Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Getting some the easy way

Getting some the easy way
Thread Tools
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 03:12 AM
 
Or perhaps not quite the easy way.

So ... you're the head of the USAF Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. What do you do for recreation?

Answer: go get drunk. Grope a woman in the parking lot. Get your butt kicked, get reported, get arrested for sexual assault by the Arlington, Virginia PD. Have mug shot posted on internet, showing how bad you lost the grope fight.

Seriously, guys. Click through and check out the mug shot. Maybe he shouldn't have had so many before trying.

Cheers to modern women who are able and willing to fight back. We should recruit the (intended) victim.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 07:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Or perhaps not quite the easy way.

So ... you're the head of the USAF Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. What do you do for recreation?

Answer: go get drunk. Grope a woman in the parking lot. Get your butt kicked, get reported, get arrested for sexual assault by the Arlington, Virginia PD. Have mug shot posted on internet, showing how bad you lost the grope fight.

Seriously, guys. Click through and check out the mug shot. Maybe he shouldn't have had so many before trying.

Cheers to modern women who are able and willing to fight back. We should recruit the (intended) victim.
There is one who claims the "parking lot" was a strip club parking lot and the victim was a dancer working the men in the lot afterwards. Not assuming the report is true and certainly not to defend the actions of the USAF, but I'd recommend all striptease dancers be well trained in self-defense regardless. Men sometimes have a hard time differentiating "wow, I think she's into me" from "boy, she sure does seem to appreciate the $10 bills I'm flashing." Looks like she gave him something to remember her by and I would hope this serves to illustrate areas of opportunity as we continue to welcome more women into the military.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Seriously, guys. Click through and check out the mug shot. Maybe he shouldn't have had so many before trying.
Yeah ... that's a bonafide ass-whuppin right there!

OAW
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Yeah ... that's a bonafide ass-whuppin right there!

OAW
Not nearly enough of a whupping. The officer in charge of the sexual assault prevention program for the Air Force has no business going to strip clubs, or getting drunk in public anywhere. Yes, it IS a 24/7 job, and as long as he was in that job, that should have been the most basic of rules for him.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 06:06 AM
 
What's the military stance on public drunkenness?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's the military stance on public drunkenness?
That sort of thing leads to charges of "conduct unbecoming an officer," which can lead to jail time and almost always a nice hard end of a career.

The UCMJ has no specific penalties for "stupidity," but it does have some strong penalties for behavior arising from stupidity. Lt. Col. Jeff Krusinski should at least have conduct unbecoming charges already. Then there's attempted assault, attempted sexual assault, and probably a bunch more. In today's climate, this behavior was particularly stupid.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 08:56 PM
 
Enlisted?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 09:08 PM
 
Also. The military is compromising it's readiness by not having prostitutes. It's actually pretty ****ing pathetic.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2013, 11:08 AM
 
The UCMJ is pretty flexible in terms of how someone can be charged. While "conduct unbecoming" only applies to officers, there is plenty of opportunity to charge an enlisted member with "stupid behavior that reflects badly on the service" such as Article 88: Contempt Toward Officials, Articles 111 and 112: Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft or vessel and Drunk On Duty, and in this case, Article 134-29, Indecent Acts with Another (which may or may not include voluntary participation of the "other"). Article 134 is called the General Article, and it has something like 40 subsections with specific offenses, but it can be used as a blanket "you just made the whole military look bad by your stupidity" charge as well.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2013, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There is one who claims the "parking lot" was a strip club parking lot and the victim was a dancer working the men in the lot afterwards.
It might have been cloudy that night, too. Either possibility is completely irrelevant.

... but I'd recommend all striptease dancers be well trained in self-defense regardless.
If I was to recommend any training to strippers, it would be for another career. It would improve their lives a hell of a lot more, and a much wiser investment.

Men sometimes have a hard time differentiating "wow, I think she's into me" from "boy, she sure does seem to appreciate the $10 bills I'm flashing."
Hey, I have another great idea: instead of spending money training strippers in self-defence, how about we spend some money training men not to be @ssholes?

Soldiers-in-training endure endless hours of practice learning how to polish boots, clean rifles, make beds, iron their uniforms, but almost no time learning about respecting women. They are ordered to respect women, but they are taught almost nothing. Is it any wonder that there is an epidemic of rape in the military world?

That pompous pr!ck Bill Maher once said on his previous show something about "can't we forgive our trainer killers if they sometimes succumb to a little grab-ass with the waitress?" No, you jackhole, we can't. If we can train those men to be efficient killers, we can train them to respect women.

And forget soldiers and think about our kids. Seriously, we legally commit children to school until they are 16, and virtually no amount of that time is spent teaching boys anything about respect for women, except maybe a stern, ineffective lecture about "zero tolerance" policies at the start of the year. School kids learn more about throwing footballs than they learn about respect for women.

