|
On April 19 2012 05:01 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 20:23 Erasme wrote:On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. You can tell it very easily. -_- Care to explain how instead of making a blanket statement? Because, from my non-medical understanding, you can easily tell if there has been intercourse, but not if said intercourse was forced or not.
defensive marks like bruising and skin cells in fingernails if the female tried to scratch and fight back
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:10 Miss_Cleo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:01 Myles wrote:On April 18 2012 20:23 Erasme wrote:On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. You can tell it very easily. -_- Care to explain how instead of making a blanket statement? Because, from my non-medical understanding, you can easily tell if there has been intercourse, but not if said intercourse was forced or not. defensive marks like bruising and skin cells in fingernails if the female tried to scratch and fight back
Which was Ghostcom's whole point, doing a gynecological exam doesn't give definitive proof. Bruising and other bodily injury can easily be caused from other things(such as consensual sex, among other things), making the final ruling quite subjective in cases where the victim wasn't nearly/completely beat up.
|
As a military member, I resent the implication that these and other women are dismissed because of their rape. They were raped, and that's horrible, unforgivable, and unfortunate, but as a result, they suffered psychological damage that left them unfit to operate within a military setting, another issue entirely. Its totally understandable and excusable that someone who suffered the trauma of rape would have psychological damage and difficulty trusting/operating around same kind of men who did this, but its ALSO completely fair, and understandable, that they would be discharged as a result of being unable to perform their duties, whatever the reason.
TL;DR: Rape sucks, but I want to be able to rely on the soldiers next to me, and if I can't, they need to go. Totally support the discharge of people unfit for duty, despite the shitty reason why.
|
On April 19 2012 05:16 Crushgroove wrote:
As a military member, I resent the implication that these and other women are dismissed because of their rape. They were raped, and that's horrible, unforgivable, and unfortunate, but as a result, they suffered psychological damage that left them unfit to operate within a military setting, another issue entirely. Its totally understandable and excusable that someone who suffered the trauma of rape would have psychological damage and difficulty trusting/operating around same kind of men who did this, but its ALSO completely fair, and understandable, that they would be discharged as a result of being unable to perform their duties, whatever the reason.
TL;DR: Rape sucks, but I want to be able to rely on the soldiers next to me, and if I can't, they need to go. Totally support the discharge of people unfit for duty, despite the shitty reason why.
That's all fine, dandy, and understandable.
As long as action is taken against the rapist as well.
|
Never mind ill post in Feedback
|
Complaints about moderation should be in Feedback. Unless they're worded that way, in which case they should probably be a PM.
And no, it's not a valid point. If it was even vaguely inevitable due to biology, rape would be so incredibly common as to be considered both a biological necessity and morally sound behavior. It's treated as neither, because it's NOT a given outcome, thus, the people doing it are loathsome scum who should be held accountable, instead of their crime being discounted as something that just happens.
|
On April 19 2012 05:40 JingleHell wrote:
Complaints about moderation should be in Feedback. Unless they're worded that way, in which case they should probably be a PM.
And no, it's not a valid point. If it was even vaguely inevitable due to biology, rape would be so incredibly common as to be considered both a biological necessity and morally sound behavior. It's treated as neither, because it's NOT a given outcome, thus, the people doing it are loathsome scum who should be held accountable, instead of their crime being discounted as something that just happens.
Yes rape was very uncommon through out histo....oh wait no it wasent. It wasent even considered to be evil. Women where treated second rate to any man. As civiliaztion progress so does the morals. Men have a strong desire for sex that is an unavoidable truth.
I want to make this clear tho. It is still the mans responsibly. Anyone who rapes someone has nothing to blame but himself. But i wouldent call it rare.
|
Uhm. If someone raped me and then gave me a diagnose saying i was mentally ill to the point where I couldn't get a normal job or anything without people thinking i was crazy, ... even if it was just a mild disorder that only disqualified me from the army. Well. Let's just say I wouldn't take kindly on that. dunno if i'd be able to control my actions after experiencing such a thing.
Like, idk what to say.. First you are done an incredibly wrong, and then you are taken away your voice; cause, who will ever listen to a crazy person........ I'd rather go to hell, I think.
|
On April 19 2012 05:47 Tabbris wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:40 JingleHell wrote:
Complaints about moderation should be in Feedback. Unless they're worded that way, in which case they should probably be a PM.
And no, it's not a valid point. If it was even vaguely inevitable due to biology, rape would be so incredibly common as to be considered both a biological necessity and morally sound behavior. It's treated as neither, because it's NOT a given outcome, thus, the people doing it are loathsome scum who should be held accountable, instead of their crime being discounted as something that just happens. Yes rape was very uncommon through out histo....oh wait no it wasent. It wasent even considered to be evil. Women where treated second rate to any man. As civiliaztion progress so does the morals. Men have a strong desire for sex that is an unavoidable truth. I want to make this clear tho. It is still the mans responsibly. Anyone who rapes someone has nothing to blame but himself. But i wouldent call it rare.
