Posts Tagged ‘rape’

Should American Military Employ “Comfort Women”?

June 11, 2017

“Make love not war” was a popular slogan in the late sixties.   Soldiers in many wars  have found that “making love” is a way to forget the realities of war.

Sex and war have been connected since the first time men from one village attacked another village to kidnap women.    Invading armies often have a problem with soldiers sexually assaulting local  women.
American military forces have an ongoing problem with male personnel sexually assaulting female personnel.

Although genes don’t control human behavior the way genes control the behavior of other animals,  genes do influence human behavior.    It may be significant that in species in which  males may fight each other to the death, the fighting is over acquisition of females.

During World  War II Japan decided to try to  prevent the rape problem by hiring women  to serve as “comfort women” who would provide sexual services for Japanese soldiers.   The size of the Japanese military hampered the effort to have an all volunteer unit.  Japan dealt with this situation by conscripting  women in the countries Japan conquered.  The controversy over the practice continues to  hamper relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

Although I would not advocate the use of “comfort women”, I recognize “comfort women”  could provide an option for reducing rapes by male personnel.

Women providing sexual services would probably have a military job title like “personal therapist”.  The men they provide services to would be officially listed as “patients” and the “treatment” they receive would have the same privacy protection as other medical treatment.  Patients would have to pass some basic physical exam to make sure they don’t have contagious diseases or medical conditions that sexual activity might affect.   Therapists  would inform patients that a doctor or nurse might monitor their treatment by video.  Any monitoring  would be for quality control as well as to protect the therapists.   There are rare cases in which even young seemingly healthy athletes have heart attacks during strenuous activity because of undetected heart conditions.

Therapists  would receive  training as counselors and be expected  to watch for problems like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder so men could  receive treatment as early as possible.
.
Outside  the building where the services are provided therapists would wear the same uniforms as other female personnel during the time when they are expected to be in uniform.     To guarantee personal privacy their living quarters would be separate from where the work area even if the living quarters are in the same building.    Therapists would receive hazardous duty pay because of the disease risk.   They would have a clothing allowance for their “work clothes”.

I realize that some people will question  having the military encourage what they consider an immoral practice.   I would ask these people if they  consider war a more moral activity than making love.   What many ignore is that prostitution is a business relationship rather than a personal relationship.   Although some prostitutes enjoy their work,  they don’t become involved with their clients.  The “personal therapists” I’m proposing would be providing a therapeutic service to those who are asked to risk their lives for their fellow Americans.  How can that be immoral?

Part of the rape problem is the failure of   American culture to teach men that they should learn to control their sexual nature.  Instead American culture encourages men to expect women to serve their sexual desires.   Unfortunately it isn’t practical for the military to change men’s sexual attitudes.   The most practical alternative is to employ women whose profession involves serving men’s sexual needs.

Advertisements

Do Heterosexuals Have Any Rights?

May 22, 2016

The current assault on women’s right to privacy in public restrooms implies that only those born with Gender Identity Disorder have any personal rights. GIDites believe that people with male anatomies who are dressed as women should be able to use restrooms designated for people with female anatomies. Women are justifiably concerned that sexual predators can take advantage of this situation and dress as women to gain access to women’s restrooms. Depriving women of their right to sexual privacy to accommodate men with a mental abnormality makes women second class citizens.

The GIDites claim to be harmless, but are actually Trojan horses who are creating opportunities for sexual predators who wish to deprive women of their sexual privacy.

Psychologists first used the term “Gender Identity Disorder” to describe persons who believed they had a brain of one sex trapped in the body of the other (transsexuals). Recent research using functional
MRI’s indicates that transsexuals really do have a brain of one sex in the body of the other sex. This research indicates that those who consider themselves “homosexuals” have this same birth defect but don’t recognize their condition. “Transvestites” are males who like to dress as females. It’s unclear if this desire involves a brain defect. I’m not aware of a term for females who like to dress as males.

GIDites claim that transsexuals and transvestites might be attacked if they used a men’s restroom while dressed as women. GIDites seem incapable of understanding that sexual predators occasionally dress as women and enter women’s restrooms in search of prey. If GIDites can enter women’s restrooms dressed as women then so can sexual predators. Doctors can use an MRI to determine if a person is a transsexual, but there is no test to determine if someone is a transvestite. Some sexual predators have taken advantage of this situation to gain access to potential victims.

GIDites reject a compromise that would provide the option of individual user restrooms for men dressed as women who don’t want to use a men’s restroom. Single user, or family, restrooms would help solve other problems. Parents are sometimes concerned about having a child of the opposite sex use a public restroom because they cannot be sure who will be in there.

A single user restroom would provide a safe place for a child to go. Public schools should switch to single user restrooms for all students. A poll indicates 43% of students fear harassment in restrooms.