We are a species that rapes. It is in our genes, like wolves and ducks. Every single one of us is a descendant of rapists and rape victims, and we have inherited their tendencies. That's why it's so easy for men to violate women, and women to be victims. It is in our nature, like being angry and getting jealous.

just like an alcoholic needs to recognize his problem before he can overcome it, we need to recognize our nature before we can mitigate it. We inoculate against diseases we are prone to. We need to inoculate our children thru comprehensive education reform against our propensity to violate others.

For instance, theatres of war are like giant, open air, rape arenas. Why doesn't this get further discussed in history class? We get estimates on soldiers killed and civilians killed and dollars spent, why not estimated numbers of rapes too? I learned more about the French women who were publicly shaved after consorting with German troops than I did about French women raped by German soldiers. Isn't that bizarre?

How many rapes do you think were committed in the American Civil War? Why does the burning of towns make it into high school history books, but the certain rape of those town's women gets barely mentioned, if at all?

We are a species that rapes. We need an 11 step plan (see what I did there?) to overcome our problem. It starts with recognizing that learning to respect women is at least as important as learning to polish footwear or throw a football.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2013, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
It might have been cloudy that night, too. Either possibility is completely irrelevant.

If I was to recommend any training to strippers, it would be for another career. It would improve their lives a hell of a lot more, and a much wiser investment.
No, it's not irrelevant. It's a career that exploits sexual attention for money. The further someone goes to elicit sexual response, the greater the odds of experiencing lewd behavior. i.e. if you think sexual harassment is bad in the military, it doesn't hold a candle to sexual harassment at a strip club. This is newsworthy because it involves a military professional as head of a sexual assault unit, but somehow alcohol and strip club didn't make the story.

Hey, I have another great idea: instead of spending money training strippers in self-defence, how about we spend some money training men not to be @ssholes?
I didn't suggest spending money training strippers in self-defense, I recommended it for those who insist on careers that exploit sexuality, for obvious reasons.

Soldiers-in-training endure endless hours of practice learning how to polish boots, clean rifles, make beds, iron their uniforms, but almost no time learning about respecting women. They are ordered to respect women, but they are taught almost nothing. Is it any wonder that there is an epidemic of rape in the military world?
So... what exactly do you have in mind for men that don't understand it's not okay to grope and rape women, psychotropic drugs?

That pompous pr!ck Bill Maher once said on his previous show something about "can't we forgive our trainer killers if they sometimes succumb to a little grab-ass with the waitress?" No, you jackhole, we can't. If we can train those men to be efficient killers, we can train them to respect women.
You mean in the same manner that they'd respect one another or even themselves? We're talking about basic human decency. I'm thinking a little more effective screening upon recruitment may be key as opposed to a race for how many enlistees a recruiter can get, how about we push for more qualified candidates to begin with.

For example, you don't think the head of the USAF sexual assault unit was properly trained in respecting women or at the end of the day, just didn't? There's a difference. You can't just train "drunken-asshole" out of someone.

And forget soldiers and think about our kids. Seriously, we legally commit children to school until they are 16, and virtually no amount of that time is spent teaching boys anything about respect for women, except maybe a stern, ineffective lecture about "zero tolerance" policies at the start of the year. School kids learn more about throwing footballs than they learn about respect for women.
Disrespect for women, particularly of the sexual harassment variety, is often the product of something more deeply ingrained within the individual acting out in a power play. There are some who simply might be better off throwing footballs than serving in the military. The US armed services are employers and they need to take greater care in who they employ with as much concern for quality as quantity. They owe this much to the women they're employing and placing in this environment.

We are a species that rapes. It is in our genes, like wolves and ducks. Every single one of us is a descendant of rapists and rape victims, and we have inherited their tendencies. That's why it's so easy for men to violate women, and women to be victims. It is in our nature, like being angry and getting jealous.
No, we are not a species that rapes. And this is exactly why when I hear folks like you say "we need training"... my hackles raise. No, we are not all descendants of rapists and rape victims and we are not rendered hapless animals seeking to take the fruits of women against their will. This is not something you teach men en masse. While sexual harassment is a huge issue in the military, it remains the exception, not the norm and it's not because men are inherently of rapist mindset. It's because assholes like Bill Maher roam the earth among us.

just like an alcoholic needs to recognize his problem before he can overcome it, we need to recognize our nature before we can mitigate it. We inoculate against diseases we are prone to. We need to inoculate our children thru comprehensive education reform against our propensity to violate others.
I'm opposed to you teaching male children that they are all rapists and descendants of rapists because a small percentage of them are capable of sexual misconduct. Now what?

We are a species that rapes. We need an 11 step plan (see what I did there?) to overcome our problem. It starts with recognizing that learning to respect women is at least as important as learning to polish footwear or throw a football.
No, we're not a species that rapes. We're a species that has rapists among us. Respecting women is one thing, teaching young males they are all rapists is something quite different and unhealthy. How about one of the largest employers in the country evaluate their hiring practices along with their training programs? That'd be a good start.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2013, 01:10 PM
 
Let's say you're eating a big cookie.

