Friday, May 28, 2010

Anti-Gays Flaming As DADT Burns Out

As Congress moves to allow gays and lesbians to serve their country in the military, a Montgomery County Public Schools advisor for sex education has said that if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the military, the result will be an increase in the number of incidents where men fondle and perform oral sex on other men who are sleeping.

The Family Research Council document authored by MCPS citizens advisory committee member Peter Sprigg uses some data from the National Health and Social Life Survey estimating that 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women identify themselves as gay or lesbian. Then his report, titled Homosexual Assault in the Military, states that "more than eight percent of sexual assaults in the military are homosexual in nature," adding, "This is nearly three times what would be expected." The eight percent figure is based on the FRC's inspection of case synopses for all sexual assaults reported in the military in fiscal year 2009. The FRC notes that in their analysis 7.55 percent of all the cases were male-on-male assaults, and 0.61 percent were female on female. Their conclusion is that "it is hard to escape the conclusion that, in fact, homosexual and bisexual servicemembers are, on average, more likely to engage in sexual assault than are heterosexual servicemembers."

In concluding this, they dismiss the possibility that homosexual assault is more likely to be reported, and in fact contend that same-sex assaults are probably under-reported because of the stigma associated with homosexuality. This is a shot in the dark and almost certainly wrong.

Most of the cases cited in Sprigg's report are groping incidents. Does a woman report every time a man grabs her? Of course not. Overly aggressive men should be held accountable for their behavior, but for one reason or another they often are not -- this is a social problem in its own right. A straight man who is the recipient of unexpected attention from another man may be offended and even shocked in a way that few woman would be. One result is going to be asymmetry in the reporting of heterosexual and homosexual assaults. A man grabs a woman, she avoids him after that; a man grabs a man, he freaks out and reports it. The data that the Family Research Council "analyzed" give a lot of information about bias inherent in self-report of sensitive issues and very little information about the prevalence of sexual assault in the US military.

A government report issued in 2008 found that forty one percent of women veterans interviewed at a veterans hospital said they had been sexually assaulted while they were in the military. Twenty nine percent said they had been raped during their service. The FRC's data set comprised "all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009." According to Wikipedia, as of last year there were 1,454,515 people in active duty. Twenty percent of those are women, approximately 291,000 of them. Forty one percent of those have been sexually assaulted, 41 percent of 291,000 is 119,270. Yet the official sexual assault file contains fewer than two thousand cases, about one per cent of the estimated true number.

The FRC report makes this interesting reference: "Although these [homosexual assault] cases are part of the public record, they are rarely reported on by the media—in contrast to cases of heterosexual assault, such as the infamous “Tailhook” scandal." But the problem with Tailhook was that that kind of heterosexual groping and sexual assault had become so widespread and commonplace that the participants hardly felt they were doing anything unusual or wrong. It wasn't that there was a wild party, the problem was that there was a culture within the military that considered that kind of heterosexual aggression normal. Of course the the vast majority of heterosexual assaults are never reported in the media -- imagine if there was a news story every time a guy in a bar or at a party or even at work touched a woman inappropriately!

Really, it's not surprising but this report is nonsense. One weird thing, they censor innocent medical terms like "penis" and "anus," which are spelled "p---s" and "a--s."

Talking Points Memo reports on a conference call that MCPS sex-ed advisor and Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg was on. Sprigg is quoted:
"If open homosexuality was permitted in the military, these numbers can only increase," Sprigg said. "The number of homosexuals would grow, the threat of discharge for homosexual behavior would be eliminated and protected class status for homosexuals would make victims hesitant to report assaults and make commanders hesitant to punish them for fear of appearing homophobic." Family Research Council: End Of DADT Means More Gay Rape In The Military

There is a massive problem of sexual abuse in the military, and it has nothing to do with gay people. If Peter Sprigg were concerned with sexual assault in the military he would start with the elephant in the room, the system-wide rape and abuse of servicewomen. No, Peter Sprigg is obsessively focused on the possibility of a man groping another man, an event that is trivial when you realize that nearly a third of military women are raped while they're on active duty.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A man grabs a woman, she avoids him after that; a man grabs a man, he freaks out and reports it. The data that the Family Research Council "analyzed" give a lot of information about bias inherent in self-report of sensitive issues"

Bias in favor of heterosexuality is completely appropriate. Heterosexuality is a cornerstone of society.

"If Peter Sprigg were concerned with sexual assault in the military he would start with the elephant in the room, the system-wide rape and abuse of servicewomen."

This is a rhetorical magic trick. Spriggs' point about the potential problem of a homosexual presence in barracks could only be disputed by evidence of a corresponding overwhelming benefit from that presence. There is none.

Any rape of servicewomen has nothing to do with DADT.

Unless you're saying that more homosexuals will decrease this rape because there will be fewer heterosexuals in the service.

Face it, this is being pushed now, before the military review is complete, for one reason:

Everyone knows full well that repeal will never pass after November 2010.

May 28, 2010 3:37 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

before the military review is complete

"The Pentagon study, expected by the end of the year, will assess the views of service members, families and other relevant groups on how lifting the ban should be carried out. Mr. Gates said the study was not to determine whether to repeal the law, only how best to institute any repeal voted by Congress.

May 28, 2010 7:48 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Anon´s friends bite the dust again.

May 29, 2010 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

McCain is going to filibuster the Senate passage.

The House bill includes funding for expensive jet engines that Gates opposes.

Imagine that- Democrats passing spending that the Secretary of Defense opposes in a trillion dollar defict environment.

This will be great in November.

DADT is here to stay.

We don't need homosexual assaults in the military.

