Family Research Council: End Of DADT Means More Gay Rape In The Military

Sadly, and somewhat paradoxically, this is some of the funniest shit I've ever read w/r/t why gays can't be soliders. Fellatio while someone is sleeping? Pretty sure this isn't even possible. I'm seriously laughing out loud this is so funny.

I sense this may be Mr. Sprigg's hopeful fantasy disguised as outrage.

Because DADT somehow keeps this from happening now, right? Anybody else recall the whole Massa "snorkeling" incident a few months ago?

A gay person has no more tendancy to become an offender than a straight person. The ignorance of these people is only surpassed by their offensiveness. Actually, if you look at the last several years, it is the fundamentalists on the right that have had far more sex scandals than the gay population.

"In a number of these cases the victim was sleeping or intoxicated," he replied. "Under those circumstances, their memory may be clouded and so the evidence may not be strong enough to stand up in a court-martial and actually prove guilt on a charge of forcible sodomy for example."

Perhaps the FRC could provide some of their famous "counseling" for those in the military with dreams of homosexual activity... I hear they're always looking for someone to carry their bags.

Why has no one asked Mitch McConnell about this? He was in the Army for a few days.

The FRC are really a bunch of 'sick puppies".......or maybe they are just sexually frustrated folks.....

"In a number of these cases the victim was sleeping or intoxicated," he replied. "Under those circumstances, their memory may be clouded and so the evidence may not be strong enough to stand up in a court-martial and actually prove guilt on a charge of forcible sodomy for example."

But strong enough for the Family Research Council to put out an official 13 page report? What a bunch of jackasses.

1. Rape isn't about sexual orientation, or sexual attraction. It's about power, control, and domination

2. Rapists don't choose their victims based on the rapist's sexual orientation, they choose them based on access, easy target, and who they perceive will fill their need for power, control, and domination.

3. If you perform oral sex on a guy and he is asleep, you are doing it wrong. Go take blow job classes.

Bend over, Sprig.

Oh, and another thing. Male sexual assault victims will be more likely to come forward if the repeal is passed. Because now, they won't have to worry about facing possible discharge if their sexual orientation is revealed during an investigation. In fact, sexual assault is often used as a weapon by homophobic straight men to demean those they suspect of being gay. Therefore, male to male rape is often perpetrated by straight men with gay male victims. Lifting DADT would actually give these victims a chance at recourse.

I'm not surprised at this nonsense.

Judging by the rubbish in Leviticus, it appears that Bible thumpers are only concerned about the rape of men. Women and girls? Not so much. After all, in the Bible the female of the species are nothing more than the spoils of war.

This is the Christian Right's last gasp at virulent homophobia. They may succeed, given the number of Christian Right warriors in the upper echelons of the Pentagon, but any success would only be temporary. This time around, public opinion is squarely against them.

Actually, I would suggest that the Pope and his pals repeal DADT at the Vatican and see if the frequency of rapes in the Catholic church decreases.

To underscore my earlier point:

Myth: Only gay men sexually assault other men. Reality: Most men who sexually assault other men identify themselves as heterosexual. This fact helps to highlight another reality -- that sexual assault is about violence, anger, and control over another person, not lust or sexual attraction.

http://cmhc.utexas.edu/booklets/maleassault/menassault.html

Women are raped and sexually harrassed by the thousands in the military with few men being brought to account. Lets get rid of all the heterosexuals who are raping our women who want to serve their country and protect our freedoms.

We would lose lots of men in a short period of time and our women would be lots safer and have many fewer cases of female PTSD caused not by battle but by men on the prowl. That's what I hear from the female military as a psychiatric nurse through the years. Makes me sick.

Why are conservatives so obsessed with sex?

Here is a great site on male rape:

Male Rape as an Act of Anti-Gay Violence

Unfortunately, incidents of anti-gay violence also include forcible rape, either oral or anal. Attackers frequently use verbal harassment and name-calling during such a sexual assault. Given the context of coercion, however, such technically homosexual acts seem to imply no homosexuality on the part of the offenders. The victim serves, both physically and symbolically, as a "vehicle for the sexual status needs of the offenders in the course of recreational violence" (Harry, 1992, p.115).