There's an infant watching you who wants that cookie.

That infant would snap your neck like a chicken bone to get the cookie if it could.


Personally, I think we're born as little animal monsters, and it's society's job to beat that out of us.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2013, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let's say you're eating a big cookie.

There's an infant watching you who wants that cookie.

That infant would snap your neck like a chicken bone to get the cookie if it could.


Personally, I think we're born as little animal monsters, and it's society's job to beat that out of us.
Society has not beaten any of these barbaric tendencies from human nature and yet somehow aggressive thefts, sexual assault, and murder remain the exception, not the norm.

Do you really believe the head of the USAF Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program was simply not educated enough in all the tenets of misconduct that'd supposedly ensure he wouldn't sexually assault a women?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2013, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Society has not beaten any of these barbaric tendencies from human nature and yet somehow aggressive thefts, sexual assault, and murder remain the exception, not the norm.
Huh?

The reason these are the exception is because society successfully beats (or at least threatens to beat) it out of you. We punish barbarism.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Do you really believe the head of the USAF Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program was simply not educated enough in all the tenets of misconduct that'd supposedly ensure he wouldn't sexually assault a women?
In a manner, yes.

A basic tenet is "if you do this there will be serious consequences".

I'll bet you internet dollars to internet donuts this guy has committed (likely drunken) sexual assault before. Successful, high-ranking military officials don't all of the sudden decide to try their first drunken grope at 50. If he learned anything about the above lesson, it's how it hasn't applied to him in the past.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2013, 04:55 PM
 
lpmckenna has it right: we should be training our military people to be responsible, professional, and to have tons of self control. Instead, all the services to some degree but the Army most of all train male service members to use their aggressive urges. Not to control them, but to use them, apparently with the plan to make them more aggressive warfighters. That even a few Air Force basic training instructors think they are actually all-powerful enough to diddle their female trainees (and probably some have done so with their male trainees too) merely indicates that those basic training instructors aren't nearly as bright as they need to be.

As an (academic) instructor, I was required to be "on" 24/7, to have all the answers my students might need, and to be so far above reproach while on duty that nobody cold even form the hint of an idea that I might do anything wrong, let alone abuse my position. I had so many opportunities to take even tiny advantages, and I could have made things much easier, or much harder for my students. I did not because I understood that my job was an extremely highly trusted position, and that being trustworthy was the biggest part of that job. I cannot imagine how someone in such a position, let alone one in the even more critical and frankly more powerful position as basic training instructor, could begin to think that their students were their own to play with...

Now we see where the Pentagon sets up a high-level program to prevent sexual assaults within the services, and the first thing most Americans learn about this is that the Air Force's officer in charge of this program gets arrested for groping a woman outside a strip club. I cannot put words to how I feel about this, but I think it's important to point out that, while a very junior Airman, I was, along with my wife, a rape crisis counselor at my first base, with some significant training in the what, how, why and so on of sexual assault in general. I was there to protect the American People in general, and my fellow Airmen in particular, and I took that seriously. I just do not understand anyone who doesn't take their entire military service seriously enough not to be an @sshole to anyone, let alone the people they are responsible for training and protecting, or groping women while assigned as the Air Force sexual assault prevention officer.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2013, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, it's not irrelevant. It's a career that exploits sexual attention for money.
Congratulations on your epic slut-shaming and vicitm-blaming. We've hit a new low, MacNN.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The further someone goes to elicit sexual response, the greater the odds of experiencing lewd behavior.
Complete nonsensical ignorant rubbish. You started with a new low, and then dug straight down with furious intent until your shovel broke under the strain.

There is no relationship between a woman's behaviour and the odds of being a victim of sexual assault. None. That's mean-spirited, misogynist bullsh!t.

I mean, goddamnit ebuddy, that's something an irrational, ignorant, self-entitled Muslim cleric living in a desert hellhole would say about women.

Really, it's only a bit over a week since the last time you uttered something that made me want to vomit. Are you experiencing some kind of mental distress that's making you behave like a neanderthal?

People are victimized because they are vulnerable. That's why children are sexually assaulted by their caretakers, that's why the disabled are sexually assaulted by their caretakers, that's why the aged are sexually assault by their caretakers. That's why demure, modest, cloistered, and burkha'd women are sexually assaulted.

Predators prey on the vulnerable.

i.e. if you think sexual harassment is bad in the military, it doesn't hold a candle to sexual harassment at a strip club.
If you assault a stripper, the bouncer beats the crap out of you. If you assault someone in the military, there's a pretty good chance the victim will be punished harder than the perpetrator. If you doubt this, I suggest you watch The Invisible War: The Invisible War (2012) - IMDb

This is newsworthy because it involves a military professional as head of a sexual assault unit, but somehow alcohol and strip club didn't make the story.
Probably because the news media has begun to realize that slut-shaming and vicitm-blaming is terrible reporting practice.

