ROK Drop

Avatar of GI KoreaBy on December 24th, 2013 at 3:45 am

Male Military Servicemembers and Sexual Assault

» by in: US Military

The Baltimore Sun has an article about military sexual assault and this time it actually informs readers that the problematic survey endlessly quoted by critics shows that most of the unwanted sexual contact (USC) is reported by males. The article infers these males were assaulted by other males and then provides a few anecdotal examples to include all the way back in the 1970s. However the author’s most recent example from 2009 I am skeptical of:

When Jeloudov arrived for basic training at Fort Benning, Ga., he says, the taunting began immediately: “You commie fag, you Russian fag. You actors, you’re all faggots.”
And then, the chilling warning: “We’re going to teach you a lesson.”
Two weeks into basic training, Jeloudov says, he was gang-raped.
“I go and try to explain it to one of the commanders. He just said, ‘Why did you tell them about the acting? Why did you tell them anything about Russia? This would never have happened if you had kept your mouth shut.’ So I’m to blame.”
Jeloudov was asked if he knew the names of his attackers. He didn’t.
He says he was told the assault must not have happened.
“From that point on,” says Jeloudov, 39, now homeless in San Francisco, “there was no point in saying anything.” [Baltimore Sun]

I am skeptical that two weeks into basic training that other new enlisted members still scrambling from the shock of their new environment would think it is a good time to go gang rape someone. The author actually admits that he can not verify any of the stories and yet publishes them anyway. I wonder if he even bothered to request their service records to verify if the were even in the military? Why didn’t the author contact the basic training drill sergeants and commander to get their side of the story? I am not saying these events did not happen but I would expect a little journalism to substantiate them instead of nothing.

Something else the author does is once again equate the survey definition of unwanted sexual contact as the same as sexual assault:

The outrage over sexual assault in the military has focused largely on female service members, and with reason: A woman in uniform is much likelier to be targeted than a man, Pentagon surveys indicate. But because male service members greatly outnumber females, officials believe the majority of sexual assault victims — 53 percent in 2012 — are men.

As I have stated repeatedly unwanted sexual contact is not sexual assault. It also being assumed the males that reported USC in the survey had it committed by other males. The survey does not breakdown the reported USC by gender but it does say 51% of the males that reported USC said it was unwanted touching. So how much of this statistic is from women touching a males butt or thigh at the club?

Bottom line is that once again this is either lazy or advocacy journalism that does not try to present facts to inform readers. Instead it presents misinterpreted statistics and unsubstantiated accusations to push an agenda.

Tags: ,
  • setnaffa
    7:12 am on December 24th, 2013 1

    “Science” and Journalism have degenerated to something less than Usenet…

  • kangaji
    7:43 am on December 24th, 2013 2

    Yeah, during basic we thought they put salt peter in the eggs because nobody got aroused. This was at Benning

  • Bob
    7:58 am on December 24th, 2013 3

    good satire in number 2

  • ChickenHead
    8:09 am on December 24th, 2013 4

    So most sexual assault victims are men who are victimized by other men?

    I see.

    Well, obviously, we need more homsexuals in the military.

  • setnaffa
    9:12 am on December 24th, 2013 5

    Ft Benning is Columbus, Geargia, right? Did you ever get to visit Tazewell or Buena Vista? Long story there… Just wondering what you may have thought about Marion County…

  • Don Bacon
    2:05 pm on December 25th, 2013 6

    sexual assault.
    Intentional sexual contact characterized by use of force, threats, intimidation, or abuse of authority or when the victim does not or cannot consent. The term includes a broad category of sexual offenses consisting of the following specific UCMJ offenses: rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, forcible sodomy (forced oral or anal sex), or attempts to commit these acts.–DoDD 6495.01, January 23, 2012

  • PHT-Advocator
    7:12 pm on December 25th, 2013 7

    I don’t follow military thinking.

    Let’s try for an unobtainable goal by creating broad and ridiculous rules!

    Failure? No problem we’ll fix it by changing the rules so they’re even more ridiculous and toss in a survey that will allow for complete misinterpretation of the situation.

    Media using the survey to paint a false picture of reality? Bah ignore that because we’re just going to shift focus and bloat the ever-living poo out of our unsuccessful program to combat this problem which has existed since cavemen walked the Earth.

    Soon the military as a whole will do military stuff as an extra duty and primarily serve as the country’s Sexual Assault Quick Reaction Force.

  • Vince
    9:22 pm on December 25th, 2013 8

    #7– as long as we have adventure type self actualizing experiences like zip lining and whitewater rafting and parasailing, costumed like real soldiers, it will be the single best federal jobs program ever!

  • Louis Dechert
    5:49 am on December 26th, 2013 9

    #7 A good assessment of what we now have and what is spreading like cancer. I suggest that your lead sentence is incorrect. The “military” isn’t thinking.

    The uglies in the Senate plus the Supreme Ruler are the ones driving the thing.
    Hopefully we can have a happier new year in spite of them. “Free elections” or an “American Spring” are coming.


RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 32055 access attempts in the last 7 days.