« Re: Fairness, and Obama | Main | L'Anomie! Le Cynicisme! »

April 01, 2008

Charlotte Allen, You Have Your Answer....

Just when the Editorial Staff concluded it couldn't possibly be any more embarrassing to be female in America, Jane Harmon beclowns herself (quite an achievement, given the venue) in the LA Times:

The stories are shocking in their simplicity and brutality: A female military recruit is pinned down at knifepoint and raped repeatedly in her own barracks. Her attackers hid their faces but she identified them by their uniforms; they were her fellow soldiers. During a routine gynecological exam, a female soldier is attacked and raped by her military physician. Yet another young soldier, still adapting to life in a war zone, is raped by her commanding officer. Afraid for her standing in her unit, she feels she has nowhere to turn.

These are true stories, and, sadly, not isolated incidents. Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.

The scope of the problem was brought into acute focus for me during a visit to the West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center, where I met with female veterans and their doctors. My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41% of female veterans seen at the clinic say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military, and 29% report being raped during their military service. They spoke of their continued terror, feelings of helplessness and the downward spirals many of their lives have since taken.

Numbers reported by the Department of Defense show a sickening pattern. In 2006, 2,947 sexual assaults were reported -- 73% more than in 2004. The DOD's newest report, released this month, indicates that 2,688 reports were made in 2007, but a recent shift from calendar-year reporting to fiscal-year reporting makes comparisons with data from previous years much more difficult.

We know just how Ms. Harmon thinks feels. When the Editorial Staff read these bone chilling statistics we had to run from the room to avoid blacking out or throwing up.

Rape is a serious crime. But modern military women would seem to be caught in a Catch-22, wouldn't they?

Here they are, volunteers in a line of work full of testosterone charged warriors whose entire raison d'etre is fighting. Advocates for women in the armed services charge that spiteful, authoritarian males are hell bent on preventing intelligent, fully equal females from moving into the combat arms where (presumably) they can compete with men on equal terms with no detriment to unit performance.

Comes now Rep. Jane Harmon to plead their case eloquently with the searing logic unique to our gender:

These strong, tough, intelligent, fully equal combat flowers need the immediate protection of the federal government because 41% of them have been the victims of sexual assault and 29% of them have been raped by their fellow servicemen. The Editorial Staff does not know about you, but we are not hearing a compelling argument for fuller integration of women into the armed forces.

While we're on the subject, Ms. Harmon might want to entertain the shocking notion that reported rapes are not the same thing as actual rapes:

Unsubstantiated or exaggerated allegations have been known to destroy careers. 9 A five-year survey of sexual assault in the U.S. Army found that reports of sexual abuse that proved to be “unfounded” after investigation tripled from 48 to 157 between 1999 and 2003. No explanation for the increase was given.

In fact, many documented studies have shown that false rape reports are extremely common:

"Forty-one percent of all reports are false."

This claim comes from a study conducted by Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University. Kanin examined 109 rape complaints registered in a Midwestern city from 1978 to 1987.

Of these, 45 were ultimately classified by the police as "false." Also based on police records, Kanin determined that 50 percent of the rapes reported at two major universities were "false."

A larger Air Force study which Ms. Harmon also found unworthy of your consideration found rates that were even higher:

In 1985, a study of 556 rape allegations found that 27% accusers recanted when faced with a polygraph (which can be ordered in the military), and independent evaluation showed a false accusation rate of 60%. (McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.)

An expert in these cases comments:

While most of my practice has involved people who are clearly victims, in my image processing consultation practice I have seen multiple cases of false accusation of assault and rape. In one case, a man and a woman, both in the Navy but assigned to different ships, met and had sex while on liberty in Bahrain. The next day, the man approached the ship to which the woman was assigned and asked to see the woman to see if she wanted to go on another date. He was immediately arrested and charged with rape. Upon examination, the physical examination of the woman did not support the kind of assault she said happened, and image processing analysis of the skin injuries showed patterns inconsistent with her story. When asked for samples of the clothing and jewelry she was wearing at the time, she claimed that she had destroyed or burned them. Eventually the woman recanted and admitted the sex was consensual. It turned out that the woman was also sleeping with a noncommissioned officer also serving on the ship she was serving on, who was the person the alleged assailant asked permission of to board on the night he was arrested. When faced with her one night stand asking her lover for permission to board the ship to ask her for another date, she decided to claim rape rather than admit being unfaithful.