I didn't suggest spending money training strippers in self-defense, I recommended it for those who insist on careers that exploit sexuality, for obvious reasons.
Soldiers in the military are taught self-defence, and it doesn't help much when your assailant is also taught self-defence, and bigger to boot. If women in the military are having trouble defending themselves, do you think a stripper with a couple of karate lessons is gonna put up much of a fight?

In this story, the stripper probably got a few lucky punches in because her attacker was completely sloshed.

So... what exactly do you have in mind for men that don't understand it's not okay to grope and rape women, psychotropic drugs?
Like I said, we need comprehensive education reform in childhood and in military training.

We're talking about basic human decency. I'm thinking a little more effective screening upon recruitment may be key as opposed to a race for how many enlistees a recruiter can get, how about we push for more qualified candidates to begin with.
There is no effective screening for this kind of thing. Seriously, they could staff the recruiting centers with Doctors of Psychology, and they still could never screen out "potential" offenders. Unless you have a documented pattern of behaviour, there is no way to detect it.

I have taught basic training a few times. Some of the recruits have never drank alcohol before, have never kissed a girl before, have never been away from their parents for more than a weekend before. How can you screen someone like that for potential sexual offences? The entire notion is friggin' absurd.

For example, you don't think the head of the USAF sexual assault unit was properly trained in respecting women or at the end of the day, just didn't? There's a difference.
No, I definitely, definitely don't. Military members given this kind of out-of-trade training are always subjected to substandard education. Seriously, soliders trained to be military carpenters or cooks are given more comprehensive instruction and certification than stuff like Harrassment Officer.

Again, go watch The Invisible War. You will be shocked and amazed at the utter cluelessness of the Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, and she was in charge of the entire thing!

You can't just train "drunken-asshole" out of someone.
Huh. You are obviously unaware, but in the military, we train the drunken-asshole into you. Seriously, new recruits are indoctrinated into a culture of alcohol that is unmatched by any other profession.

Disrespect for women, particularly of the sexual harassment variety, is often the product of something more deeply ingrained within the individual acting out in a power play.
Oh, it's deeply ingrained alright. Genetic, you could say.

No, we are not a species that rapes.
Yes, we are. Bonobos don't rape. Gorillas don't rape.

Rape was the norm as we evolved on the savannah. It remained ubiquitous even after the rise of civilization. It was a component of warfare, it was a component of mandatory marriages, it was a component of slavery.


And this is exactly why when I hear folks like you say "we need training"... my hackles raise. No, we are not all descendants of rapists and rape victims...
Yes, we are. Every one of us.

and we are not rendered hapless animals seeking to take the fruits of women against their will.
This I did not say.

We are prone to rape in the same way we are prone to violence.

This is not something you teach men en masse.
Know thyself.

Would you not tell your son that it's natural to be angry, but he has an obligation to control his anger?

Would you not tell your son that it's nature to be horny, but he has an obligation to control his urges?

You can't deny all people are prone to violence, and you can't deny all people are prone to sexuality, so why deny people are prone to sexual violence? I mean, your objection is just bizarre on the face.

I'm opposed to you teaching male children that they are all rapists...
I never said that.

...and descendants of rapists because a small percentage of them are capable of sexual misconduct.
No, all of them are capable. The only reason most don't is because we've been taught not to. But the training isn't comprehensive enough.

Now what?
You and your ilk have been on the losing end of the culture war for 100 years. You've got lots of practice in accomodation. You'll get over it.

Here's the thing I don't get with you: original sin. Is not what I've been telling you not similar to the ideology you ascribe to?

Why would you insist that you, a sinner, are prone to lies, envy, anger, aggression, lust, and a ton of other failings, but draw the line at rape?

I mean, here's John Calvin:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it--such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings--he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; May 25, 2013 at 11:26 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2013, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Congratulations on your epic slut-shaming and vicitm-blaming. We've hit a new low, MacNN.
We've hit a new low with the line; slut-shaming, yes. Melodramatic nonsense wrapped in politically-correct blather comes off as socially naive and inept. I didn't call them sluts and I'm not suggesting in any way, shape or form that they had it coming by virtue of their occupation. Sexual harassment and abuse is sexual harassment and abuse and is patently wrong regardless of the scenario in question. There are many reasons why women find themselves in these careers -- sex itself has very little to do with it. BTW, what is it about striptease exactly that you would recommend another career for them?

Complete nonsensical ignorant rubbish. You started with a new low, and then dug straight down with furious intent until your shovel broke under the strain.
It's called common sense and it takes a great deal of collegiate indoctrination and subsequent hubris to ignore it.

There is no relationship between a woman's behaviour and the odds of being a victim of sexual assault. None. That's mean-spirited, misogynist bullsh!t. I mean, goddamnit ebuddy, that's something an irrational, ignorant, self-entitled Muslim cleric living in a desert hellhole would say about women.
That's not what I said, don't be an ass.

