The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on September 27, 2011, 10:21:01 AM
-
It's not called ASAT it actually runs under a different acronym (SHARP) but who cares about that pointless crap.
The thought on my mind is: this is a frickin' soup sandwhich.
OK, fine: there's a problem with sexual assault. There always will be whenever you have males and females together, especially if they're young and away from mommy and daddy for the first time with a license to drink themselves into a coma. Yes, sexual assault comes in a variety of flavors but the army, for the last couple of years, has been spun-up on the casual/date-rape variety. Of course they also talk about men being assaulted, i.e.getting a "hundred mile an hour bikini wax" wherein the victim has his pubic hair torn off by assaulters using the army's infamous heavy duty adhesive tape that is rated to withstand 100 MPH winds.
It's gotten so bad though they send out such illogical incongruities as: a female who is drunk cannot consent to sex because she's not in control of her mental faculties but a male who is drunk is responsible for his actions as if he were stone cold sober.
The first reflex is to claim this is sexist against men but it's actually sexist against women. Supposedly women are strong enough and bear sufficient mental resilience to serve beside men in combat but slip them a drink or twelve and they're helpless little girls all over again and are too stupid before or after the party to know what's best for them.
Either you're a goddam soldier or you're not.
Which brings me to my bigger point:
Why the bloody blue **** are we having SEXUAL assault training. We should have assault training--PERIOD. The fact that a penis in play should have zero consideration for how anybody, male or female, conducts themself before, during or after an attack.
Violence is violence is violence and there is only one way to deal with it: superior violence or threat thereof (NOTE: when you get hauled off to jail it is because of the threat of superior violence should you choose to flee/resist/escape).
The army needs a defined doctrine on how to deal with assault regardless of its nature or intent and it should be gender neutral.
No one would advise a female soldier to lay down passively if she were being physically assaulted with the intent to kill her; there is no reason she should be advised to contact her chain-of-command and/or sexual assault response officer AFTER the fact just because a penis is different from a lead pipe. It's moronic because it only addresses the assault after the fact. To offer only after attack solutions is to imply there are no actions before or during the attack. Before and during the attack she can be on guard and she can resist. Would we expect a man to passively accept a physical beating?
If you're going to send your daughters to war where thousands of men make a concerted effort to violently dismember her with every tool available to modern civilization then why won't you tell her she has our blessings to stick her car keys in the eye of that young, stupid private that got too drunk and is trying to **** her against her will?
BTW - unless I miss my mark, research has shown that women who physically resist their rapists, even if "unsuccessfully," recover emotionally faster than those who do not. That alone would seem to justify a change in paradigm.
To hell with SHARP, we need a new acronym for army sexual assault training and I propose the term FIGHT: First, I Get His Testicles.
DISCLAIMER: No, I'm not up on charges.
-
Just ban alcohol.
Yeah. That's the ticket.
(Apart from that smart-assed comment, Snugs, you hit the mark again. h5)