Unfortunately for the alleged “rapist,” this did not unfold quickly. The young man was under suspicion (and assigned to a penal detail) for 18 months before the recantation. By that time, his military career had been ruined.

Charlotte and I will be in the bar having a pomegranate martini. I hope we can somehow avoid the tragic fate of millions of other American women while we're there. But let's face it: the odds are against us.

Posted by Cassandra at April 1, 2008 07:57 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


It's topics like these on which I fear to tread, but what I can say with certainty is that if Ms. Harmon's numbers are anywhere near what she claims, then 20-40% of the dozens of female friends I had in the Army were remarkable actresses to cover up the fact that anything like this had been done to them. No emotional scarring, no downward spirals, no difficulties in relationships.

As I said, I don't like questioning anyone's veracity when I don't know them personally, but having served closely with and even having been in relationships with female soldiers, I can honestly say that I cannot believe those numbers are anywhere near accurate.

Posted by: MikeD at April 1, 2008 10:42 AM

There are a whole host of issues here, not the least of which are the cultural (male/female communication issues) well addressed by this passage I didn't have time to include:

One of the concerns about leaving out the force requirement and relying solely on consent to define rape is that sexual interaction is not clear cut. (404) Men and women communicate differently and have differing understandings of what actually constitutes consent in a given situation. (405) People are understandably reluctant to convict a person of a serious crime, when the incident may have been a miscommunication or misunderstanding. (406) They have good reason to be cautious. A survey conducted in 1992 found that twenty-two percent of women felt they had been forced to have sex, yet only three percent of men said they had ever forced a woman to have sex. (407) Within that gap of misunderstanding and miscommunication there will inevitably be both perceived and actual rapes and sexual assaults. Within that same gap, there are likely allegations against men who had no intention of committing a crime. Much of the pain caused by this lack of communication would be avoided by an affirmative consent statute.

Our culture traditionally expects the man to be the assertive, and sometimes even aggressive, partner in sexual situations. 408) Television, movies, and other media perpetuate this expectation, and increasingly, take it to the extreme. (409) It is not necessarily unreasonable for a young man who has grown up watching music television shows and popular movies to think that some degree of force is acceptable, if not expected. The media bombards these men (and women) with images of a man forcefully and coercively overcoming the woman's reluctance to engage in sex. (410) Both men and women can come to see this as part of the dating ritual.

To further confuse matters, some studies have shown that a percentage of women report sometimes saying "no" when they actually mean "yes." (411) These studies not only reveal the complex nature of consent in sexual relations, they also perpetuate the belief that all women who say "no" really mean "yes." Generations of young people who have grown up in the culture described above cannot be left to sort out for themselves who actually means "no" when they say it. Requiring clear and unequivocal consent from both parties before penetration will encourage service members to assign real meaning to their words and prevent the potentially devastating results of this type of miscommunication. (412)

Affirmative consent not only protects potential victims, but also those who may potentially be accused of sexual assault. Anyone concerned with protecting service members from false or questionable accusations of rape has reason to embrace an affirmative consent requirement. A person who genuinely desires to have consensual intercourse should welcome clear communication of that consent from their partner. As Nicholas Little points out, most "men in dating situations do not want to be rapists by forcing their dates into unwanted sexual intercourse." (413) Presumably, a person who has specifically expressed their desire or consent to engage in intercourse will be less likely to feel that they were taken advantage of, or forced against their will into sexual activity. The possibility of miscommunication is significantly reduced when the law requires an affirmation of consent from participants in sexual activity.

b. Need for a Bright Line Rule

In a society where there is an increasingly liberal and unclear sexual culture, (414) the military owes its young service members a bright line rule. The proposed statute would provide a clear moral and legal standard to which they can adhere--for their own protection, and for good order and discipline within the unit. The requirement that consent be affirmatively conveyed would benefit both male and female service members. It would protect not only potential victims, but potential perpetrators as well.

The concept of sexual autonomy--that you must have affirmative permission to engage in sexual activity with someone--is more easily understood than the current definition of "by force and without consent." (415) In the area of sexual activity, it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between seduction and assault. (416) In the current and new statutes, the line is drawn at the use of force. When service members walk away from their mandatory training on the new sexual assault law, they will still not know exactly where the line is in sexual interaction. The message many will take away is that any means of obtaining sex short of violence is acceptable. In contrast, if the law requires freely given verbal consent, the take- away message is simple: Ask first. Everyone will know and understand where to draw the line.