Really, it's only a bit over a week since the last time you uttered something that made me want to vomit. Are you experiencing some kind of mental distress that's making you behave like a neanderthal?
I'd be more inclined to believe you have a stomach virus. Otherwise I consider making you vomit, a win.

People are victimized because they are vulnerable. That's why children are sexually assaulted by their caretakers, that's why the disabled are sexually assaulted by their caretakers, that's why the aged are sexually assault by their caretakers. That's why demure, modest, cloistered, and burkha'd women are sexually assaulted.

Predators prey on the vulnerable.
Okay?

Probably because the news media has begun to realize that slut-shaming and vicitm-blaming is terrible reporting practice.
i.e. at least you don't make me vomit.

Like I said, we need comprehensive education reform in childhood and in military training.

There is no effective screening for this kind of thing. Seriously, they could staff the recruiting centers with Doctors of Psychology, and they still could never screen out "potential" offenders. Unless you have a documented pattern of behaviour, there is no way to detect it.

I have taught basic training a few times. Some of the recruits have never drank alcohol before, have never kissed a girl before, have never been away from their parents for more than a weekend before. How can you screen someone like that for potential sexual offences? The entire notion is friggin' absurd.

No, I definitely, definitely don't. Military members given this kind of out-of-trade training are always subjected to substandard education. Seriously, soliders trained to be military carpenters or cooks are given more comprehensive instruction and certification than stuff like Harrassment Officer.

Huh. You are obviously unaware, but in the military, we train the drunken-asshole into you. Seriously, new recruits are indoctrinated into a culture of alcohol that is unmatched by any other profession.

Oh, it's deeply ingrained alright. Genetic, you could say.

No, all of them are capable. The only reason most don't is because we've been taught not to. But the training isn't comprehensive enough.
I never recall having to be taught not to rape. I've been taught many things are bad and have followed them with varying degrees of faithfulness, but I have it on common sense that rape is particularly egregious and have been able to suppress my otherwise devolved, obligatory human male behavior to take a woman's body against her will not unlike most men who've not gone through mckenna's systemic deprogramming of the human condition.

That said, I do believe that, not unlike other fields of close-quartered camaraderie such as police departments and the like; a tribal mentality develops that can lend itself to an abusive environment which likely requires a greater presence of authority, but the authority cannot follow them around outside the confines of their occupation. Which is why the uninhibiting nature of "alcohol" and "strip club" are relevant. He had no business being there, period.

Yes, we are. Bonobos don't rape. Gorillas don't rape.
It can't possibly get any more mind-numbing stupid. Speaking of rape, tell me when this is over.

Rape was the norm as we evolved on the savannah. It remained ubiquitous even after the rise of civilization. It was a component of warfare, it was a component of mandatory marriages, it was a component of slavery.
Existing throughout humankind and being a pervasive trait of human kind are two different things and a connection you simply cannot make with a straight face. You'll try naturally, but that doesn't surprise me. In fact, after your contribution to this thread, nothing does.

Yes, we are. Every one of us.
No we're not.

This I did not say.

We are prone to rape in the same way we are prone to violence.
Wrong. If it were likely, it would be the norm, not the exception. People who are prone to these behaviors are pathological and need care.

Know thyself.
Which is why all this is starting to smell like a bizarre projection of some sort.

Would you not tell your son that it's natural to be angry, but he has an obligation to control his anger?
Yes, just as I've taught my daughters.

Would you not tell your son that it's nature to be horny, but he has an obligation to control his urges?
Yup, just like my daughters.

You can't deny all people are prone to violence, and you can't deny all people are prone to sexuality, so why deny people are prone to sexual violence? I mean, your objection is just bizarre on the face.
No, all people are not prone to violence and I find the mingling of the two abjectly twisted and in need of immediate, extensive therapy.

You and your ilk have been on the losing end of the culture war for 100 years. You've got lots of practice in accomodation. You'll get over it.
I can't think of a single, distasteful aspect of human nature adequately addressed by the academic endeavors of zealous leftists or that didn't merely exacerbate the very problems it sought to resolve. Not one.

Here's the thing I don't get with you: original sin. Is not what I've been telling you not similar to the ideology you ascribe to?

Why would you insist that you, a sinner, are prone to lies, envy, anger, aggression, lust, and a ton of other failings, but draw the line at rape?
If you're saying these recruits are lacking in a proper, faithful upbringing; I'd be inclined to agree. This person might be less inclined to frequent a strip club. Otherwise, the doctrine of "original sin" also acknowledges varying degrees of it as either mortal or venial. Why? Common sense. Scripture refers to those having become more corrupt, hardened hearts, etc... and of particular importance is the care for the "least of us" -- the vulnerable. i.e. Scripturally speaking; (2 Timothy 1:6-7) "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control."

