Shocking: Aljazeera report on male rape in global war zones.

page: 1
7

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I saw this report on Aljazeera and it was harrowing to watch.
In SA, male rape in holding cells and prisons is a common fear (especially combined with the fear of HIV).
However, this report suggests that thousands of men in conflict zones are victims every year.
This is a terrible torture that can affect both straight or gay men, although some of the main areas of concern are actually quite homophobic, which implies that these crimes have little to do with sexual orientation.

Shockingly, often institutions that work with and for female rape survivors have been slow (or perhaps unwilling) to respond to men who were victims of male rape.
Most often this crime and humiliation results in silence and shame, and that can not result in positive mental health, or sound gender relations.
If only part of the article and clip are true, it is very concerning and deeply shocking.


As Al-Jazeera's "Inside Story" team reports, male rape is actually quite common, affecting hundreds of thousands of men around the world each year. Used as a tool for torture and humiliation, rape of men is often not even recognized as a crime -- defined only, as the report notes, as "forced homosexuality" -- and in some cases, overlooked even by the United Nations. Among the most disturbing statistics: 22 percent of men in eastern Congo report being victims of sexual violence, while 80 percent of Bosnian men claimed to be victims.


www.huffingtonpost.com...
edit on 14-6-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
The clip from Aljazeera's Inside Story - The silent victims of rape:




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Will Storr's article: The Rape of Men talks of prisoners who were raped up to 11 times in one night.

Perhaps worse than the survivor-narratives and shocking statistics (assumed to be under-reported due to stigma) is this attitude to male rape:


"International human rights law leaves out men in nearly all instruments designed to address sexual violence," she continues. "The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000 treats wartime sexual violence as something that only impacts on women and girls… Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced $44m to implement this resolution. Because of its entirely exclusive focus on female victims, it seems unlikely that any of these new funds will reach the thousands of men and boys who suffer from this kind of abuse. Ignoring male rape not only neglects men, it also harms women by reinforcing a viewpoint that equates 'female' with 'victim', thus hampering our ability to see women as strong and empowered. In the same way, silence about male victims reinforces unhealthy expectations about men and their supposed invulnerability."

www.guardian.co.uk...
edit on 14-6-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I really don't understand this myself. I'd asked the question awhile back in relation to Gadaffi, who was sodomized before he was killed in the street by rebels. (Yeah... THOSE same rebels. Nice allies, huh?) One of my instructors actually started to call me wrong about it during an in-class discussion before catching herself and simply indicating she hadn't heard a thing about it and her own surprise at it having happened, with the Islamic attitude toward homosexuality in general.

She's got a degree in either anthropology or sociology with a focus on the Middle East and North Africa and hadn't heard this happened while being shocked to hear it would.

That wasn't torture. They all knew he was about to be killed, regardless. Why stop to do that? ....so being in the same general neighborhood for fighting and seeming to use the same tactics? I guess the question may well cross Africa?

For some reason, it reminds me of the only American example I can think of that is similar, and it wasn't at all sexual. When Custer died at the Little Big Horn, A couple Cheyenne women broke through his ear drums with a sewing needle in what probably baffled the Calvary troops to find him for a body mutilation to have been done.. It was personal and about 'helping him listen' in the afterlife for failing to listen to a warning about making war on the Cheyenne.

Since Homosexuality has nothing to do with this, as I think you indicated you agree... Is it about destroying their Soul or essence in that violation? Or worse when they plan or know it's possible they'll kill the victim anyway? I simply could/would never think about sexually assaulting anyone in any situation, let alone the ones you're citing and that one in Libya. Whats the point of the action?

I guess it's too far outside my way of thinking to grasp. I wouldn't even tolerate seeing this done if it meant knocking out a close friend who was committing it.


* Well, then again, there were a couple New York Cops who seemed to think sodomizing a prisoner with a plunger several years back was a good idea too. (Abner Louima) Seemingly just because he pissed them off. So maybe plain warped minds of individuals is a simple answer too? I'm not quite sure which is worse, frankly.
edit on 14-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: Name correction



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

I don't really have an answer, just some thoughts.
It is a very complex topic, especially as modern society has a taboo against homosexuality, and perhaps tolerates it when confined to a certain group of self-confessed gay people.
In ancient Rome, or even during Islamic Barbery slavery, men had full rights to penetrate their male and female slaves.
Apparently raping male prisoners after a battle was not unheard of.
Neither was making them eunuchs at times.
I wouldn't equate it with tribal practices with some magical purpose.
For example, the Zulus opened the stomachs of the enemy corpses, but far from a barbaric custom this was meant to set the soul free, and showed respect for the opposing warriors.

I won't say that there aren't a few sick gay sadists around who get a kick from this, but I think as one speaker in the video clip says it has to do with humiliation.

So it has to do with some heterosexual men actually "feminizing" the enemy.