Posted by: Cass at April 1, 2008 10:52 AM

Hell, not only would I have formal consent to engage in sexual activity but I would want a blood test or "disease free" ID card with multiple copies!

There's stuff nowadays penicillin won't cure and it damn sure won't wash off! :-o

Why does this post put the mental image of that scene in When Harry Met Sally in my mind? Thanks for nuthin'! Now I'll have that stuck in my head all day! ;-)

Harry Burns: You realize of course that we could never be friends.
Sally Albright: Why not?
Harry Burns: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form - is that men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally Albright: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: You only think you do.
Sally Albright: You say I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry Burns: No, what I'm saying is they all WANT to have sex with you.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: How do you know?
Harry Burns: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally Albright: So, you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
Harry Burns: No. You pretty much want to nail 'em too.
Sally Albright: What if THEY don't want to have sex with YOU?
Harry Burns: Doesn't matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.
Sally Albright: Well, I guess we're not going to be friends then.
Harry Burns: I guess not.
Sally Albright: That's too bad. You were the only person I knew in New York.

Posted by: JHD at April 1, 2008 11:15 AM

These whiny bitches - what do they expect joining the military. Now if they covered their hair, maybe the men could resist their wily charms.

Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 11:34 AM

I love that movie...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at April 1, 2008 11:39 AM

Worried about finding that special someone and circumstance all at the same point in time and space? Well eMutualConsentwithWitnesses.com can offer you a means to find that unique, compatible, communicative, partner complete with a witnessed and notarized hook-up consent form*** and two free chits for a visit to your local Public Health Clinic for the purpose of USDSH Certification**.

Our process matches you with others based on 27 different dimensions of compatibility, communications, kinks, gymnastic abilities, and durability.

So if hooking up and getting down has your anxiety meter pegged, swing over for a free trial hook-up* at eMutualConsentwithWitnesses.com

* Offer not valid for hook-ups involving parties comprised of more than two members at the same time.
** US Department of Sexual Health-USDSH is in no way affiliated with eMutualConsentwithWitnesses.com.
*** eMutualConsentwithWitnesses.com will not be held liable for any actions or inactions taken by either party after the initial introductions.

The author of this offer is thankful, in the extreme, that they are no long in the field, as it were.

Posted by: Doctors Masters & Johnson & his other brother Johnson at April 1, 2008 12:06 PM

Ms. Harmon, it seems, suffers from the same malady common to the media and even blogs from the left. Never, never ever, let the facts get in the way of a good story. That reputations, careers and lives are destroyed is irrelevent. Just keep pushing the party line.

Posted by: Edward Lunny at April 1, 2008 12:09 PM

Lonely? Bored? Searching for something that's not just a job, but an adventure?

Ostensibly in search of equality, but secretly wishing to be protected by the dominant patriarchal hegemony?

Dreaming of being swept off your feet by a tall, handsome, ravishing stranger in exotic places ... (like the squad bay or the flight deck at Balad?)

Afraid you'll never find your true sexual soulmate - someone who intuitively understands when no really means yes, yes means no, and the fact that you're both four and a half sheets to the wind means he is still legally responsible for his decisions but you're not?

Join the US military, where men are men and women are terrified! Because as so many of our Congresscritters have told us, they support our troops: every childlike, stupid, psychotic, womyn-raping one of them. They're America's finest, durnitall.

Posted by: eHarmon-eeeeeeee at April 1, 2008 12:35 PM

The inequality of the situation right now...the fact that an accusation is all that's necessary to ruin a career is pretty insane.

Met a Marine Airwinger at Quantico who's promotion was being held up by Tailhook investiagions even though he was not in attendance but three states away. the fact that some of the men under his command were there was enough to ruin him.

Posted by: Carrie at April 1, 2008 12:59 PM

I may have told this story before, but....

I had a roommate that accused her entire shop of "sexual harassment and assault." (They made her actually do the paperwork that was the whole reason she was assigned there--an AZ in the AO shop, if you wonder.)

The other gal in the shop basically looked her dead in the eye and stood up, refusing to be cowed.

So that roommate accused the gal's boyfriend of sexual assault.

Thankfully, he was in Reno, in front of half-a-dozen stars at the time he supposedly assaulted her....

It got swept under the rug. Nothing happened to the liar. The accusation was removed from the records of the folks...but if she hadn't been stupid, she would've ruined the careers.

Posted by: Foxfier at April 1, 2008 01:50 PM

I hold no brief for men who actually commit sexual assault. The problem is that women who cry wolf make it tougher for everyone else.