There are many reasons that male victims do not come forward and report being raped, but perhaps the biggest reason for many males is the fear of being perceived as homosexual. However, male sexual assault has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the attacker or the victim, just as a sexual assault does not make the victim survivor gay, bisexual or heterosexual. It is a violent crime that affects heterosexual men as much as gay men. The phrase "homosexual rape," for instance, which is often used by uninformed persons to designate male-male rape, camouflages the fact that the majority of the rapists are not generally homosexual (Donaldson, 1990).

In a well-known study of offenders and victims conducted by Nicholas Groth and Ann Burgess, one-half of the offender population described their consenting sexual encounters to be with women only, while 38 percent had consenting sexual encounters with men and women. Additionally, one-half of the victim population was strictly heterosexual. Among the offenders studied, the gender of the victim did not appear to be of specific significance to half of the offenders. Instead, they appeared to be relatively indiscriminate with regard to their choice of a victim -- that is, their victims included both males and females, as well as both adults and children (Groth & Burgess, 1980). The choice of a victim seemed to be more a matter of accessibility than of sexual orientation, gender or age.

http://www.svfreenyc.org/survivors_factsheet_38.html

Again, these claims that male rape is perpetrated by, primarily, gay men, simply don't add up. Only a minority of cases is the perpetrator gay men.

Geez. Relax. It's not like the Military is going to let those perverts from the leadership of the Family Research Council in. Now THAT would be dangerous to our troops.

Not picking on you but I have made a pact with myself to say that I would appreciate all removal of "Facebook" and "my Space" and "Twit". Sorry, I feel its a intrusive failure. Loserville.

That being said, my comment on the DADT is the reason they are so against it is that they cannot blackmail people, who are gay, in the service, anymore. That was always the reason and that was not being used so much by the "enemy" but by our own f-ed up leaders.

Ah yes, the Family Research Council, founded by James Dobson, who famously offered this bit of advice for a dad to help keep his son from 'turning gay': "He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."

I don't want to say that Dobson, Spriggs, et al are homosexuals, because most homosexuals don't deserve to be lumped in with these sick fucks. But, Dobson and Spriggs' efforts to rid themselves of their homoerotic obsessions by punishing openly gay individuals are so transparent, how can anyone not see them as a joke? A very sick joke.

I have been in close living quarters with men befor and I can tell you there were gay people where I was. I'm not gay so it was not a problem, no gay guys tried to touch me...I think that some of these anti-gay people feel tempted, they think, given the chance that they--might bang a gay dude. If a gay dude looks at me... So what? I look at girls. I seriously do not understand this fear of gays.

Times like this make me weep

I was born too soon

A sensitive soul, this Sprigg. He publishes a tract entitled "Homosexual Assault in the Military" and then, on the chance that some elderly virgin might read it, cautions that it "contains sexually explicit content." Well yeah, I suppose it might.

For a Senior Fellow at FRC—by the way, has any of these outfits ever had a junior fellow?—he strangely misreads the very text he wishes to retain, a Congressional finding in support of DADT:

The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

Four paragraphs down Sprigg says, "As is clear from the quote above, the law which was passed by Congress in 1993 indicates that those with "a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" are ineligible for military service." [his italics] He has omitted the words "persons who demonstrate"; and not demonstrating such a propensity was the whole half-assed point of DADT.

That omission alone shows that the author is either dishonest or so shoddy a scholar that his work deserves nothing but ridicule. I am open to both possibilities.

I'm a veteran (USN) and this is absurd. There were no (unwelcome) homosexual assaults. There were gay men on both ships I served on. Some chose to stay in the Navy, others used DADT to get out. Some straight sailors also used DADT to get processed out. The military ought to try and retain all these servicemen and women - those who are gay, and the grumpy straight. There were a great many lesbians in the service too. Not on any single day did I see any of them work less hard than anyone else in the service of their country - a country that affords them fewer rights than the straights they served alongside. To insult them like this, to make these kind of lurid accusations, while they're out there fighting for us, is well beyond the pale.

