That I can agree with.
3 USNA Football Players Face Sexual Assault Probe
- Thread starter Luigi59
- Start date
- Status
That I can agree with.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 16,019
My only point was that sexual assault is not rape. Many people mistakenly assume sexual assault means rape or attempted rape. It does not. I don't argue with the statistics themselves, just the meaning some folks put on them. As far as not picking on you, I just wanted to make sure you understood I was commenting on the stats, a phraseology used, and the comments had nothing to do with you.
"At least 1 in 4 college women will be the victim of a sexual assault during her academic career. Hirsch, Kathleen (1990)”Fraternities of Fear: Gang Rape, Male Bonding, and the Silencing of Women.” Ms., 1(2) 52-56.
At least 80% of all sexual assaults are committed by an acquaintance of the victim. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001.
48.8% of college women who were victims of attacks that met the study’s definition of rape did not consider what happened to them rape. Bureau of Justice Stats. “Sexual Victimization of Collegiate Women” 2000, US DOJ."
Definitions mean everything. The 1 in 4 statistic is quoted all the time but it has been pretty throughly debunked (kind of like that old saw about domestic abuse centers getting so many calls during the Super Bowl). I remember hearing that statistic back in the day and thinking "wow, that is completely unlike my experience or those of my friends." It comes from a study done by Ms. magazine (obviously with an agenda) and had questions such as "have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" which would cover the night of drinking followed by a one night stand regretted later. Which would explain the "48.8% of college women who were victims of attacks that met the study’s definition of rape did not consider what happened to them rape." All of these studies should state at the outset their methodology and their definitions. The politicization of rape is a terrible thing. It trivilaizes rape. And it also is demeaning of women in a lot of ways. If a woman chooses to drink and then regrets her decision to have sex, she should at least own it , instead of crying rape afterwards. But then, the fact that so many of the women in the second report above apparently did NOT think they had been raped, despite the researchers insistence that they had been, indicates that the women involved had a sense of responsibility for their actions.
As for having to register as a low-level sex offender for relieving yourself outside. . . that makes me think this world has gone crazy.
At least 80% of all sexual assaults are committed by an acquaintance of the victim. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001.
48.8% of college women who were victims of attacks that met the study’s definition of rape did not consider what happened to them rape. Bureau of Justice Stats. “Sexual Victimization of Collegiate Women” 2000, US DOJ."
Definitions mean everything. The 1 in 4 statistic is quoted all the time but it has been pretty throughly debunked (kind of like that old saw about domestic abuse centers getting so many calls during the Super Bowl). I remember hearing that statistic back in the day and thinking "wow, that is completely unlike my experience or those of my friends." It comes from a study done by Ms. magazine (obviously with an agenda) and had questions such as "have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" which would cover the night of drinking followed by a one night stand regretted later. Which would explain the "48.8% of college women who were victims of attacks that met the study’s definition of rape did not consider what happened to them rape." All of these studies should state at the outset their methodology and their definitions. The politicization of rape is a terrible thing. It trivilaizes rape. And it also is demeaning of women in a lot of ways. If a woman chooses to drink and then regrets her decision to have sex, she should at least own it , instead of crying rape afterwards. But then, the fact that so many of the women in the second report above apparently did NOT think they had been raped, despite the researchers insistence that they had been, indicates that the women involved had a sense of responsibility for their actions.
As for having to register as a low-level sex offender for relieving yourself outside. . . that makes me think this world has gone crazy.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Correct, sexual assault can also mean unwanted touching. It's still a violation of someone's comfort, but it's not aways rape.
This is something that we used to hear in sexual assault awareness training, for cadets, officers and enlisted.
pathnottaken
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 189
Thnaks to Luigi59 for understanding my point and agreeing.
All the stats the are being posted or quoted I believe have nothing to do with this issue.
They are based on the entire population. I contend that the SA should and must be not part of the normal population and their stats should and must be different than the average population.
The cadets and selected through an extensive process and should the best...I feel sorry for us if our best are no better than the average.
PS I believe posting "Lies" on social media fits in with one's honor, and if it is the "Truth" than it really fits with one's honor
PPS the kid who did not give the other kid a ride STAYED with him until his parent arrived
All the stats the are being posted or quoted I believe have nothing to do with this issue.
They are based on the entire population. I contend that the SA should and must be not part of the normal population and their stats should and must be different than the average population.
The cadets and selected through an extensive process and should the best...I feel sorry for us if our best are no better than the average.
PS I believe posting "Lies" on social media fits in with one's honor, and if it is the "Truth" than it really fits with one's honor
PPS the kid who did not give the other kid a ride STAYED with him until his parent arrived
falconfamily
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 670
Yes you are noting that the statistic was cited by an article in a magazine (a secondary source) but not the study by the Justice Dept at the bottom of the post, the number they gave was 13%, about half the 1 in 4 cited in the magazine article, but still....13% is still a very big number. People have not so much "debunked" the 1 in 4 number as being false, as much as it can be misleading if you think that means that 1 in 4 women in college are forcibly raped. As you dig into the report, it does give detail about the nature of these assaults, of which about half involve forced or non-consensual sex. The oddity about this study is that not all of the people responding in the survey think that non-consensual sex is necessarily wrong!(?) I am not trying to argue that statistics are perfect of that writers do not have some sort of agenda. But clearly there is some miss-wiring in the logic of our young people.
Last edited:
falconfamily
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 670
Where do you get appointees from if not the "normal" population? This is the same population that supplies students to MIT, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc, and they all have the same issues. While you might live in an area of the country that has people who are not "normal", the military draws people from all walks of life and from every state in the union. Society is different from when I grew up, not all change is bad, but not all change is good either. However as a society, we need to learn how to manage change and make it a positive thing. Trying to say that we should only allow people from a special subset to be admitted to the academy is very idealized and seems to indicate a gross misunderstanding of the character and nature of most of the cadets at the academies today. In general, they are not perfect, yet they are bright and generally capable, they are more than capable of learning from mistakes and character is developed through process, not some metaphysical property of nature and religion. So I differ from your view about these young people. I think this problem is not one of selection, but more of the time we are living in and the nature of our modern society. It needs to be dealt with, the problem, even if overstated is intolerable to the good order and discipline of the military and must be corrected. As for the statistics, the rates of reported sexual assaults in the military academies is much lower than than of any civilian college.
pathnottaken
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 189
The average height of a human male is ~5'9" but if I take the average height of the best basketball players it would be more like 6'4"
If they are part of the normal population why do they have to have top grades, top leadership positions, best interviews, have senators appoint them, etc.
why don't we just pull names out of hat.
Last edited:
falconfamily
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 670
Are you suggesting that character and physical traits are equivalent? Not sure what you are getting at here. All appointees face a background check, they have letters of recommendation, they have excellent academic records, they are personally interviewed by officers, in that sense they are all 6'4" as seen by the admissions staff. But these young people were not hatched from eggs in an incubator. They grow up in neighborhoods, they have many influences, some good, some not so good. In that sense all of them are from the "normal" population and the service academies try to select those who are (in your words) 6'4". Please note that not all 6'4" people end up being productive NBA players, some players have bad rookie years and end up becoming pretty successful later on (see Chauncey Billups and for football types - Tom Brady).
Furthermore, I have spent countless hours counseling families who have seen their cadets separated from the academies for academics, conduct, honor, etc. The Academies have no problem sending people home that do not meet muster. The Air Force Academy wing will likely be under 4000 cadets, that is about 400 less than this time about 18 months ago. This is why I don't quite get your point.
Last edited:
pathnottaken
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 189
I also wonder about the term mistakes. People make mistakes all the time, but some of us define mistakes differently I guess. Drinking underage I consider a choice not a mistake. Not calculating the correct Fourier transform of non-Newtonian fluid dymanics tensor problem is a mistake.
Yes people make bad choices, the question I would have is it a sign of things to come, Do people who make bad choice on black and White things are they going to be more likely to make bad choice when things become greyer
Yes people make bad choices, the question I would have is it a sign of things to come, Do people who make bad choice on black and White things are they going to be more likely to make bad choice when things become greyer
pathnottaken
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 189
Yes I am. I believe genetics control most behavior
falconfamily
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 670
The world is analog not digital. The world that our young people live in is not black and white, it is way more nuanced and it requires more of them than most of us pushing 50 can generally comprehend. Nothing is obvious in this context and it is much harder to make good choices.
falconfamily
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 670
I don't think you meant to say that. At least I hope not.
I am posting in this topic despite my best efforts to not look at the train wreck along the road.
Pretty much this thread rates as a
that the mods should probably
That being said, my thought on the issue of prevention of sexual harassment/assault/rape/etc. are:
1) Sexual harassment/assault/rape is a social issue - it is not about sex it is about power and control.
2) There are shades of behavior between white and black dealing with relationships between the sexes (and even within a sex, but nobody talks about that). All social behavior is about establishing/changing relationships - cooperative vs. controlling. Sexual behavior is no different.
3) The vast majority of communication (spoken or physical) can be interpreted in different ways depending upon the context. A comment or gesture can be interpreted as flirtatious or harassing, romantic or scary, depending upon the history and situation of the people involved.
4) There is some communication that should only be interpreted one way (saying NO comes to mind here), if one would like to avoid undue risk to the outcome of relationship.
5) This brings us to the issue of risk. All communication comes with an element of risk - primarily of misinterpretation (which happens a lot in this thread) but often the risk is of a social nature - i.e. staking out a greater degree of control in the relationship than the other person desires.
6) The greater majority of people are socially wired to take some social risks and interpret the results and modify behavior so as not to establish overly controlling relationships. Others, are not socially wired this way and only modify their behavior when a greater social force is exerted upon them. (They are busted). These folks are generally referred to as bullies. Rapists also fall into this category as well. Most of them don't recognize themselves for who they are in the mirror. With guidance, they can at least recognize their behavior, if not learn to moderate it - the degree to which is hotly debated. I'm not taking a position here as to the degree.
7) I'm not going to to into the nature vs. nurture argument as to what causes this, because it is unimportant.
8) What is important is that if the military wants to establish discipline (sans bullying and rape and other socially controlling behavior), they need to have officers (starting from the top) who are socially wired correctly (i.e not tempted to push the boundaries of their behavior beyond the point where the don't self-correct) and can recognize in others that trait. This is important because self-understanding does not equal understanding of others. There is no test to clearly identify these folks - these folks can see each other quite well though.
9) Good people recruiting good people. Kind of self-reinforcing. Bullies tend to recruit their own as well. We just got to sort out the right folks, starting at the top. Unfortunately, our political leadership (both parties) tends to have the exact same problem.
10) What to do about it - Can't solve the whole issue but on an individual level - try to understand your own social behaviors and those around you. Choose positive cooperative social interaction and do so with like-behaving individuals. Avoid those who want to dominate a relationship and their circles. Explore new social circles very carefully with an exit strategy in mind should the new relationships be of poor quality. You can improve some people (I am a believer in some degree of development), but know the difference between the people you can fix and those you cannot.
I've had my say. Now you all can carry on with your food fight.
Pretty much this thread rates as a
that the mods should probably
That being said, my thought on the issue of prevention of sexual harassment/assault/rape/etc. are:
1) Sexual harassment/assault/rape is a social issue - it is not about sex it is about power and control.
2) There are shades of behavior between white and black dealing with relationships between the sexes (and even within a sex, but nobody talks about that). All social behavior is about establishing/changing relationships - cooperative vs. controlling. Sexual behavior is no different.
3) The vast majority of communication (spoken or physical) can be interpreted in different ways depending upon the context. A comment or gesture can be interpreted as flirtatious or harassing, romantic or scary, depending upon the history and situation of the people involved.
4) There is some communication that should only be interpreted one way (saying NO comes to mind here), if one would like to avoid undue risk to the outcome of relationship.
5) This brings us to the issue of risk. All communication comes with an element of risk - primarily of misinterpretation (which happens a lot in this thread) but often the risk is of a social nature - i.e. staking out a greater degree of control in the relationship than the other person desires.
6) The greater majority of people are socially wired to take some social risks and interpret the results and modify behavior so as not to establish overly controlling relationships. Others, are not socially wired this way and only modify their behavior when a greater social force is exerted upon them. (They are busted). These folks are generally referred to as bullies. Rapists also fall into this category as well. Most of them don't recognize themselves for who they are in the mirror. With guidance, they can at least recognize their behavior, if not learn to moderate it - the degree to which is hotly debated. I'm not taking a position here as to the degree.
7) I'm not going to to into the nature vs. nurture argument as to what causes this, because it is unimportant.
8) What is important is that if the military wants to establish discipline (sans bullying and rape and other socially controlling behavior), they need to have officers (starting from the top) who are socially wired correctly (i.e not tempted to push the boundaries of their behavior beyond the point where the don't self-correct) and can recognize in others that trait. This is important because self-understanding does not equal understanding of others. There is no test to clearly identify these folks - these folks can see each other quite well though.
9) Good people recruiting good people. Kind of self-reinforcing. Bullies tend to recruit their own as well. We just got to sort out the right folks, starting at the top. Unfortunately, our political leadership (both parties) tends to have the exact same problem.
10) What to do about it - Can't solve the whole issue but on an individual level - try to understand your own social behaviors and those around you. Choose positive cooperative social interaction and do so with like-behaving individuals. Avoid those who want to dominate a relationship and their circles. Explore new social circles very carefully with an exit strategy in mind should the new relationships be of poor quality. You can improve some people (I am a believer in some degree of development), but know the difference between the people you can fix and those you cannot.
I've had my say. Now you all can carry on with your food fight.
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
But they have a very hard time dismissing star D1 football players, much harder than the every day run of the mill cadet or mid. It takes very serious charges, often criminal (and public outcry) before that happens.
Everyone remembers the Mid and his 7.3 yards per carry, and the gross conduct and honor violations that were overlooked or excused (including a positive drug test).
pathnottaken
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 189
Thank you Goiliedad, if you every want to trap me just put this type of thread in the trap and you leave the trap int the open and I still would walk right in.
I guess it is in my genes
I guess it is in my genes
I think he lasted a full 24 hrs more than I did.
Good job goaliedad
and I agree with your point #9. 
Leadership Example:
.
Leadership Example #2:
The USMA Rugby issue: It was a non-team member that turned in the email.
No excuses for Curry or this issue in the OP. They learn the principles from Day 0 at the academy. No excuses for leadership to have the males continue to practice and play football (privileges). Devon Richardson, Brandon Killebrew, and Curry left. All are doing fine (and playing football), their parents will get over not being called Navy parents.
Heck, forget the academy. All the classroom speakers and field trips since I was in 3rd grade! If its in MY head either these knucklehead cadets are either real dumb, or not taking the academy principles seriously. Its not only athletics or academics at the academy, you have to be sharp with the principles.
The ones that have ‘IT’ (military principles) will be hard to kick-out from academies or from active duty.
Christcorp
15-Year Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,383
WOW!!! This thread sure has taken one hell of a twist over the last 24 hours.
Some concerns I have:
If they didn't consider it rape, then why is anyone else considering it rape. Reminds me of when I was young in the air force and a female captain overheard me call a female airman "Sweetie". She "Tried" to nail me to the cross through Social Actions for sexual harassment. That lasted until the O-6 in charge of Social Actions discovered the Female Airman was my fiance. Basically, I wonder how many charges are brought up, when the "VICTIM" doesn't consider themselves a "VICTIM", until someone else "CONVINCES" them they ARE a Victim.
Yea..... Right..... I'll hope that this was just a typo Fubar/SNAFU
My other concern is about the pedestal many are putting cadets/appointees on for getting into the academy. Hate to tell you; but while getting an appointment to a military academy is definitely competitive, it isn't the hardest, most difficult, highest standard, university in the country to get into. I know this is an academy/ROTC forum, and we all want to believe that our little mary, little johnny, ourselves, etc... are so special and the creme de la creme; but it's time to wake up.
The "KIDS" that apply to the military academies are the SAME "KIDS" that are applying to every other university in the country. The only things that make an academy appointment difficult to receive is:
1. Number admitted. Military academies admit around 1100-1200. Yale admitted 1800. Harvard 1260. 1800+ accepted to Columbia. And this is with approximately 28,000 - 35,000 applying. The academies have no where NEAR that many applicants.
2. GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY: No other college application takes 10 months to complete and get a reply for. Most colleges, including the biggies like HYPS have early admissions acceptance as early as October. NOT MAY of your senior year in school.
3. Part of the requirement is a quota from each state and district, which requires recommendations from senators/representatives.
The truth is; we want to believe that the kids that attend the academies are somehow the "BEST OF THE BEST". Well, YEA, they are. If you compare them to the other 7,000+ other universities and (higher education institutions). But I would consider them in the same category as the top-100 universities. Their application process might take more time. They might require recommendations from a senator/representative instead of just teachers, counselors, and community officials. But to somehow say that academy kids are supposedly predisposed to be some "Super-Student" with all these innate morals, values, code of conduct, etc... is ridiculous.
Some concerns I have:
If they didn't consider it rape, then why is anyone else considering it rape. Reminds me of when I was young in the air force and a female captain overheard me call a female airman "Sweetie". She "Tried" to nail me to the cross through Social Actions for sexual harassment. That lasted until the O-6 in charge of Social Actions discovered the Female Airman was my fiance. Basically, I wonder how many charges are brought up, when the "VICTIM" doesn't consider themselves a "VICTIM", until someone else "CONVINCES" them they ARE a Victim.
Yea..... Right..... I'll hope that this was just a typo Fubar/SNAFU
My other concern is about the pedestal many are putting cadets/appointees on for getting into the academy. Hate to tell you; but while getting an appointment to a military academy is definitely competitive, it isn't the hardest, most difficult, highest standard, university in the country to get into. I know this is an academy/ROTC forum, and we all want to believe that our little mary, little johnny, ourselves, etc... are so special and the creme de la creme; but it's time to wake up.
The "KIDS" that apply to the military academies are the SAME "KIDS" that are applying to every other university in the country. The only things that make an academy appointment difficult to receive is:
1. Number admitted. Military academies admit around 1100-1200. Yale admitted 1800. Harvard 1260. 1800+ accepted to Columbia. And this is with approximately 28,000 - 35,000 applying. The academies have no where NEAR that many applicants.
2. GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY: No other college application takes 10 months to complete and get a reply for. Most colleges, including the biggies like HYPS have early admissions acceptance as early as October. NOT MAY of your senior year in school.
3. Part of the requirement is a quota from each state and district, which requires recommendations from senators/representatives.
The truth is; we want to believe that the kids that attend the academies are somehow the "BEST OF THE BEST". Well, YEA, they are. If you compare them to the other 7,000+ other universities and (higher education institutions). But I would consider them in the same category as the top-100 universities. Their application process might take more time. They might require recommendations from a senator/representative instead of just teachers, counselors, and community officials. But to somehow say that academy kids are supposedly predisposed to be some "Super-Student" with all these innate morals, values, code of conduct, etc... is ridiculous.
- Status