It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'110 US male soldiers raped in 2010'

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Depending on who you believe in this thread large portions of the military are either:

A) Liars
or
B) Rapists

Doesn't really look good either way. Though from the torture methods used in Afghanistan it would seem to suggest a high probability of option B).




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr. D
 


Have you even read the bible? God must hate girls and women as well.

Get a life you homophobe. Next you are going to tell me that all men that rape other men in prison are homosexuals. And you obviously didnt get the memo, women can be homosexual as well, not just men, so feminism is not some gay agenda. Just women sick of nutjob religious men who believe the only place for her is in the kitchen or popping out children. You must be a fool.

Now the people who ask why this happens... prime example is a prison. People everywhere, nothing much to do, stressful, lack of women ect... same in a war zone.

Why do straight men rape males in prison, for the examples above and also because men are men and they need to relieve themselves somehow. Just shows how some people are animals and will screw anything just for a screw.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by BadPenny
 


Honestly, I have very rarely seen anything sexually related at all. The couple of examples I put in that post are probably the handful of things I have seen in 12 years of playing multiple sports and being involved with fraternities (I am not in a fraternity, but I have been around them quite a bit.).

The point was, whatever the flavor of hazing happens to be that day, the object is to either resist it, ignore it, endure it, or turn it around on someone else.


This is what most concerns me about all this. I understand that boys will be boys, but there is a point whereby people do things because it is expected of them and that leaves a scar that is then projected onto others, and so on and so forth. That is what I mean by institutionalised. Why even tolerate behaviour that has to be endured, or resisted, or ignored? Other than so it can be turned around on someone else? Do you see what I mean, about brutality breeding brutality? It has to be incremental, otherwise we wouldn't tolerate it, our tolerance has to be gradually built up. Most people would never ever consider doing the things that trained military personnel did at Abu Ghraib.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
The absolute worst thing to do is run and cry about it.


And that too, is part of the indoctrination. If we are not told that our behaviour is 'wrong', and in fact the deviant behaviour is rewarded, then that behaviour will become normalised or even aspirational.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
My personal point of view is that any actual sexual assault would probably result in a justifiable homicide! It is certainly not acceptable to "violate" somebody, but there is a huge jump from exposing yourself, or making a sarcastic quip, compared to actually sexually assaulting someone.


Yes there is, but it is also about acceptability of behaviour. A paedophile for example, will often begin by tickling their victim, gradually, sometimes over years moving the boundaries of acceptable physical contact, this will be expanded with exposure to other information etc, the purpose is to build tolerance and establish resistence. Victims will be chosen and discarded, not all are as tolerant and unresisting. Many of those who join the military, especially infantry regiments, do so because it is the only choice that they feel they have. That can raise your tolerance.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
The closest I have ever come to feeling helpless in some hazing came my freshman year in highschool football. 3 seniors grabbed me out of a hot shower and attempted to put me in an ice bath. I didn't go in, but one of them wound up fracturing a forearm and missing a game. Coach was extremely pissed, but not at me. A little later that same year, one of the other two pulled some dirty junk at practice and I came out from under a pile and lit into him, and it took two trainers about an hour to get his helmet off of his head where I had busted the facemask and clips. We didn't face off any more that year. I was wrestled at 112 lbs that year, and these guys were senior varsity starters that went on to play college ball.


I know what you are saying, but that is you and the situations you have experienced.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
The point is, everyone gets tested, and you either stand up for yourself, or you find somewhere that you fit in better. You don't run and tell mommy.


I agree, to an extent, but surely, we all know the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' too. On a personal level. And, not wanting to have to fondle another man's genitals is surely acceptable. So, if one were to object to this behaviour, directly to the perpetrators, they continue, he complains again, still it persists, he punches someone, they gang up on him...etc, etc...at which point does it become abuse in your book and at which point is he justified in asking for help in dealing with the situation?


Originally posted by getreadyalready
If it was real sexual assault, and there was real trauma, then there should have been violent repercussions, or jail time.