They'll turn the military into a fascist thug mob for Obama..like the SA and SS were for Hitler

Hmmm. On a submarine, where no women were allowed to serve (until this year), 100% of the reported rapes were homosexual. This means that 100% of the submariners in the Navy are gay. If we are to accept the meaningless FRC statistical "analysis."

Funny - I just pulled up Sprigg's bio on Wikipedia, and surprise! surprise! Not a hint of military experience. Oh, sure, his little group managed to find a handful of homophobic ex-officers who if they weren't raging against "teh ghey menace" would probably be demanding Obama turn over his birth certificate, but officers are NOT the best at being in touch with the troops (ex-officers are even worse).

The troops have, for the most part, grown up in a society that has been more accepting of homosexuality. This is especially true of the newer troops, with whom these ex-officers have never associated. The rape argument is little more than desperation on their part and one that is easily ignored when compared with the facts about what rape really is about (power, not sexuality).

Sprigg and his ilk, unless they are ready to enlist themselves, should let those of us who are actual active duty military move forward, and instead go slink off somewhere to sulk.

Ok, I read the post and the report. And the shitload of comments which appear to have been made exclusively by homosexual males, as I didn't see any that even implied otherwise. I came away with this:

1) There's a lotta gay shit going on in the military.
2) There's also a lot of raping going on in the military.
3) There's not a lot of women in the military.
4) Pretty much ALL sexual contact is forbidden in the military while on base/duty.

What do I think about all of this?

1) I'm really glad I'm not in the military.
2) The military needs a new rank of specialist: E4 Specialist Morale Orificer.

As far as any policy changes go, short of adding Morale Orificers goes, I think it's all pointless.

Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies is exposed as having an inappropriate gay affair in, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Where has this porcine, squinty-eyed Christian been while women were getting raped by their military brethren?

I get that he thinks he's utterly desirable to teh gay menz, but he'd be wrong about that.

what's he talking about, gays are already in the military. They were in the military when I served. I never heard of any fellatio while sleeping.

Oh yeah. Our big, tough, straight, macho soldiers will be scared of the gays. Will think they have to submit to rape because superior officers won't stop it and quit the corps. What horseshit.

Even if 10% of the population is gay, they're still outnumbered for God's sake. These fear-mongering ludite assholes project latent homo tendencies and phobias they don't even know they have. THEY'RE IGNORANCE AND HATE is the problem, not the gays.

"...when we started tightening up on rape"? = "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

There went Lt. Col. Dick Black's credibility on the issue of sexual aggression.

Something tells me he pre-occupation with anal tells me you will find him in a park being arrested soon

Interesting. There are a bunch of people so worried about gay rape that they want to exclude all gay men from the military.

And yet I don't recall a similar uproar, demanding all straight men be removed from the military after many, many, many reported incidences of rape against female civilians and military personnel.

It's almost like they don't particularly care about preventing rape, but they are simply looking for any made-up excuse to deny gay people full citizenship.

Isn't this the same organization whose founding member was on a vacation with his own rent-a-boy? These people are such fucking hypocrites

Family Research Council, hmm... What a joke. Everyone and their brother already knows that the only "rape" that happens between men is ONLY in our glorious prison system. Never have I read in the news where one guy is raped by another in the streets. Now, in the military? I doubt it very much.

I'll say that Peter has done a lot of deep, intense "research" on his own for years & is still hitting the subject hard.

There are homosexuals & there are queers. Spriggs is as queer as can be. That is his main qualification for FRC leadership.

Just another piece of kookook "research". Doesn't mean diddlysquat.

I was wondering how the straight servicemen were going to turn themselves into victims.

Hoo-boy, that's a whole lot of logic fail from the FRC.

Are they staying our poor straight troops can't defend themselves? No wonder we're not winning against the Taliban. I say send in the queers. We'll kick the Taliban ass....they'll be too scared we're gonna want some.