I don't know that you're going to somehow restore those "oppressed by demons" with some silly academic exercise predicated on male evolutionary barbarism.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2013, 02:03 PM
 
Calvin was a douc** and Paul definitely had mommy issues.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2013, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Paul definitely had mommy issues.
Care to explain that?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2013, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If you're saying these recruits are lacking in a proper, faithful upbringing; I'd be inclined to agree. This person might be less inclined to frequent a strip club. Otherwise, the doctrine of "original sin" also acknowledges varying degrees of it as either mortal or venial. Why? Common sense. Scripture refers to those having become more corrupt, hardened hearts, etc... and of particular importance is the care for the "least of us" -- the vulnerable. i.e. Scripturally speaking; (2 Timothy 1:6-7) "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control."

I don't know that you're going to somehow restore those "oppressed by demons" with some silly academic exercise predicated on male evolutionary barbarism.
The idiot in question is (hopefully "was") an O-4, an officer with a significant amount of time in service. The idiots messing up MY basic training were all E-5s and higher, also with a substantial amount of experience in service. Inclined to frequent strip clubs or not, by the time someone is in a position to be appointed to such a position of responsibility, he should be experienced enough to know that his actions are not going to be invisible. It's not like getting into trouble while working the counter at McDonalds. In fact, the way the UCMJ works, getting into trouble on the job, as all of these morons have done, can get one put into a very unpleasant "disciplinary barracks" in Kansas for a long, long time.

Self control is something every basic training graduate has already mastered to some extent, or he or she won't graduate. If an 18 year old kid who really feels he has an urgent need to punch his sergeant in the nose can learn to think twice about it, shouldn't a 25 year old sergeant be able to think twice about molesting an airman he is responsible for training? And a 30 year old officer should be able to figure out that groping a dancer outside a club he's never been to might not go over well with the regulars, right?

However spiritual you want folks to be, if they can't manage to think with the big head almost all of the time, especially when on duty and/or in the public eye, they won't have their brains in gear to be spiritual either. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force has called this problem a matter of a "hookup mentality." Growing up in the rather relaxed morals of the 1970s, I managed to avoid the contemporary version of that, and served for over two decades without losing sight of my responsibilities. It didn't take fire and brimstone sermons, nor a supervisor breathing down my neck, but rather a simple adherence to a mindset that starts with "service," as in "military service," rather than "serve yourself." As in "grow up and act like a man" service.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2013, 11:06 PM
 
Explain Paul having mommy issues? I figure it's self-evident.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2013, 06:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Explain Paul having mommy issues? I figure it's self-evident.
It's not. Explain yourself.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2013, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
It's not. Explain yourself.
No.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2013, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The idiot in question is (hopefully "was") an O-4, an officer with a significant amount of time in service. The idiots messing up MY basic training were all E-5s and higher, also with a substantial amount of experience in service. Inclined to frequent strip clubs or not, by the time someone is in a position to be appointed to such a position of responsibility, he should be experienced enough to know that his actions are not going to be invisible. It's not like getting into trouble while working the counter at McDonalds. In fact, the way the UCMJ works, getting into trouble on the job, as all of these morons have done, can get one put into a very unpleasant "disciplinary barracks" in Kansas for a long, long time.

Self control is something every basic training graduate has already mastered to some extent, or he or she won't graduate. If an 18 year old kid who really feels he has an urgent need to punch his sergeant in the nose can learn to think twice about it, shouldn't a 25 year old sergeant be able to think twice about molesting an airman he is responsible for training? And a 30 year old officer should be able to figure out that groping a dancer outside a club he's never been to might not go over well with the regulars, right?

However spiritual you want folks to be, if they can't manage to think with the big head almost all of the time, especially when on duty and/or in the public eye, they won't have their brains in gear to be spiritual either. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force has called this problem a matter of a "hookup mentality." Growing up in the rather relaxed morals of the 1970s, I managed to avoid the contemporary version of that, and served for over two decades without losing sight of my responsibilities. It didn't take fire and brimstone sermons, nor a supervisor breathing down my neck, but rather a simple adherence to a mindset that starts with "service," as in "military service," rather than "serve yourself." As in "grow up and act like a man" service.
You'll recall from our exchange that I was not the one to have brought up "spirituality". My point is that perhaps we're a little (understandably) focused on quantity over quality and that like any other employer who finds a uniquely disturbing problem among its employees; must make their recruitment an integral part of any move to counteract the problem. Yes, training as well, but I maintain the problem here was not that this individual did not have enough training and I've not seen anything offered by anyone here to suggest that training was the problem. What I've seen here that I take particular issue with is the notion that male children need to be taught from a young age that they are descendants and victims of rapists and that rape is an inherent trait of men. Do you have any thoughts on that suggestion?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2013, 02:24 PM
 
As is often the case, you flat-out lie to children until they are mature enough to handle it.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2013, 06:18 PM
 
ebuddy, I wasn't directing the "spiritual" thing at anyone in particular, and in fact I was going off on my own tangent. I am and will continue to be livid about people who should know better taking advantage of their positions of authority, and/or of ignoring the potential for such things to happen, and/or flatly denying that such can or has happened. Sorry that my rant was inappropriately a reply to your post.