Perhaps that is the motivation behind all the 'friendly fire' incidents. You cannot judge another based solely upon your own experience. Remember, they are, upon recruitment, taken from their environment and subjected to training and indoctrination for prolonged periods. Many join because they have little or no choice, or think as much. Many would rather be broken than quit. Many 'suck it up' so they can turn it around on someone else the first chance they get.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
Since I didn't hear about 50,000 murders in the military, or even 1,000 attempted murders, then I don't believe it was real trauma. I believe it was harmless pranks, blown out of proportion, probably with an ulterior motive of getting a reassignment, light duty, or seeking a lawsuit.


All things are relative.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
Let's not forget. This isn't band camp. This is the US Military. If someone tries to rape a US soldier, they better wind up dead. If I was a commanding officer, and someone came to me with male on male rape accusations, and neither party looked injured, I'm not going to take it too seriously. To rape a soldier ought to take some enormous amount of violence, or he isn't much of a soldier.


As I said before, soldiers often arrive as boys. Again, all things are relative. Perhaps it takes a US soldier to rape a US soldier, part of the training may be, once you can do that you're through. You do make it sound kind of like a challenge, some people like a challenge, it makes them feel all powerful when all else fails. And rape is, above all else, about power.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I have had the opportunity to serve my country (never saw or experienced the problem). 110 men being sodomized is awful. Yet, we brush the 1 out of 5 women that are brutally raped. The numbers are astounding against women in the military. Not sure if the OP is vying for votes against gay openness in the Military or what. Rape is deplorable whomever does it. Where is our humanity?




edit on 16-4-2011 by brilab45 because: I'm editing this to add a flag to this disturbing problem. The flag in not necessarily for the OP. The flag is for the problem.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by BadPenny
 


I agree to a certain extent, rape is all about power and control. For a dominant soldier to dominate and control another soldier is probably an ultimate kind of challenge, but first the aggressor has to be that type of sociopath, and next he has to be successful in his attempt, and lastly he has to get away with it without repercussions. I just can't believe the statistics for that would be anywhere near 50,000. As I said before, I can believe there was perhaps 110 rapes, and I agree with the other poster, the offenses against enemy troops are probably much higher, and that is appalling and sad.

Still, I think hazing does have its place. I think bullying has its place. I think it is a right of passage. Many great people were motivated by the lessons they learned from a bully. Many people find out they are capable of more than they imagined, because they were pushed or cornered.

I'm not saying "all" bullying is good, there are some obvious cases where it ends badly, and sometimes it requires intervention by an authority, or a parent, or an older sibling, but in general, I think the natural progression, and natural life lessons, and natural consequences are the best solution.

So, maybe there were 110 cases of actual rape, maybe there were a certain number of actual sexual assaults or traumas, but I will never believe the majority of those 50,000 cases were actual trauma. Some probably were, and hopefully they were punished accordingly, but I think it is a bad idea to completely eliminate hazing and male bonding.

I will equate it to the bail out of General Motors. Innovation is born from necessity. Many a nerd grew up to do great things from the motivation of vengeance on a bully or a girl. If GM had been allowed to fail, thousands of workers with experience and ideas of their own would have flooded the market, and several start-ups and innovations would have had a chance to pop up and prosper. When we deny the natural progression of things, we stunt our own growth. If we stop all bullies, we will lose a certain amount of natural motivation that nature has provided.

Here, let Eddie Murphy explain it. "Evil......is Good."





posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I agree to a certain extent, rape is all about power and control. For a dominant soldier to dominate and control another soldier is probably an ultimate kind of challenge, but first the aggressor has to be that type of sociopath, and next he has to be successful in his attempt, and lastly he has to get away with it without repercussions. I just can't believe the statistics for that would be anywhere near 50,000.