Uhm, go back through my post and show me the use of the word "uncommon" please? Or "rare"?
What I specifically said is that it's not considered a biological nexessity or morally sound behavior. It's not even close to common enough to consider it to be either. The vast majority of men go through their lives without comitting rape. Regardless of how much it DOES happen.
That, of course, is ignoring all the studies showing that rape tends to not be about biology as much as power anyways. It's frequently an "I'll teach you" type thing. Not a "want to get off" thing.
|
On April 19 2012 05:59 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:47 Tabbris wrote:On April 19 2012 05:40 JingleHell wrote:
Complaints about moderation should be in Feedback. Unless they're worded that way, in which case they should probably be a PM.
And no, it's not a valid point. If it was even vaguely inevitable due to biology, rape would be so incredibly common as to be considered both a biological necessity and morally sound behavior. It's treated as neither, because it's NOT a given outcome, thus, the people doing it are loathsome scum who should be held accountable, instead of their crime being discounted as something that just happens. Yes rape was very uncommon through out histo....oh wait no it wasent. It wasent even considered to be evil. Women where treated second rate to any man. As civiliaztion progress so does the morals. Men have a strong desire for sex that is an unavoidable truth. I want to make this clear tho. It is still the mans responsibly. Anyone who rapes someone has nothing to blame but himself. But i wouldent call it rare. Uhm, go back through my post and show me the use of the word "uncommon" please? Or "rare"? What I specifically said is that it's not considered a biological nexessity or morally sound behavior. It's not even close to common enough to consider it to be either. The vast majority of men go through their lives without comitting rape. Regardless of how much it DOES happen. That, of course, is ignoring all the studies showing that rape tends to not be about biology as much as power anyways. It's frequently an "I'll teach you" type thing. Not a "want to get off" thing.
Ah yes I agree with your last point. Sorry I seemed to just misunderstand what you where saying
|
So these women reported their rapes to officers without even going to medical staff first to verify that they had been raped and treat it?
Forgive me for not being quick to accept this as absolute fact. There certainly should have been an investigation, and if the appropriate channels do not exist to report this, that would be awful. However I am fairly sure that the U.S. army has measures in place to bypass corrupt chains of command. The fact is that there should have been an investigation, there wasn't one, and now we can never even know if it happened. There now needs to be an investigation to see if these women had any way of reporting the crimes. If there were alternate methods in place to report the rape and secure an investigation and these women chose to ignore them, then we must assume no rape occurred. If the methods do not exist, we must put them in place.
|
On April 19 2012 05:15 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:10 Miss_Cleo wrote:On April 19 2012 05:01 Myles wrote:On April 18 2012 20:23 Erasme wrote:On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. You can tell it very easily. -_- Care to explain how instead of making a blanket statement? Because, from my non-medical understanding, you can easily tell if there has been intercourse, but not if said intercourse was forced or not. defensive marks like bruising and skin cells in fingernails if the female tried to scratch and fight back Which was Ghostcom's whole point, doing a gynecological exam doesn't give definitive proof. Bruising and other bodily injury can easily be caused from other things(such as consensual sex, among other things), making the final ruling quite subjective in cases where the victim wasn't nearly/completely beat up.
Thank you for answering for me Myles, that was indeed 100% my point. I realise it doesn't really make a lot of sense to make claims like these on the internet, seeing how everyone can be whoever they want to be, but I'm actually about to finish my internship as a doctor. I've JUST finished a course in forensics medicine which is what my statement is based on.
I apologize for not responding earlier myself, but only just saw that someone had quoted me.
|
From what I've seen people in the military that are young tend to just do whatever the fuck they want just because they're in the military. This goes from being unnecessarily hostile to regular people to calling people f*****s. But of course this is still the minority, but it's just little bit too much of a minority imo.
|
United States42516 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:21 ampson wrote:If there were alternate methods in place to report the rape and secure an investigation and these women chose to ignore them, then we must assume no rape occurred.
You know very, very little about rape.
|
On April 19 2012 06:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:21 ampson wrote:If there were alternate methods in place to report the rape and secure an investigation and these women chose to ignore them, then we must assume no rape occurred. You know very, very little about rape.