They make it hard for women to be taken seriously in the workplace, which really makes me angry, and they make many women less likely to complain about legitimately unacceptable behavior in their work environments. And that sort of thing does go on, though not nearly to the degree people like Jane Harmon would have you believe. But then so does all kinds of harassment. The answer is not to create special Victimology wickets.

If women want to be in the workplace, they have to be prepared to stand up vigorously for their rights just as men have for decades. They are entitled to a fair process, but if you make it *too* easy to complain, you draw whiners and malcontents and false accusers. And that ends up "victimizing" innocent bystanders.

Wrong answer, Ms. Harmon.

Posted by: Cass at April 1, 2008 02:02 PM

The offensive argument here is, "Waaah!!! You have to admit me as an equal across the board... but....WAAAH!!!! you have to give me special protections that aren't extended to men against harassment in the workplace!"

"Oh, and by the way, my presence isn't affecting unit readiness when I demand all these special accommodations!!!"

What a load of horse hockey. The women who do their jobs professionally day in and day out deserve better. Don't insult their intelligence, or mine, with this nonsense.

Posted by: Cass at April 1, 2008 02:06 PM

Do you suppose that permitting married military people to shack up with each other on base [a development in the news this week] will produce more or fewer assault complaints, or have no effect?

Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 02:19 PM

You have lost me.

Posted by: Cass at April 1, 2008 02:26 PM

If you are married and want to live on base, you rate married housing (i.e., quarters).

If you are single and want to live on base, you live in the barracks.

Posted by: Cass at April 1, 2008 02:28 PM

One thing I want to know is where are these women's service pistols?

I would venture to say that rape qualifies under every self-defence statute for the justified use of deadly force.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at April 1, 2008 02:47 PM

Cass ~ he's talking about Married Troops Living Together in Iraq

And, for the record, I think it will not change a damn thing except for the fact that you might actually see a few more dual-military marriages actually work.

As for women in the workplace/equality with men, if you want to run with the big dogs, you have to be able to keep up. Whining, demanding special accommodations and dispensations, and overall just being a major bitchy, pain in the ass will NOT get you anywhere. Suck it up and drive on.

And those caught lying should be shot.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at April 1, 2008 02:50 PM

"And those caught lying should be shot"

Amen, sistah!!!

Posted by: Carrie at April 1, 2008 02:53 PM

1. I am not sure what I think about it, but

2. I can't imagine what possible connection allowing married couples to live together could have with rape.

Morale? Yes, because you're making an exception to the general rule and I'm not entirely sure that is wise.

Rape? No.

Posted by: Cass at April 1, 2008 02:55 PM

What God has joined together, let no manual put asunder.

Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 02:56 PM


When you join the military you know the rules.

Anyone who expects special accommodations in a war zone is really pushing it. Stateside is another question.

Posted by: Cass at April 1, 2008 02:58 PM

Everybody's a victim with you, Mark :p

The guy who can't be bothered to bring a resume to a job fair.

The married couple who knew the rules when they joined, but expect the Army to make an exception when everyone else has to be celibate for the duration.

Waaaahhhhh! I have to go without sex for a year!!!! I miss my sweetie!!! It's haaaaaard on my marriage!!!

Cry me a river :p

Posted by: Cass at April 1, 2008 03:01 PM

I expect that there would be more pheromones in the air around the married people who are shacking up together [you KNOW what I'm talkin' about, dontcha?], and that they'd drive all those unlucky bastards and bastardettes wild. Either that, or their imaginations would run wild, wondering what is going on behind closed trailer doors with single beds pushed together, and they'd succumb to the ineluctable urge to make the beast with two backs, with subsequent accusations, denials, blah blah blah.

Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 03:01 PM

"What God has joined together, let no manual put asunder. Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 02:56 PM

Nonsense. When you join the military you know the rules. Anyone who expects special accommodations in a war zone is really pushing it. Stateside is another question.

Posted by: Cass at April 1, 2008 02:58 PM"

It was a quote from the article to which HFS linked. Sheesh!

Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 03:05 PM

Wow, Mark. For someone with a moniker of John Galt, you really are into the "victim" side of things, aren't you? Obviously personal responsibility and self-control are foreign concepts to you.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at April 1, 2008 03:07 PM

Regardless of who said it, there are rules in place and until those rules are changed, a servicemember is obligated to uphold them unless they are illegal in the eyes of the law.


