Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE! (when available)
Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Click HERE!
Posted on 03/06/2003 10:29:19 AM PST by Maedhros
Nothing follows...
Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE! (when available)
Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Click HERE!
Look, the notion that ANY YOUNG MAN should refrain from rape ought to be enough. I can't help but wonder--without any knowledge one way or another--just how substantive it all is. I can't get away from the notion that the term "rape" these days is applied to even CONSENSUAL relations, by the mainstream Feminists.
Ironically, I don't believe in sexual relations outside of marriage. That's one sure way to help ensure that such problems don't arise.
As it is, they ought to investigate this and if anything inappropriate went on--even illegal fraternization--then they ought to cashier those cadets.
But I think it is block-headed to believe that we can't go "back" to a sexually-segregated military.
In fact, I predict that within a generation or so, the attitude will be that we can no longer afford NOT to.
Well, I am a single-employee firm--me. But I have seen lots, and lots, and LOTS of problems in the workplace because of the mixing of the sexes. Yes, it would be good to go back to the 50s in this regard.
But that's beside the point. The point I AM making is that we cannot afford to compromise our national military readiness because we want to continue this social experiment.
I respectfully disagree.
I am afraid that the Feminists within and without the military establishment have made it impossible for the brass to address this sincerely. They have to hew to the politically-correct line. Their careers depend upon it.
I think it's block-headed to assume that men in the military can't be trusted to follow the UCMJ and that they should be seperated from the women because of this.
See Post 21 by Bush2000.
I find it hard to believe that 54 rapes could have gone unreported unless those rapes were the result of fraternization incidents that got out of control.
In such cases, both the men and the women were "perps" once the fraternization started.
If there was not any fraternization to begin with, the proving of rape is extremely simple:
1. Female reports rape.
2. Female has DNA evidence collected by Medical Officer
3. Perp is toast.
If there was consensual fraternization against regulations prior to the alleged "rape", that opens up a whole new can of worms. In those cases, the females will be reluctant to come forward as that will bring out the fact that she was violationg anti-fraternization regulations. In some cases, as Bush2000 pointed out, false allegations of sexual assault can be made.
The bottom line is that both the men and the women must follow the anti-fraternization regulations. This is not a simple matter of innocent women and male "perps".
No Fraternization = No Problem.
If you think my comment implied this should be treated as a violation of the honor code, then you totally misunderstood my comment.
You kick 'em out, but you don't flog 'em, then lock 'em up and throw away the key, for an honor code violation.
No women in the armed forces = no fraternization
It was always acceptable to fraternize with the WAC's, etc
I have no problem with women serving in a SEPERATE organization, but they have no business serving in the same units with men, period
I do, it would eliminate a lot of workplace problems.
Actually, i believe once they get married they should stay home where they belong (and where God intended them to be), but I am probably going to get a lot of flack for that statement
not to mention curing all the economic problems in this country that were caused by dual income households
Actually, i believe once they get married they should stay home where they belong (and where God intended them to be), but I am probably going to get a lot of flack for that statement
Actually you might be surprised, in some parts of the world many people would agree with you. It's called the Middle East. You may have heard of it. We've already fought one war there last year, fought one there in '91, and are about to fight another one in a few weeks. Many there share the same views on women as you do. Thankfully, they are there and not here (most of them at least), and you are in the minority (I am surprised you posted, I thought the Amish weren't allowed to use things like computers ;-) )
Actually, it's called the midwest, also known as the Bible Belt, or flyover country, and I'm not Amish, I'm Lutheran, we are allowed to use computers, as well as being allowed to drink alcohol & dance
My Grandmothers both stayed home, my Mother stayed home, and my wife will stay home or I won't marry her
Just what part of an OFFICER and GENTLEMAN do you not understand. If they will do it to a fellow service woman they will do it in the general population and maybe to your wife or daughter,if you have one. Put all in Jail. can the top brass
read the rest of the thread
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.