But societies rarely operate within understandable norms in times of war.
It is madness really.

Perhaps they also do it because it's the one torture they will get away with, because it is difficult to prove physically after a while, and the victim is so ashamed that he won't speak out.
And who should he speak to?
It is obvious that nobody cares.

So whatever the motivation, the fact is that it's not taken seriously by the UN and many organizations that are women-centric regarding rape and sexual abuse (and even recognizing female rape in war took a long struggle).

That's the main reason for me.
In war people hurt each other, and if you can hurt the enemy in that way without repercussions then that's virtually an invitation to do so.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Wow....I had no idea of this.

I'd tend to agree with the humiliation and feminizing the enemy theory. Though, personally, I think the perpetrators should be the ones humiliated for being such a degenerate person to inflict such a thing on another.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Who can understand the mind of someone who needs to degrade and dominate violently? Sadism. It's not as if the victimized people "just get over it" either. I was surprised that the stats you cite are so high. Little children are being raped in Syria too especially those of the minority religion. It just does not stop!

War zones really open up the pits of hell. Yech. I really need a shower now.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Maybe they are just the Ted Haggards of the middle east? Radicals are often birthed from self-loathing.

Id think rape claims would be the only way to avoid death if caught in a homosexual act in that culture.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Since Homosexuality has nothing to do with this, as I think you indicated you agree... Is it about destroying their Soul or essence in that violation? Or worse when they plan or know it's possible they'll kill the victim anyway? I simply could/would never think about sexually assaulting anyone in any situation, let alone the ones you're citing and that one in Libya. Whats the point of the action?


It reminds me of the FSA "rebel" who "ate" the heart of a Syrian fighter - it's about total humiliation and complete control, in my opinion.

When you look at male/female rape too, a lot of the time it's about power and not about sex. Many men who do this to women could have voluntary sexual partners, they could pay for it if they had to, but that doesn't satisfy the need for total control over another, or the enjoyment of violence.

I've looked at this psychological issue before and used the Nazis as an example when describing it. In WW2 hundreds of thousands of men became monsters, seeing their "enemy" as sub-human. Not even their enemy in fact, just those they were given complete control over. Those who did such despicable things weren't like that before they became a soldier, they were encouraged into it through authority or peer pressure, they had a need to follow instruction and just be one of the group.

Then there's that study carried out in the 70's at an American university where a psychology professor split student volunteers into prisoners and guards, and quickly saw those with unaccountable power become sadists. It was a shocking experiment that gained a lot of attention for the extremes of what happened to normal and intelligent young people.

We've seen the same thing with American troops in Iraq, and even those involved couldn't explain their actions properly.

There was another recent example carried out by Derren Brown (UK Illusionist, or "mentalist" for want of a better word) where he had volunteers electrocuting someone in another room under instruction from someone in a white lab coat. The presence of an authority figure telling them what to do almost absolved them of personal morals and responsibility. Of course they weren't really electrocuting anyone, they could just hear an actor screaming, but most of them kept increasing the power under instruction without questioning it, even well beyond the point of it being lethal.

I think there are two types of people in this regard - those who absolutely refuse to abandon their own morals and Humanity, and those who have an innate weakness which makes them prone to sadism. It could just be about control and the eagerness to follow instructions, but I think there is a personality problem here. I think wanting to belong to a group or feeling personally weak is at the core of it.

I know for a fact that I would not act in such a way. I can say that with 100% certainty, but I know there must be a lot of others who are weaker mentally and morally.

I think another related psychological example is those who act first in an emergency. We've probably all seen examples of it, and there is a name for the process too, but when you have a group of people and something happens, often it'll take someone to react before others then get involved.

There's a few YouTube videos out there that show this. Like CCTV from subway systems when someone falls on the tracks. The platform could be filled with people, but there's often a pause, and then one strong-willed person acts, and suddenly others join in to act too. It's almost like they need permission or someone to follow to tell them that it's right and proper to do something.

Either way, I think this is a specific psychological and behavioral issue related to weakness of morality, and I think it's found in many people to a certain degree. Those who are more willing to speak up and risk being ostracized from a group about something they know is wrong will not likely ever act in such a sadistic way, while those who would "not get involved" or just follow orders are probably more prone to becoming a psychopath.

I don't know if there is a link, but I imagine that most members here would be on the right side of this, because we question. We're not afraid to be different and step out of the bounds of what "the masses" say and do. I believe those with a sense of individuality and a questioning mind are more secure.

I guess you can tell that Human behavior and psychology are a slight interest of mine.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by halfoldman
 

I'd think rape claims would be the only way to avoid death if caught in a homosexual act in that culture.


This is also a very good point. In a lot of these cultures homosexuality is a criminal offense and the punishment is harsh, a lot of these cases could be false claims in an effort of self defense.





new topics
top topics
 
7

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum