Sexual Assault in Military in News Again

AnneMartinFletcher

5-Year Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
20
Last night I blogged about whether or not an Assault Scandal could recur at USAFA (I specifically call this Assault or Rape--it is not a Sex Scandal). Then, this morning, CA representative Jackie Speier wrote in the Huffington Post why she is introducing new legislation to change the way sexual assault is handled in the military.

I do believe that Sexual Assault is an issue in the military, but media reports seem to say the same old thing. Here is what I would like more civilians to know:

1) Sexual assaults also occur against men in the military, and they receive even less support than female victims.
2) It is possible, even likely, for a woman to have a whole career without ever suffering a sexual assault.
3) The real preventative is not more legislation, but:
a) doing away with marginalization of sub-groups,​
b) commanders valuing the contributions of sub-groups, especially in operational and combat units,​
c) recognizing that sexual assault is a more serious offense than co-occurring offenses, such as being off-base or drinking​
d) developing a sense of personal power in soldiers/sailors/airmen and training them to project this aura of personal power.​

What do you think?
 
What is the national average? The last DOD survey had that 4% (I believe) had experienced unwanted touching in the last year. That doesn't always mean sexual assault. The DOD survey also didn't specify if that touching came from another uniformed member. I believe males were at 1.6% in the survey. Reports of sexual assaults were much lower, maybe 3,500, but the percentage from the survey would suggest something closer to 19,000. Is that a lot? Looks like it. In organization of 2,000,000?

I'm not sure what in reporting needs to be changed. Someone can now break a law, report someone else for sexual assault and be spared punishment for their action as well. That keeps people from holding back reporting (as someone could assault multiple people if they are not reported.)
 
Last night I blogged about whether or not an Assault Scandal could recur at USAFA (I specifically call this Assault or Rape--it is not a Sex Scandal). Then, this morning, CA representative Jackie Speier wrote in the Huffington Post why she is introducing new legislation to change the way sexual assault is handled in the military.

I do believe that Sexual Assault is an issue in the military, but media reports seem to say the same old thing. Here is what I would like more civilians to know:

1) Sexual assaults also occur against men in the military, and they receive even less support than female victims.
2) It is possible, even likely, for a woman to have a whole career without ever suffering a sexual assault.
3) The real preventative is not more legislation, but:
a) doing away with marginalization of sub-groups,​
b) commanders valuing the contributions of sub-groups, especially in operational and combat units,​
c) recognizing that sexual assault is a more serious offense than co-occurring offenses, such as being off-base or drinking​
d) developing a sense of personal power in soldiers/sailors/airmen and training them to project this aura of personal power.​

What do you think?

I agree with your sentiments. This may seem counter-productive, but what about making an accusation against someone less taboo (maybe not the right term) or less career-ending. If a claim by itself is less likely to cause a career death spiral, then reporting might also improve? Some member choose not to report, not just out of shame, but that they don't want to collapse the career of an otherwise good officer/NCO/etc. Maybe more importantly, the consequences of just being reported are part of the social stigma for the victim as peers may react because of the impact of the report itself on the accused.

I'm not sure if I'm expressing this right! If someone questions whether they were assaulted, reports it, and an inquiry can be done without the report itself destroying another career, I think it can nip some problems in the bud: an officer that might be on the line but isn't getting the guidance to change their behavior such that they end up making a huge mistake instead of being corrected and fixed before the problem develops; a victim feels assaulted but feels like the action wasn't egregious, is unsure if it was inappropriate, or fears social stigma; and protects the accused in the event of wrongful accusation or a misunderstanding. Still means the true offenders are reported (perhaps moreso), might help prevent potential offenders from going down that path, and makes victims less shamed or ostracized for reporting inappropriate behavior.
 
Or second option: beating the crap out of the moron who tried it. Forget the PC and survey percentages. Rather be charged with assault and explain to the Article 15 Hearing.
 
Back
Top