I know more about rape than you would think. I could explain to you if you'd like, PM me if you want it. But you can't put the women here on such a pedestal as to take their word absolutely and without an investigation. Besides, they were clearly not traumatized to the point that they were not willing to report a rape, as they did it to their officers. If there were other ways to secure an investigation, (and they believed that the investigation would yield the proof they needed) it is just logical to think that they would do this. Of course extenuating circumstances exist (the only one I could think of would be an incredible fear of retaliation from their officers/the rapist), but when in doubt, I go for the logical resopnse.
|
United States42516 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:55 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:48 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2012 06:21 ampson wrote:If there were alternate methods in place to report the rape and secure an investigation and these women chose to ignore them, then we must assume no rape occurred. You know very, very little about rape. I know more about rape than you would think. I could explain to you if you'd like, PM me if you want it. But you can't put the women here on such a pedestal as to take their word absolutely and without an investigation. Besides, they were clearly not traumatized to the point that they were not willing to report a rape, as they did it to their officers. If there were other ways to secure an investigation, (and they believed that the investigation would yield the proof they needed) it is just logical to think that they would do this. Of course extenuating circumstances exist (the only one I could think of would be an incredible fear of retaliation from their officers/the rapist), but when in doubt, I go for the logical resopnse.
No, obviously an investigation must occur rather than simply accepting the allegation as proof of the act. However saying "we must assume no rape occurred" on the basis of suboptimal reporting of it is nonsense. An incredibly common symptom rape is that it is reported very inefficiently and irrationally, only 6% of rapes are even reported. Saying that an illogical approach to dealing with rape post-rape rules out having been raped is absurd.
|
On April 19 2012 06:55 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:48 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2012 06:21 ampson wrote:If there were alternate methods in place to report the rape and secure an investigation and these women chose to ignore them, then we must assume no rape occurred. You know very, very little about rape. I know more about rape than you would think. I could explain to you if you'd like, PM me if you want it. But you can't put the women here on such a pedestal as to take their word absolutely and without an investigation. Besides, they were clearly not traumatized to the point that they were not willing to report a rape, as they did it to their officers. If there were other ways to secure an investigation, (and they believed that the investigation would yield the proof they needed) it is just logical to think that they would do this. Of course extenuating circumstances exist (the only one I could think of would be an incredible fear of retaliation from their officers/the rapist), but when in doubt, I go for the logical resopnse.
You've missed the several posts throughout the thread that confirm there are options available. In fact, if something involving a broken regulation gets reported up the regular chain of command, it's frequently a matter of someone being vindictive, regardless of what the regulation was.
There's multiple points of contact available for stuff like sexual assault and harassment, that specifically avoid the chain of command.
|
The amount of ignorance in this thread is amazing... A simple google search will provide you with TONS of information on how sexual assault is handled in the military.
For example: http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/index_pledge.cfm
Stop making sweeping statements about stuff not getting taken care of or swept under the rug.
Unless these women didn't report the incidents properly, these things did get looked into. A non-commissioned officer can't do anything about a sexual assault allegation. They certainly cannot sweep it under the rug. That article is complete BS or the women in question completely ignored all the sexual prevention training they were given and didn't report things properly.
Stop judging the military based on this nonsense. Go actually look up how this stuff works before posting...
|
@kwark
So we have established a situation where a rape has occurred. It has not been, or has "suboptimally been reported." What are we to do in this case? How will anyone even know? Are we supposed to somehow know that this rape has occurred and launch an investigation without being told to? In this case, "suboptimally" means that the one person these women reported it to ignored it. They have other ways of reporting it but just don't. Is it a tragedy that the next guy up doesn't do anything to deal with it? Sure, but there are still other ways to seek justice. Officers should deal with this, but in the case of a bad officer (Who doesn't report the rape to anyone,) what can be done if these women do not seek additional help? Who will even know? It's a shitty situation but someone (who isn't corrupt) has to know about the event in order for justice to be done.
@JingleHell If there indeed were the other options available to these women, my opinion on the matter can be found in my other posts.
Edit: Hell, I'll just repeat it. I said earlier that if these women did not take advantage of their ways to report the rape then we cannot punish anyone of the rape, or even assume that it occurred.
|
United States42516 Posts
On April 19 2012 07:10 ppgButtercup wrote:The amount of ignorance in this thread is amazing... A simple google search will provide you with TONS of information on how sexual assault is handled in the military. For example: http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/index_pledge.cfmStop making sweeping statements about stuff not getting taken care of or swept under the rug. Unless these women didn't report the incidents properly, these things did get looked into. A non-commissioned officer can't do anything about a sexual assault allegation. They certainly cannot sweep it under the rug. That article is complete BS or the women in question completely ignored all the sexual prevention training they were given and didn't report things properly. Stop judging the military based on this nonsense. Go actually look up how this stuff works before posting...
While I don't want to condemn the evidence of a simple google search there have also been several very informative posts by people with direct, first hand experience of the matter stemming from their own service within the military. This topic contains more than a sensationalised article and pages of people being outraged, there is actually a discussion going on which you seem to have missed in your eagerness to dismiss the entire issue with a simple google search.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
