Thu July 31, 2008 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A congresswoman said Thursday that her "jaw dropped" when military doctors told her that four in 10 women at a veterans hospital reported being sexually assaulted while in the military.

A government report indicates that the numbers could be even higher.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, spoke before a House panel investigating the way the military handles reports of sexual assault.

She said she recently visited a Veterans Affairs hospital in the Los Angeles area, where women told her horror stories of being raped in the military.

"My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41 percent of the female veterans seen there say they were victims of sexual assault while serving in the military," said Harman, who has long sought better protection of women in the military.

But when it came time for the military to defend itself, the panel was told that the Pentagon's top official on sexual abuse, Dr. Kaye Whitley, was ordered not to show up despite a subpoena.

"I don't know what you're trying to cover up here, but we're not going to allow it," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, said to the Defense official who relayed the news of Whitley's no-show. "This is unacceptable."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/military.sexabuse/index.html

whoa.....

-

I guess " Don't ask, don't tell" also applies to the question, "Are you a rapist?".

Training people to kill without remorse DOES have it's downside.

Moms and dads, this is something to consider when your daughter tells you she wants to join the army. :mad:

I guess " Don't ask, don't tell" also applies to the question, "Are you a rapist?".

Training people to kill without remorse DOES have it's downside.
I know this dude who was in the army. He says that a lot of shit happens to women when they go through basic training. A lot of times its the male instructors who do the abusing. Nothing I read above surprises me.

I know this dude who was in the army. He says that a lot of shit happens to women when they go through basic training. A lot of times its the male instructors who do the abusing. Nothing I read above surprises me.

I've spoken to a few females who have been through it.

The first thing to consider is that part of the "induction" it a constant reminder that ALL inductee's are PROPERTY, and as such, they can do what-ever they like with you.

Apparently, that includes sexual abuse.

First, it is important to put a line between sexual humiliation and assault versus rape. Everyone is sexually humiliated during basic training to some degree, and likely assaulted by many civilian definitions. This is part of the psychological deconstruction process and it is incredibly effective in men and women. This is one of the key reasons I'm opposed to gays openly serving in the military. The psychology used to create professional killers is NOT conducive to healthy interaction between objects of sexual interest. Anyone surprised that this kind of thing happens has never served in the military.
That doesn't make it right or acceptable. But it is going to be the case until we find a new way of creating people who can kill on command, die on command, and still be able to function with all of the normal rules of society (which, by the way, oppose both of those capabilities). Until then we will have all of the excessively logistically-complicated rules we have now for dealing with men and women serving together in combat arms, along with a high rate of assault. Those who want gays serving openly should focus their energies on solving this issue first.

First, it is important to put a line between sexual humiliation and assault versus rape......

Well stated.

However, is it not the same with gays( Who have served since the beginings of humanity's concept of warfare)?

The objectives of training people to kill or die on command has always been a juxtaposition of social conditioning balenced between patriotism ( or duty and honor), and the desire to survive.

When you train someone in this manner, you effectively remove the social barriers and constraints in favor of permissible anti-social behavior.

Once that anti social behavior is instilled, ANYONE male, female, male gay, female gay will have the very same agressive behavioral patterns backed up by peer pressure to perform in a given manner.

Being gay doesn't disqualify anyone from experiencing the full range of behavioral patterns of kill or die on command that someone who is not gay would experience.

So I don't think there's an easy out in this area.

Rape is unfortunately part of war, and sexual abuse is, as your stated so well, part of the training.

It doesn't matter what your sexuality or prefererence might be.

If you train people to be agressive, and to kill or die on cue, this sort of thing tends to be the result.

Having said that, it is only viewed as inappropriate from a civilian standpoint.

In the field, however, it is probably seen as just a fact of life.

I would consider 4 in 10 females being raped to be pervasive.

Who knows what the ratio is for gay rape, or gay backlash killings.

This may be shocking, but it's not surprising in the least, given the environment that these people are in. I would venture to say that many of these abuses wouldn't occur in a non military environment.

The fact that there are so many men and women working alongside one another has created all kinds of problems. Pregnancies alone, between consenting adults are rampant and rising, especially on ships. It's been a real embarrassment for the military, and they tend to keep quiet about it.

Just over the last few months there have been at least two murders of pregnant female military personnel by the fathers of their children. I can't understand how anyone could do that, but it's happening, and we only hear about the ones who get caught. Most crimes are never even reported, much less prosecuted, so who really knows how bad it is??

Well stated.

However, is it not the same with gays( Who have served since the beginings of humanity's concept of warfare)?

Absolutely and I agree with the balance of your post. However, the stigma attached and the shadowy secretive world they live in as a result of not being allowed to serve openly makes the incidents of assault on or by gays considerably less than it is for women. It isn't just the aggressive mentality brought on by the training. It is also the conditions the people are exposed to and the disconnect with normal authority.
Honestly, until warfare changes, I am not comfortable with women in combat arms at all. I know they can do the job, but the efforts we had to go through to accommodate them in the field and the amount of abuse they undergo despite those accommodations are disruptive to good unit cohesion and morale. And it would be no different for openly gay people serving.
It isn't right, it isn't fair, but we are talking about getting paid to kill people for a living. What exactly is right about that? I would prefer if we were going to have women in combat arms that they have their own units (organizational units, I'm not suggesting surgical alteration so they fit in). An all female regiment would have much less issues than combined regiments.