Based on this self-loathing closet-case's statistics, 91.8% of sexual assaults are caused by heterosexuals. That number is incredibly high. So high, in fact, that I think the sensible solution is to ban all male heterosexuals from serving in the military. That's the only way to protect the women that serve our country.

Does this dimwit actually think that a heterosexual man would allow another man to give him oral sex without his permission? ...and then be too afraid to confront his so-called abuser? Hilarious!

Imagine this scenario, if you will:

Two U.S. servicemen - one gay, one straight - are out having a night on the town; drinking, dancing, the whole bit. At some point during the evening, things get a little out of control - the straight guy is hammered, and the gay guy decides to take advantage of the situation. The gay soldier plies the straight victim with alcohol, or perhaps drugs him, and proceeds to rape and sodomize him repeatedly throughout the night. The next day, the attacker goes about his business, as if nothing has happened. The victim is scared, angry, confused, and seriously questioning whether or not to report the incident to his superiors. He eventually does report it.

What do you suppose would happen in this situation? Most like, several - if not all - of the following:

a. the gay soldier would be prosecuted to the fullest extent that the armed forces allows, most likely ending up in prison somewhere
b. religious groups would use the incident as 'evidence of the evils of homosexuality' and whip their base into a homophobic frenzy
c. anyone calling for the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell would be demonized by the right-wing media
d. other soldiers would use it as an excuse to harass and intimidate other gays in the military, none of whom had anything to do with the incident (etc. etc.)

Now imagine the victim was female.

This is how the military treats female victims of sexual violence within its ranks*: http://bit.ly/9OOlZu

Do you think it would be the same if the victim was a straight man and the attacker was a gay man?

Why are heterosexual men so afraid of gays in the military? Are they afraid they might have to endure some of the same leering, taunting, sexual harassment, and possible assault that they so often inflict on women? Are they afraid they might be the victim instead of the attacker? Afraid they might have to defend themselves from someone their own size and strength?

Why is abusing female soldiers so often tolerated - if not outright ignored - while the mere "thought" of gay men in the military is so vehemently opposed? Why do superior officers so often look the other way when the victim is a woman? Are they saying that women should be "used to it" so it's ok? Or that it's "natural" for men to abuse females? If gays in the military is "bad for morale", will someone please tell me what having heterosexual men who RAPE WOMEN in the military is supposed to be? What? Someone please explain it to me. I'm all ears.

Because, as a woman, I am completely disgusted every time these cowards try to justify their support of DADT. It's a slap in the face to women everywhere, not least those in the service, to excuse violence against women as "normal" and somehow "not as bad" as whatever it is to which they think allowing gays in the military might lead.

I have an idea. Being that,

a. heterosexual males seemingly can't handle being looked at by other men
b. heterosexual males rape and abuse female soldiers far more often than female soldiers abuse males
and c. hetero males are the vast majority complaining about gays in the military

I propose the following: Ban heterosexual males from serving in the U.S. military. Brilliant! Problem solved.

*This link is used to illustrate that women are generally told to "sit down and shut up" when it comes to this type of abuse in the military - they are shunned, accused of lying, etc. They must have been 'asking for it' if they had a drink or wore a low-cut blouse, etc. If the victims were male, I suspect this scenario would be quite different.

Those Family Research Council perverts need to do a little more research.

what really obvious here is this Family Research Council is just so gay and in the closet. Gosh i guess we just have to wait to see who comes "out" next. such ignorance is part of the plan of keeping "Christians in check." Can't have people enjoying the body God gave them. that would be a no no to these freaks.

you know, Father knows best. and Father wants some but has been told it's a no no. so no one else can. lol. sick people, our version of the Taliban

Women are raped and sexually harrassed by the thousands in the military with few men being brought to account. Lets get rid of all the heterosexuals who are raping our women who want to serve their country and protect our freedoms.

We would lose lots of men in a short period of time and our women would be lots safer and have many fewer cases of female PTSD caused not by battle but by men on the prowl. That's what I hear from the female military as a psychiatric nurse through the years. Makes me sick.

m65 kamagra