May 29, 2010 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

WaPo reported in February 2010:

"Three years ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was pretty clear about his stand on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

A former war hero, McCain said he would support ending the ban once the military's top brass told him that they agreed with the change.

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it," McCain said in October 2006 to an audience of Iowa State University students.

That day arrived Tuesday, with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen testifying to senators after President Obama's announcement that he would seek a congressional repeal of the 15-year-old policy.

Mullen called repealing the policy, which bans openly gay men and lesbians from serving, "the right thing to do" and said he was personally troubled by effectively forcing service members to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

Gates told the Armed Services Committee, "I fully support the president's decision."

In response, McCain declared himself "disappointed" in the testimony. "At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy," he said bluntly, before describing it as "imperfect but effective."

Since losing to Obama in the 2008 election, McCain has become a consistent critic of the president. He also has, for the first time in years, a serious primary fight on his hands..."

Imagine that, a politician changing a position 180 degrees because of "a serious primary fight."

Got to love those insider Washington DC political types who support things before they turn against them!

May 29, 2010 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it helps him to oppose DADT, this is clear evidence that the public doesn't support repeal.

We don't need homosexual assaults in the military.

May 30, 2010 7:10 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

If it helps him to oppose DADT, this is clear evidence that the public doesn't support repeal.

You are entitled to your own opinions, however, you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts, as reported by the WaPo are that the majority of Americans, from 57-75% of us support repeal of DADT:

A Post/ABC News poll showed that 75 percent of Americans support ending "don't ask don't tell." One from the New York Times put support for gay men and lesbians serving openly at 70 percent. And 57 percent surveyed by Quinnipiac University favored repealing the 16-year-old law. Gallup shows that 70 percent of the American people are in line with that sentiment in a poll released on Monday.

May 30, 2010 8:53 AM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

We don't need homosexual assaults in the military.

We don't need any sexual assaults in the military. Let's acknowledge the 'heterosexual assault/rape' elephant here in the room.

Or perhaps some of the anonymii yearn for a return to the good ole' days of all-male military, 'liberty ports', and 'good', 'approved' heterosexual rape as an American birthright.

My combat service was in the Bosnian war. The liberty port was Budapest. When we RON'd at Taszar, we were issued condoms by the military. When the busses arrived at the resort in Budapest, the sex-industry representatives circulated passing out fliers. Everything catered to the notion of American Soldier as sex-starved animal who couldn't help himself. I'd love to know the R&R (I&I) arrangements for Iraq and Afghanistan...

What a wonderful world-view you got there.

May 30, 2010 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

We don't need homosexual assaults in the military.

How do you feel about heterosexual assaults in the military? There were 1,643 reported sexual assaults in the military in 2009 but only 134 of them were same-sex in nature. So tell us how you feel about the "need" for the 1509 opposite-sex sexual assaults that were reported in 2009. Should "heterosexuals" be forced to hide their sexual orientation in the military too?

Why do you suppose the Tailhook Scandal, "where more than 100 U.S. Navy and United States Marine Corps aviation officers sexually assaulted 87 women, or otherwise engaged in "improper and indecent" conduct" (quote from Wikipedia) failed to cause the Family Research Council to conclude that we no longer need more heterosexual Navy and Marine Corp aviation officers?

And of those 134 same-sex assaults in 2009, how many were perpetrated by gays compared to how many of them were perpetrated by "straights" like Larry Craig or Ted Haggard?

For example, we all remember those pictures taken at Abu Graib of naked male Iraqi prisoners stacked in pyramids or displaying their genitals as ordered by "everstraight" heterosexual soldiers like Charles Ganer, who had his pregnant fiance, Lynndie England pose so he could have keepsakes of evidence of his same-sex sexual assaults.

May 30, 2010 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

There was an interesting panel exchange after the Colin Powell interview on ABC News This Week.

Discussing DADT, George Will said:

"...I was struck by your interview with General Powell and the demonstration that from '93 to now, seventeen years is a very long time in the United States. The Supreme Court has a famous phrase it used in some opinion [Trop v. Dulles decided in 1958]:

"The evolving standards of decency the mark of maturing society."

Clearly these are evolving and the case is over basically..."

May 31, 2010 9:20 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The notion that 2.8% of men are gay and 1.4% of women are lesbian is ridiculous. Peter compares out LGBT in the population to records of assaults by closeted people in the military. Apples to kangaroos.

June 02, 2010 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

And FAUX NEWS' Bill O’Reilly compares gay people to al Qaeda

"...culture warrior Bill O’Reilly ran a segment about a new gay-themed McDonald’s ad airing in France. After previewing the ad, which shows a young man talking on the phone with his boyfriend, O’Reilly asked Fox News anchor Jane Skinner, “does that make you want to buy a Big Mac? … Because, you know, straight people are going to watch that, too.” When Skinner explained that the ad was part of a campaign showcasing people from different walks of life, O’Reilly asked if they would cut an ad featuring Al-Qaeda and insisted that the ad would never run in America:

O’REILLY: Alright, so look, they want to make a political statement selling burgers. They’re entitled to it. It will never run in the USA. They’ll never do that.

SKINNER: Part of an overreaching campaign called come as you are, which you saw at the end there. So they show people in different walks of life. This happens to be their gay friendly ad.

O’REILLY: OK. Do they have an al Qaeda ad, you know, come as you are? You know?

SKINNER: And how do you know it’s not coming to the States?

O’REILLY: I don’t know.

SKINNER: Never say never.

O’REILLY: No. That would not — I guarantee you that will not run here."

June 04, 2010 7:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home