Keeping husband and wife apart during wartime is not illegal. Your argument is moot. Thanks for playing.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at April 1, 2008 03:11 PM

Y'all are taking my comments WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to personally. And now, for a little musical accompaniment:

You give your hand to me
And then you say, "Hello."
And I can hardly speak,
My heart is beating so.
And anyone can tell
You think you know me well.
Well, you don't know me.
(no you don't know me)
No you don't know the one
Who dreams of you at night;
And longs to kiss your lips
And longs to hold you tight
Oh I'm just a friend.
That's all I've ever been.
Cause you don't know me.
(no you don't know me)
For I never knew the art of making love,
Though my heart aches with love for you.
Afraid and shy, I let my chance go by.
A chance that you might love me too.
(love me too)
You give your hand to me,
And then you say, "Goodbye."
I watched you walk away,
Beside the lucky guy
Oh, you'll never ever know
The one who loved you so.
Well, you don't know me
(For I never knew the art of making love, )
(Though my heart aches with love for you. )
Afraid and shy, I let my chance go by.
A chance that you might love me too.
(love me too)
Oh, you give your hand to me,
And then you say, "Goodbye."
I watched you walk away,
Beside the lucky guy
Oh, you'll never ever know
The one who loved you so.
Well, you don't know me
(you don't love me, you don't know me)

Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 03:14 PM

this was supposed to go with that last remark; delete all hard returns and following spaces to restore the original formatting ...

Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 03:15 PM

"Regardless of who said it, there are rules in place and until those rules are changed, a servicemember is obligated to uphold them unless they are illegal in the eyes of the law.


Keeping husband and wife apart during wartime is not illegal. Your argument is moot. Thanks for playing.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at April 1, 2008 03:11 PM"

I didn't change any military policy; I didn't advocate for changing any military policy; I'm in no position to change any military policy; I merely commented on an apparent development that I thought might have some bearing on the rape discussion y'all were having.

Just delete everything I said; you've obviously mistaken my good-natured remarks as an argument of some kind with which you disagree.

Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 03:20 PM

... and I tried to give you a link to a You Tube piece of Ray Charles singing his hit "You Don't Know Me", just for the fun of it.

Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 03:27 PM

I have to exercise my pea-sized brain and write a blurb on Levinson's adult phase theory. I have to refute or support arguments.

I am now in my silent scream mode. My foster Cheehooahhooah is jumping at me for a trip outside
and my children are down with colds that would make AlGore decide that global warming is a hoax.

So, I come here.

Posted by: Cricket at April 1, 2008 03:42 PM

Y'all are taking my comments WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to personally.

Your expectation here was that you could make some riffs and just leave it unsubstantiated and "short", meaning unclear and lacking in elaboration, and communication would work smooth as glass

That's not the expectation of people like Cassandra when it comes to discussing a serious topic that was a pillar blog post.
They expect a bit more out of people.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 1, 2008 03:58 PM

Hey Miss Cricket...nice to see you 'round here.

Ummm..you're writing about adult phase theory and you come here? :)

Posted by: Carrie at April 1, 2008 03:58 PM

I found Rep. Harmon's use of statistics interesting.

First, we get the "jaw dropping" 41%. Well, the first question that comes to mind is what kinds of things would women need long term care for from the VA? Combat wounds? A few. Accidents while serving? Some. Sexual assaults, and the devastating psychological impact might be pretty high up there.

Second, I noticed that she was shocked by the raw numbers, almost 3000. Do we need another NYT statistical hunt on rape statistics in the population as a whole?

The whole feel of the piece was that the military was rife with rape and no one was doing anything about. By golly she'll get to the bottom of it and fix it by holding Congressional hearings.

That's the ticket.

Posted by: Allen at April 1, 2008 03:58 PM

Well, we are all going through phases...I am still in my first childhood.

Or my third adolescence.

But about her stats. How stupid does she think we are? To inflate 41% to all VA or military related
sites is disengenous, especially if she doesn't discount false rapes and factor those in.

Next, to do a civilian population demographic she would have to compare rape stats with college campuses, since they would have roughly the same male/female ratios, age and standing
(seniors, professors, teaching assistants, etc)
as the Armed Forces.

Crying wolf.

I hate that.

Carrie, I do surf in once in awhile, but since I started school again (don't everybody pass out)
I just don't have time to do a lot of hit and run anymore...darn it.