You are still failing to recognise that there is a difference between raw recruits and established soldiers, both physically and emotionally...and besides, when 80,000 plus are recruited in a single year, then 50,000 over all isn't so disproportionate...especially if that kind of behaviour is tolerated within the command structure, possibly even encouraged it would seem. Certainly, given your response, it would be very difficult for a male soldier to get someone to believe that they could possibly have been assaulted by another male soldier.

Also, not all rapists are sociopaths.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
As I said before, I can believe there was perhaps 110 rapes, and I agree with the other poster, the offenses against enemy troops are probably much higher, and that is appalling and sad.


You see, that is a severe discipline problem, unless it is tacitly agreed by the command, then of course they are following orders, but otherwise, commiting sexual offenses, or any arbitary violence are not the hall-marks of a tight military unit, they're signs of rot. And, there is also the matter of many of these offenses being carried out against civilians, murders too, to cover up the evidence. That is the reason why it wouldn't surprise me if the US Infantry is institutionally abusive.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
Still, I think hazing does have its place. I think bullying has its place. I think it is a right of passage. Many great people were motivated by the lessons they learned from a bully. Many people find out they are capable of more than they imagined, because they were pushed or cornered.


This is a military organisation though, armies are not built on buddies, they are built upon professionalism and discipline. Bullying has no place unless it is sanctioned by the NCO or officer in charge. You have otherwise, what you have, a bunch of buddies who would die for each other, dying for each other and #ing up everyone else in the process. Brutalisation, bullying, hazing, whatever you want to call it, creates brutalisers.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
I'm not saying "all" bullying is good, there are some obvious cases where it ends badly, and sometimes it requires intervention by an authority, or a parent, or an older sibling, but in general, I think the natural progression, and natural life lessons, and natural consequences are the best solution.

So, maybe there were 110 cases of actual rape, maybe there were a certain number of actual sexual assaults or traumas, but I will never believe the majority of those 50,000 cases were actual trauma. Some probably were, and hopefully they were punished accordingly, but I think it is a bad idea to completely eliminate hazing and male bonding.


If it was effective perhaps it could be justified. It is clearly not very effective at all.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
I will equate it to the bail out of General Motors. Innovation is born from necessity. Many a nerd grew up to do great things from the motivation of vengeance on a bully or a girl. If GM had been allowed to fail, thousands of workers with experience and ideas of their own would have flooded the market, and several start-ups and innovations would have had a chance to pop up and prosper. When we deny the natural progression of things, we stunt our own growth. If we stop all bullies, we will lose a certain amount of natural motivation that nature has provided.


If you encourage and reward bullying behaviour, you will get an army of bullies, I certainly don't feel that that is anything to aspire to.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BadPenny
 


You make a good distinction between what is sanctioned and what is not sanctioned through the command system, and also a good indication of where the "rot" is coming from.

There was a time when a certain amount of hazing was probably sanctioned. Bootcamp was much different then compared to now. Soldiers were "forged" by the difficult process.

Today's soldier is entirely different. There is too much liability in sanctioning anything, so the command structure has weakened. Things are "allowed" to happen, but they are not endorsed, and therefore the discipline and structure is "rotting."

Also, soldiers used to be hard-luck types, known for their physicality, and often seeing the military as a way out of trouble, or a bad situation. Nowadays, soldiers are recruited for their grades, and they are rewarded with college degrees, and higher pay. Today's military is drastically more technical and intelligent, and much less physical.

So, in essence, I think I am agreeing with you, that in today's military, these reports are ominous and indicative of a larger problem with "rot" in our command structure and lack of discipline on the front lines. Abu Ghraib is a prime example. I made a mistake in assuming today's military is the same as the military of old, or even the same as a sports team structure. Sadly, today's military is not those things, it is a politically correct military that has to be cognizant of headlines and liability for lawsuits, and impressions it makes in foreign press. It is a technical army that relies heavily on electronics and intelligence gathering.

Maybe today's military does not have a place for typical male bonding and hazing rituals? As for me, I am sad to see it go.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join