Author Topic: Nice 20/20 about our glorious airforce (Read 2334 times)

Kanth · « **Reply #15 on:** March 02, 2003, 03:24:45 PM »

This is right. And you are worried about your daughter's safety. Don't let her be like those farm girls.

Whether she goes into the military or to college or wherever there are predators.

Not only from the mother's skirts, but the father's skirts as well. Unless you believe that a father shouldn't teach his daughters anything or that a mother cannot teach her daughter how to take care of herself.

If people choose to live in ignorance, at the very least they should be aware of the number of surprises they will encounter in their lifetimes.

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d

Kanth - of course teh predators select their victims among inexperienced and trusting and easily awed by authority. Those were farm girls of 18 from nice families - they would have made brillliant and courageous officers eventually, but not right from the mothers' skirts. Just the time to pounce...
miko

AKIron · « **Reply #16 on:** March 02, 2003, 04:53:30 PM »

A quick search yielded this:

http://www.dailyillini.com/oct02/oct30/news/stories/campus01.shtml

More to follow later.

another:

http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/10/24/loc_collegecrimes24.html

and another interesting article:

http://www.umass.edu/journal/car/studentwork/collins.html

lazs2 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 03, 2003, 08:42:01 AM »

women should not be in the military. You can put em there but it requires extraordinary measures to circumvent human nature. It's not worth it in my opinion. I do not operate on how things should be... only on how they are.
lazs

StSanta · « **Reply #18 on:** March 03, 2003, 12:05:08 PM »

Lazs, they shouldn't be there because their male colleagues cannot keep their dicks in their pants?

Or because of modesty issues? I find modesty is the second casualty in war, just after truth.

Or aren't they physically strong enough? Any of them?

Or is it rape by enemy soldiers you're worried about? I guess getting shot is better.

I see no reason why women shouldn't be allowed to serve their country by actively participating in the defense of it.

Btw, it doesn't matter if they do high risk things. It doesn't matter if they haven't got the guts to report a rape. No means no, and coerced sex is always wrong. And it ain't the womens fault.

If a woman was to strip in front of 10 drunken horny soldiers, tongue kiss each and every one of them an stroke their genitals, only to then say 'no', and she gets raped, the problem is the men. It's not illegal to arouse people with their consent. It is illegal to force ones genitals into the body of a screaming, sobbing, unwilling woman.

No means no. You might disagree with the womans behavior, but the blame is solely on those who take the law in their own hands and violate in a horrible way another human being.

The fact that it was/is covered up by the military is disgusting. I find myself, yet again, agreeing with Miko2D's sentiments.

Kanth · « **Reply #19 on:** March 03, 2003, 12:13:00 PM »

rape isn't considered human nature by most laz.

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
You can put em there but it requires extraordinary measures to circumvent human nature.
lazs

Mini D · « **Reply #20 on:** March 03, 2003, 12:33:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
Btw, it doesn't matter if they do high risk things. It doesn't matter if they haven't got the guts to report a rape. No means no, and coerced sex is always wrong. And it ain't the womens fault.

And therein lies the PC roadkill that totally skews this issue.

Coerced sex is technically any sex that wasn't the woman's idea in the first place, while she was sober and well rested. The whole thing is purely subjective and is entirely impossible to prove one way or the other. Coerced and Forced are not interchangeable words.

Still a BS way to track things. If you knew some of the people (men and women) that went into the military, you'd undestand the room for things like this to happen.

Basically, in a predominantly young male environment, you have 99 cases over 7 years. Each year that 14 men (or fewer) out of thousands that create a problem. Once again, compare that to any college. You'll find an order of magnitude difference.

You'll also find many of the same issues in regards to what is able to be charged. Its very difficult to prove these situations... especially in the greyer "I was coerced" sides of the house... or when alchohol was involved and judgement/memory is impared.

I'm not trying to excuse rape, nor say the women could have avoided the situation all together. I wasn't there. I am trying to say that the Academies do a decent job given the concentration of testosteron on the campus in comparison to other schools.

You send them to the Academy to learn to behave proffessionally. There is a reason you have to teach them. They are kids that need to be turned into men.

MiniD

miko2d · « **Reply #21 on:** March 03, 2003, 01:18:34 PM »

AKIron: I dunno, perhaps the staff at any number of universities around the country?

First, it is not a illegal for a civilian not to report a crime. It is certainly illegal for an officer to conceal a crime affecting his command.

Second, stuff at univercities do not have a legal authority over the students. They are not "commanding officers". It is understandable that a college would not want bad publicity but it is a pure analogy comparing military with college in that respect.