I agree with you that it is NOT part of bringing up a male child to instruct him that he is "prone to rape." Nope. You teach a male child that he has a responsibility to do the right thing all the time, to fix what he can and mitigate what he can't, to be self reliant, and to be able to lead AND be part of a team. Pretty much the same thing you teach a female child. A person who has been brought up knowing that he or she is responsible for his or her actions is a person who will not allow themselves to behave too terribly badly. A person who is told that "it is the nature of things for you to do bad things" will do just that.

When a person is placed in a position of authority, the responsibility component of that authority should come first. And responsibility means that there are consequences for not doing what is supposed to be done. Apparently, it is no longer common for the responsibility part to be included in a variety of instructional settings. Sadly, this includes military basic training. I went through basic training when numbers were on the rise, and they started from zero with responsibility. I can't for the life of me figure out why they stopped.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 06:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
ebuddy, I wasn't directing the "spiritual" thing at anyone in particular, and in fact I was going off on my own tangent. I am and will continue to be livid about people who should know better taking advantage of their positions of authority, and/or of ignoring the potential for such things to happen, and/or flatly denying that such can or has happened. Sorry that my rant was inappropriately a reply to your post.
No problem at all, Glenn and I appreciate your thoughtful reply as always. I completely agree with you in that too often people in these positions feel they're somehow above the rules and laws they're commissioned to uphold.

I agree with you that it is NOT part of bringing up a male child to instruct him that he is "prone to rape." Nope. You teach a male child that he has a responsibility to do the right thing all the time, to fix what he can and mitigate what he can't, to be self reliant, and to be able to lead AND be part of a team. Pretty much the same thing you teach a female child. A person who has been brought up knowing that he or she is responsible for his or her actions is a person who will not allow themselves to behave too terribly badly. A person who is told that "it is the nature of things for you to do bad things" will do just that.

When a person is placed in a position of authority, the responsibility component of that authority should come first. And responsibility means that there are consequences for not doing what is supposed to be done. Apparently, it is no longer common for the responsibility part to be included in a variety of instructional settings. Sadly, this includes military basic training. I went through basic training when numbers were on the rise, and they started from zero with responsibility. I can't for the life of me figure out why they stopped.
I hope, for the fitness and readiness of our armed forces going forward; that they are able to identify these improvement opportunities and begin holding people to account for their actions, particularly those who are supposed to be demonstrating the standard.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Pretty much the same thing you teach a female child. A person who has been brought up knowing that he or she is responsible for his or her actions is a person who will not allow themselves to behave too terribly badly. A person who is told that "it is the nature of things for you to do bad things" will do just that.
I'd say "the nature of things" exists at a level below good and bad. We construct good and bad out of essentially whole cloth, paste it on monkeys and hope it works.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'd say "the nature of things" exists at a level below good and bad. We construct good and bad out of essentially whole cloth, paste it on monkeys and hope it works.
I disagree. I believe most people identified particular behaviors that challenged their senses in ways that disturbed them and crafted legislation around 'em. I don't see how it's useful to marginalize awareness and sensibility.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 08:14 PM
 
Except when it didn't and they didn't.

We're not any different biologically from the people who thought it was cool to have slaves. The only difference between them and us is a different social construct.

Now, I'd opine our social construct is better than theirs, but "slavery is okay" is just as made-up as "slavery is not okay".
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 09:51 PM
 
You know, sadly, I'd say "slavery is good" is actually less of a made up construct. Slavery ultimately boils down to "might makes right" which is our default condition.

It is only through supreme effort, which currently includes a course of indoctrination beginning as an infant, have we (only more or less) beaten this out of society.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2013, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Except when it didn't and they didn't.

We're not any different biologically from the people who thought it was cool to have slaves. The only difference between them and us is a different social construct.

Now, I'd opine our social construct is better than theirs, but "slavery is okay" is just as made-up as "slavery is not okay".
This is the danger of "group-think". You see, a bunch of Virginians complained to the House of Burgesses that the indentured servants from Africa who were working for free passage to the new land were distorting their labor market. The solution? Codified chattel slavery in 1709. Abolished in 1869. The only reason it took this long is because the matter became more of a political football for Southern sovereignty than whether or not slavery was "bad" as the abusive aspects of it were entirely indefensible. (stealing humans, beating them, selling them on auction blocks, denying them the rights they had when they came to the new land as "employees", etc... and even most of these acts haven't been established as the norm. It is well-documented that among those owners who employed corporal punishment for conformity, they had to PAY others to administer the punishment.) Hell, even Robert E. Lee was opposed to the Institution of chattel slavery and didn't fight the war to maintain slavery, it had become about Southern sovereignty. Again, people are capable of many things, but the overarching, overwhelming majority of those not temporarily insane or in need of therapy see bad things for what they are because they challenge senses in a distasteful way. Legislation or "beating it out of them" is subsequent to what was already innately disturbing. It merely follows.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2013, 11:35 AM
 
Oh. They just wanted indentured servants. That's okay then.



