling cases like this should never be tolerated, and you can never have a CO deal with it without it at least appearing that they can not be impartial.

Uh huh. Please tell me, how should the case then be conducted in the middle of the battlefield? Maybe perhaps a Taliban hotline number they can call to get the local authorities to do the investigation? Or maybe a temporary ceasefire at least? Does the mission come to a standing halt once an allegation have been made?

By your logic, commanders, or for that matter anyone in the chain of command should have zero authority to enforce troop discipline because they can't be trusted to be impartial. At that point you might as well just disband the whole military.

That sort of thing would never fly in the civilian justice system, and there's absolutely no reason why it should be accepted as part of military justice either.

You let me know when the civilian justice system have to operate under enemy fire in a foreign country on the other side of the planet. There's a reason why the military doesn't simply use the civilian laws, and have to operate under the UCMJ as well.

So your point is that now that rape victims can't be discharged for homosexual behaviour because they were raped that anyone who might want to sweep it under the rug will have to try a bit harder? I agree. And I certainly hope you're not actually suggesting that every regulation will always be followed by every soldier regardless of circumstance and how much trouble it may land them in. Because that'd be quite the fictional utopia you must live in if you think that's the case.

People like you amuses me, as you seems unable to actually discuss anything without resorting to jumping to conclusions and type up paragraphs after paragraphs about things that others never said.

You said that people were discharged because of "contrived" things like homosexual acts. I'm simply saying that until the reversal of DADT, committing homosexual acts is a dischargeable offense. How you jump from that to me saying that people will have to try harder to sweep rape under the rug is beyond me.

As with many things, of course not every regulation are followed all the time, depending on the command there is always a measure of latitude and discretion, both on the enlisted and officer staff - ie, don't make shit so obvious where you give people no choice but to process you. There were a few rather obvious L/G Marines in my last deployment before DADT was reversed, they didn't get any shit for it or get discharged. People knew, but they didn't make it so obvious as to force the officer's hands.

That's quite funny since on the topic of sexual assault in the military I seem to know a great deal while you seem barely capable of acknowledging it even exists. Might want to watch what you assume friend.[/qutoe]

That's rich coming from you, where you literally assumed just about your entire argument against me based things you assumed I had said or thinks.

If you were in the military, I'd love to know what they did to you to leave you with such a skewed sense of what the word justice means to actually believe that CO's investigating and disciplining their soldiers in criminal matters is acceptable.

10 years in the USMC, spent a few of that in the lovely desert. So where did you serve, and on what are you basing your wonderful insights on military cultures again?

No, the system isn't perfect. In fact, there are endless ways where the system is fucked up and people gets screwed all the time. Hell, I probably know far more things where we get screwed that you don't even have the faintest ideas about. There's a reason why the expression "getting screwed by the green monster" exists.

What I actually AM saying, is that you lack the context when you're making your assertions. You're approaching this with a civilian mindset while assuming the military is a garrisoned police force that never goes anywhere outside their base. CO aren't given their authorities because of lulz, and to give you something to think about: troop welfare is one of the top priorities for officers and NCOs, it's extremely important. But the one thing that's higher on the top of the list? Mission accomplishment. This isn't an office job, this is where you will be asked to do something that can, and in some cases, likely to lead to your death. Your own personal welfare is ultimately secondary.

No, this doesn't mean the system should be improved, it should be. Like I said originally, in cases of serious crimes - not just sexual assaults either, independent third party should be in charge whenever possible - unfortunately, that is not always the case.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Um....These numbers are crazy. And I don't mean "crazy" as in surprising, but "crazy" as in literally unbelievable.

There are 1.5 million active duty U.S. troops in various branches of the military.

The current rape rate in the US is about 25 per 100,000 people.

14k rapes a year would make the military's rape rate a whopping 930 per 100,000 people.

Now, does that sound even remotely believable? That joining the military makes it 37 times more likely you're going to get raped?

That's like 10 times worse than South Africa, and South Africa thinks raping children cures them of aids.

It's always good to question statistics, especially ones that seem almost designed specifically for shock value. If you read the report carefully, it's 14,000 'suspected instances', not 14,000 verified instances. If you crunch the numbers, the 14,000 (or 38 a day) comes from the fact that around 1.8% of men (in the 2013 survey) said they had experienced "unwanted sexual contact" in the last year. Do the math with the number of men in the Active US Military and it comes out to around 14,000. It's also important to note that "unwanted sexual contact" is NOT necessarily the same thing as rape or sexual assault.

There are several very big problems with this:
1: It's anonymous, and it's being given largely to 18 and 19 year olds who might not be the most mature folks on the planet, some people are going to BS and lie.
2: The definition of 'unwanted sexual contact" is very broad and somewhat vague. For example, if someone slaps me on the ass, it can be considered 'unwanted sexual contact'. Equating that to sexual assault or rape is a pretty big leap.
3: The survey isn't nearly as big as you might think, as they only received 22,792 surveys. This sounds like a lot, but when you consider that there are over 1,000,000 people on active duty, it comes out to only around 2%

Always good to dig deeply on stats that seem suspect.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

Well, it's a good thing that they don't allow no queers into the service. I mean, buttfuckin' a guy against his will is fine. But those gay guys are WEIRD. They kiss and everything.

 

[newwiseman]

My 2nd RDC (Recruit Division Commander, think Navy Drill Sergent) GM1 Torres called it "getting your donuts stolen," he told us all a LOT of stories about things that happened to guys.

The Mil has a program where civilian/military volunteers will drive military new to an area around to show them what areas have to offer, there is one case that we were all told about where one of the volunteers would take guys to bars get them drunk then rape them before taking the back to base. He did this to at least 70 different men before he was reported.

The military is seen as an easy rape target for a lot of people, mostly civilian, for a number of reasons. Primarily because most men won't report being victimized.

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

Edited for being rediculous.