Some adults might welcome the possibility of using a “private” restroom. For example, some have medical conditions that require them to use diapers or similar products. The women’s restrooms I used to clean had small trash receptacles for feminine hygiene products but I don’t know if all women’s restrooms have them. Men’s restrooms generally don’t have them so there is the potential for embarrassment when disposing of such products. The availability of single user restrooms would allow government to prohibit sexual predators, particularly those who prey on children, from using communal restrooms.

Government could eliminate the problem for transsexuals by having Obamacare cover sex change operations. Being born with a brain of one sex and the body of the other is a birth defect and surgery to put the body on the same sexual page as the brain is corrective surgery.

There can be no justification for increasing the risk of rape so that some men can dress up as women. Alternatives are available so such men can access a restroom. The potential cost to rape victims is too great to provide such men access to the same restrooms as women.

Rape can be an extremely traumatic event for women 31% of rape survivors have problems with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which is sometimes a problem for men who have been in extreme military combat. 13% of rape survivors attempt suicide and many turn to drugs or alcohol to escape the memory. 26.6% of women with bulimia nervosa reported they had been raped.

Those who want men dressed as women to have access to women’s restrooms obviously have no respect for a woman’s right to sexual privacy or safety. Congress should impeach any federal official who attempts to deprive women of their right to sexual privacy and increase the risk of sexual assault.

Homosexuals in Combat – Reality Check

December 16, 2010

Statements by military leaders that there would be no problems with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones would be more convincing if the military wasn’t having a problem with its male personnel sexually assaulting its female personnel.

Female veterans on a recent PBS documentary said that women were afraid to go anywhere on their bases alone in Afghanistan and Iraq because of concerns about being sexually assaulted. The Service Women’s Action Network and others have filed a lawsuit to obtain military records dealing with the extent of this problem.

The main problem with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones won’t be them attacking others, but others killing them because of concerns about being attacked. Some homosexuals claim that they look at other men the way men look at women. Many could interpret this claim as indicating homosexuals might attack other men the way some men attack women. .

A woman who is concerned about a sexual assault will take defensive measures such as finding someone to accompany her when she goes some place. Men are sexual predators and when predators are concerned about being attacked they may respond with a preemptive attack, particularly when they are in a combat zone where they have to be prepared to kill or be killed.

In Vietnam, the term “fragging” was coined to refer to one American killing another particularly by using a grenade. Sometimes the target was an officer who was considered overly aggressive in combat and thus a “threat” to the life of whoever decided to attack him.

I recall reading one news article about an enlisted man in a rear area who killed his first sergeant who he claimed was putting too much pressure on him.

In Vietnam I knew some infantrymen who smoked marijuana in the rear area who said they would kill someone for smoking it in the field. There was a case just before I left Vietnam of a man who was accused of killing other members of his unit for using drugs in the field.

Rape is often associated with warfare. Soldiers released from the moral controls that discourage killing may also lose the controls that discourage sexual assault.

There is the possibility that homosexuals in a combat situation might attempt rape. A more likely situation would be a false perception that a homosexual might attack. Such a perception could lead to action against the homosexual who seemed to pose a threat.

Women know that some men sometimes misinterpret an act of friendship as an indication of sexual interest. An act of friendship by a known homosexual could also be misinterpreted, with potentially fatal consequences.

One of the motivations of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was the murder of homosexual PO Allen Schindler by shipmate Airman Apprentice Terry Helvey in October, 1992, while Schindler was awaiting discharge for homosexuality. Helvey insisted he killed Schindler for “bossing him around” when he reached a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty.

The murder of PFC Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell, Ky., in 1999 has been blamed on anti-homosexual sentiment, but the instigator of the killing, SPC Justin Fisher, may have been motivated by jealousy because both were interested in a transsexual female impersonator who was undergoing treatment to become a woman.

The killing of Seaman August Provost while he was on guard duty at Camp Pendleton was believed by some to have been because he was homosexual. An aunt even suggested that he was killed by another homosexual to keep his sexuality secret. However, the official Navy report stated that the suspect PO Jonathan Campos, who committed suicide while in custody, killed Provost because Campos was on a crime spree.

Incidentally, Federal Judge Virginia A. Phillips violated the Constitution when she ruled against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The Constitution explicity assigns the powers to raise, regulate and direct the military to the legislative and executive branches. Congress and the President are free to exclude anyone from the military based on physical traits, personal characteristics or for engaging in behaviors that the Congress or President believe might interfere with military operations.

The President even has the authority to deny freedom of expression to those who wish to serve in the military as President Barack Obama did when he fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal for making negative comments about Obama. The courts can only intervene if punishment for military infractions involves something like imprisonment or death.