Not to mention the history of slavery started a wee bit before the colonies, ya know?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2013, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Oh. They just wanted indentured servants. That's okay then.



Not to mention the history of slavery started a wee bit before the colonies, ya know?
I'm not being clear enough. The first subjects to arrive in the new land were indentured servants comprised of all manner of ethnicity and origin; employees for free passage here. Once they satisfied their debt, they could be doctors, lawyers, own land, vote, participate in government. I think you're moving the goalposts with this argument. Most people didn't own slaves. Ever. Most people don't want to hurt, beat, and rape others. They just don't. Never have. Throughout history, you're talking about some centralized authority commissioning others to do their dirty work and often themselves under threat of some abuse. Group-think. Otherwise, we're all indentured servants. Slavery is bad and most people don't want to hurt, beat, or rape others. These things challenge our innate senses in disturbing ways so we legislate against them; an excuse to lock the pathological away from society. I'm not sure the colonists knew what chattel slavery would become when they were bitching about their labor woes, not unlike any other folly of a centralized authority. If human kind is guilty of anything, it's for being consistently preoccupied with surviving. I don't think you can make the case that morality was beat into us any more than immorality.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2013, 10:57 AM
 
What you call moving the goalposts was an attempt to draw you off what I chose to make the analogy with, and get you to consider the analogy itself.

Honestly, I'd say you were moving the goalposts. I mention slavery existed before America, and you stick with America.

Let's take Rome at the time of Christ. Are we biologically different from them?

If we aren't, that's not moving the goalposts.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 7, 2013 at 01:13 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2013, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What you call moving the goalposts was an attempt to draw you off what I chose to make the analogy with, and get you to consider the analogy itself.

Honestly, I'd say you were moving the goalposts. I mention slavery existed before America, and you stick with America.

Let's take Rome at the time of Christ. Are we biologically different from them?

If we aren't, that's not moving the goalposts.
Let me try another way...

I'm not being clear enough. The first subjects to arrive in the new land were indentured servants comprised of all manner of ethnicity and origin; employees for free passage here. Once they satisfied their debt, they could be doctors, lawyers, own land, vote, participate in government. I think you're moving the goalposts with this argument. Most people didn't own slaves. Ever. Most people don't want to hurt, beat, and rape others. They just don't. Never have. Throughout history, you're talking about some centralized authority commissioning others to do their dirty work and often themselves under threat of some abuse. Group-think. Otherwise, we're all indentured servants. Slavery is bad and most people don't want to hurt, beat, or rape others. These things challenge our innate senses in disturbing ways so we legislate against them; an excuse to lock the pathological away from society. I'm not sure the colonists knew what chattel slavery would become when they were bitching about their labor woes, not unlike any other folly of a centralized authority. If human kind is guilty of anything, it's for being consistently preoccupied with surviving. I don't think you can make the case that morality was beat into us any more than immorality.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2013, 11:24 PM
 
Just in case I don't get to this, I at the least want to say you have perfectly (and cleverly) clarified your point, which I fully admit I wasn't getting.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2013, 09:22 AM
 
The argument that "human males are programmed to be rapists," whether stated in those terms or not, is not valid. The human species, like all species, is programmed to take advantage of situations and conditions that are favorable for its members, like moving to areas where it is easier to obtain food and shelter, or where conflicts with other humans are minimized. Members of the human species, male and female, build on this pro-survival trait in ways that benefit themselves individually. Working hard to earn a promotion over a rival, or similar activities are an example of this. However, a very few individuals go beyond that, misunderstanding "benefit" and disregarding the concept of consequences for actions with short term "rewards." These are people who become criminals, rapists, "gold diggers," and so on.

Humans have the capacity to be rapists, as much as they have the capacity to be philanthropists. It is up to the individual to guide his or her own life. Excesses and victimizing others are generally anti-survival traits, and in the past might have gotten one run out of town, tarred and feathered, or worse. Our "more enlightened age" frowns on such things, which has sort of institutionalized a criminal class in our society. Given a reasonably good upbringing, and a sense from an early age that all actions have consequences (this is basic child psychology stuff that essentially all experts agree on), people grow up to be at least reasonably "good citizens," and to control their urges for the most part. When society does not demand that level of compliance with social norms, society has to accept a burden of both victimization and management of criminal behavior.

What this thread was about from the beginning was not whether humans are fallible or opportunistic, but that once placed in a particularly visible position of authority and responsibility, some apparently smart people show their true colors and stupidly take advantage of momentary situations that wind up being their downfall.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2013, 07:14 PM
 
Apparently, another way to get some is to join the State Department.

Hill investigating State Department report - Tal Kopan and Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:42 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2