More correct analogy would be local police. If local police did want to investigate a crime because it would affect their stats, that would be a completely different matter than if civilian concealed it.

A student who is raped is supposed to call police, not her history teacher. A military cadets must report to his/her officer and await further orders.

lazs2: women should not be in the military. You can put em there but it requires extraordinary measures to circumvent human nature.

You mean men just cannot help themselves but rape?

Basically, in a predominantly young male environment, you have 99 cases over 7 years. Each year that 14 men (or fewer) out of thousands that create a problem. Once again, compare that to any college. You'll find an order of magnitude difference.

First, the number of incidents are probably much higher because the way authorities dealt with reported ones dissuades the victims from reporting them.
Second, besides 14 man a year raping the girls, there are hundreds of men aware of that and doing nothing or cooperating with a rapist. That is not how an officer and a gentleman should behave, is it?

miko

Mini D · « **Reply #22 on:** March 03, 2003, 01:56:46 PM »

No miko, now you are inflating things. Hundreds know about the rapes? This is simply an unfounded assumption. Once again why I don't like 20/20's style of reporting.

I'm not trying to diminish what happened. But I'm not trying to treat it as if this is some kind of excessive situation. The investigation was into one specific institution and you are reacting to that. Put equal effort into any institution and see what gets dug up.

20/20 is one of the best programs at finding a hot topic and digging up enough information to say whatever they want about it.

MiniD

AKIron · « **Reply #23 on:** March 03, 2003, 02:00:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
AKIron: I dunno, perhaps the staff at any number of universities around the country?

First, it is not a illegal for a civilian not to report a crime. It is certainly illegal for an officer to conceal a crime affecting his command. miko

Actually, you are incorrect. Did you read any of the links I posted? It is required by law for the Universities to report those incidents.

Mathman · « **Reply #24 on:** March 03, 2003, 02:01:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Those were farm girls of 18 from nice families - they would have made brillliant and courageous officers eventually, but not right from the mothers' skirts.

So if they were mean city girls from dysfunctional families it would have been acceptable, or it wouldn't have affected them as much?

Kanth · « **Reply #25 on:** March 03, 2003, 02:19:03 PM »

Neither, I believe he was meaning that they would have been exposed to a larger number of different types of people in the city including more varieties of bad folks.

making it easier for them to recognize and stay away from them.

but I could be mistaken.

Quote

Originally posted by Mathman
So if they were mean city girls from dysfunctional families it would have been acceptable, or it wouldn't have affected them as much?

Mini D · « **Reply #26 on:** March 03, 2003, 02:31:19 PM »

I've never known young girls from poor neighborhoods nor rich to have any more/less insight into men at that age. They're all pretty stupid. That's why college is such a learning experience. The problem is, you don't only learn good lessons.

BTW...

Depending on what college you're going to... the men aren't the only ones preying on the new influx of freshmen girls.

MiniD

Kanth · « **Reply #27 on:** March 03, 2003, 02:44:23 PM »

I don't think the wealth of their families was the point but the degree of their socialization. Those in a more isolated locale probably having less (idea of the dangers of other people) than those in the city.

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I've never known young girls from poor neighborhoods nor rich to have any more/less insight into men at that age. They're all pretty stupid. That's why college is such a learning experience. The problem is, you don't only learn good lessons.

BTW...

Depending on what college you're going to... the men aren't the only ones preying on the new influx of freshmen girls.

MiniD

miko2d · « **Reply #28 on:** March 03, 2003, 03:37:57 PM »

AKIron: Actually, you are incorrect. Did you read any of the links I posted? It is required by law for the Universities to report those incidents.

No. I did not read your links. If they are required by law, than it is worse than I thought. Still, we can choose univercities. We cannot choose which US army to use...

Mathman: So if they were mean city girls from dysfunctional families it would have been acceptable, or it wouldn't have affected them as much?

Mean girls would not have been easy to intimidate, coerce and keep quiet. That is why the rapists did not select those. That meaning was obvious from my original post. But that is beside the point.

Here is what I said, blue is what you've ommited:

Miko: "...the predators select their victims among inexperienced and trusting and easily awed by authority. Those were farm girls of 18 from nice families - they would have made brillliant and courageous officers eventually, but not right from the mothers' skirts. Just the time to pounce...

You represent my explanation of technicalities in how the criminals selected the victims which were easily subdued as if I would condone the rape under different circumstances - by strategically misquoting me, possibly hoping that others would not care to check what I really posted.
Why would you do such a scummy thing?

miko

Kanth · « **Reply #29 on:** March 03, 2003, 03:58:05 PM »

oh I know I know!!! Pick me pick me!!

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d

Why would you do such a scummy thing?

miko