Posted by: Cricket at April 1, 2008 04:15 PM


Too damned funny....thought I would share..
Mark won't get it but Mark doesn't get most everything anyway....

Posted by: Carrie at April 1, 2008 07:24 PM

Miz Cricket..
Miss you but wish you the best of luck in your goals...
Get some..!!!

Posted by: Carrie at April 1, 2008 07:26 PM

I could go for a five-mile hump right about now.

Posted by: John Galt at April 1, 2008 08:30 PM

Just wonderin' if these "statistics" have anything to do with 01 April. Something more that fishy here...

(and no, I did not read every comment word for word)

Posted by: Frank at April 1, 2008 08:37 PM

"Wow, Mark. For someone with a moniker of John Galt, you really are into the "victim" side of things, aren't you? Obviously personal responsibility and self-control are foreign concepts to you."

HF6, It is an ambulance-chasing, planted-finger-in-the-chili-bowl, personal injury-type shyster in Coliformico. It eats, drinks, and sh!t's *victimology*. That's all It knows. The only five mile hump It would willingly go on is to find the accident that caused the traffic jam on the freeway to see if It could drum up some business.
Even though It should know better, and in spite of the fact that It has been informed repeatedly that It is not welcome here, It persists in illegally cyber-stalking this website.
Continuing to waste your time and energy trying to reason with or understand It would be an exercise in futility. I'm sure you have better things to do.

Posted by: DL-Sly at April 2, 2008 01:11 AM

Dark Lord Sly ~ You kill me! I figured it all out (thanks Carrie) but did so too late. I won't make the same mistake again.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at April 2, 2008 03:01 AM

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on rape or sexual assaults, but I am a retired police officer. That said, I conducted initial investigations on hundreds of rape cases; looking back over my experiences, I bet I can count the number of real rapes on both hands. Yes, probably less than 10 actual criminal sexual assaults. The rest? The reasons for the initial reports ranged from retributions to excuses for staying out all night.

Tough cases to prosecute when the "victim" is working the system for their own agenda; it happens all the time. I would guess the military isn't much different than the civilian world in this regard, I would be very suspicious of any statistics that claimed otherwise.

Posted by: Scott at April 2, 2008 09:38 AM

Scott, in the interest of perpetuating the mythos of feminists who need the government to protect them (another aspect of the nanny state that I find darkly amusing), who do you think you are?
You are a man. You have no understanding of what these delicately nurtured vyctyms have experienced. Shame on you for exercising common sense, logic and reason.

That has no place because it doesn't validate agendas (except to expose them) or feelings.

Snark mode off:
I am curious though, when you got to the bottom of the allegations/accusations that were false, what did the victims do then?

I would hope that they were sufficiently shamed to change their behavior and apologize.

Posted by: Cricket at April 2, 2008 12:15 PM

Cricket, to tell you the truth, once the real stories came out I pretty much went on my way. Both police departments I worked for were busy urban departments, so we didn't have the luxury of following up on non-criminal issues very often.

I can speculate a little, from experience. I don't recall any apologies offered (when a suspect was even actually named, a rare event) and I couldn't even guess about behavioral changes, but I doubt it.

Heh heh heh... ya know I have always been criticized for applying common sense, logic and reason to what are often emotionally charged issues... I guess I'm a little strange that way.

Posted by: Scott at April 2, 2008 03:23 PM

Cricket, you ignorant slut.

These women should not apologize.

Scott should apologize for his unfeeling application of this so-called "common sense" to the vastly more important realm of gender identity issues. He cannot ever hope to understand the pervasive milieu of oppression by the dominant patriarchy as experienced by fully half of the human race since the dawn of time: indeed, through his insensitivity, he is guilty of re-raping these poor women who were never raped to begin with, compounding their victimhood in ways we can only guess at.

Posted by: Cass at April 2, 2008 03:36 PM

Damnit Cass... you made me spit coffee all over my laptop! BWAAAAHAAHAAHAA!!!!!!

Posted by: Scott at April 2, 2008 04:08 PM


Posted by: Just Call Me a Tool of the Patriarchy at April 2, 2008 04:11 PM

Ignorant slut?


I miss Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin getting into it...must go see what is on You Tube.

Posted by: Cricket at April 2, 2008 07:37 PM

... and I tried to give you a link to a You Tube piece of Ray Charles singing his hit "You Don't Know Me", just for the fun of it.

Odd. Sounded more like that Dupre chick singing "You Don't Owe Me"...

Posted by: BillT at April 5, 2008 11:52 AM