Military suffers wave of gay sex assaults

[J]

There was a time I opposed gays serving in the military but I changed
my opinion about two years ago. I realized that there was nothing
wrong with having gays serve in front-line battle units. If normal men
could make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, homos should be
afforded the same opportunity. As we have seen, opponents of 'gays in
the military' greatest fear has been realized, that gays couldn't keep
their paws off of young soldiers just entering the service. The
solution is simple, albeit not very popular; gay units. Gays would
still be able to serve, while young, normal men and boys would be
protected.











http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/military-suffers-wave-of-gay-sex-assaults/#lFjcOV54DxyEG4Rr.99







A recent military report on sexual assault in the military shocked
many in Washington and around the nation, but a leading expert on
military personnel revealed the prevalence of men assaulting other men
is one of the major headlines in this study.

The extended analysis of the report first appeared in Monday�s edition
of the the Washington Times.

The Defense Department survey of sexual assault in the military during
fiscal 2012 estimated 26,000 assaults took place in the armed forces.
Nearly 3,000 of them were formally reported. Just more than 6 percent
of women reported being victims of assault and 1.2 percent of men said
the same. Given the much larger number of men in the military, those
numbers suggest 14,000 of the assaults in the Pentagon study happened
to men.

Among the assaults formally reported, 88 percent of reports came from
women and 12 percent from men. The numbers are getting dramatically
worse.

�The number of reports of sexual assaults among military personnel
have actually increased by 129 percent since 2004,� said Center for
Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly, who pointed out the
number of formal reports of sexual assault jumped from 1,275 to 2,949
in just eight years.

She told WND when factoring in civilians working for or around the
military, the increase in that time is 98 percent.

Women are identified as the attacker in just two percent of all
assaults, meaning most men who suffer assault are targeted by other
men.

�So we�ve got a male-on-male problem here. The Department of Defense
doesn�t want to comment on this. They know that the numbers are there.
They say that they care, but all the attention is usually given to the
female members of the military who are subjected to sexual assault,�
Donnelly said.

The Washington Times article also includes analysis from Aaron Belkin,
who heads The Palm Center. He said the rise in male-on-male sexual
assault does not reflect the increase of homosexuals in the military
but, rather, those assaults are �somewhat similar to prison rape.�

�Well, that�s a great slogan to use for recruiting young men into the
military, isn�t it? It�s outrageous. And yet, the Department of
Defense doesn�t quite know what to do with these figures, and so they
just sort of put them in there and hope nobody notices,� said
Donnelly, who points out The Palm Center is a homosexual activist
organization.















J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[John Q. Public]

On 5/22/2013 12:35 AM, J wrote:
>
> There was a time I opposed gays serving in the military but I changed
> my opinion about two years ago. I realized that there was nothing
> wrong with having gays serve in front-line battle units. If normal men
> could make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, homos should be
> afforded the same opportunity. As we have seen, opponents of 'gays in
> the military' greatest fear has been realized, that gays couldn't keep
> their paws off of young soldiers just entering the service. The
> solution is simple, albeit not very popular; gay units. Gays would
> still be able to serve, while young, normal men and boys would be
> protected.
>

The next real war will set everyone straight.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/military-suffers-wave-of-gay-sex-assaults/#lFjcOV54DxyEG4Rr.99
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A recent military report on sexual assault in the military shocked
> many in Washington and around the nation, but a leading expert on
> military personnel revealed the prevalence of men assaulting other men
> is one of the major headlines in this study.
>

> The extended analysis of the report first appeared in Monday�s edition

> of the the Washington Times.
>
> The Defense Department survey of sexual assault in the military during
> fiscal 2012 estimated 26,000 assaults took place in the armed forces.
> Nearly 3,000 of them were formally reported. Just more than 6 percent
> of women reported being victims of assault and 1.2 percent of men said
> the same. Given the much larger number of men in the military, those
> numbers suggest 14,000 of the assaults in the Pentagon study happened
> to men.
>
> Among the assaults formally reported, 88 percent of reports came from
> women and 12 percent from men. The numbers are getting dramatically
> worse.
>

> �The number of reports of sexual assaults among military personnel
> have actually increased by 129 percent since 2004,� said Center for

> Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly, who pointed out the
> number of formal reports of sexual assault jumped from 1,275 to 2,949
> in just eight years.
>
> She told WND when factoring in civilians working for or around the
> military, the increase in that time is 98 percent.
>
> Women are identified as the attacker in just two percent of all
> assaults, meaning most men who suffer assault are targeted by other
> men.
>

> �So we�ve got a male-on-male problem here. The Department of Defense
> doesn�t want to comment on this. They know that the numbers are there.

> They say that they care, but all the attention is usually given to the

> female members of the military who are subjected to sexual assault,�

> Donnelly said.
>
> The Washington Times article also includes analysis from Aaron Belkin,
> who heads The Palm Center. He said the rise in male-on-male sexual
> assault does not reflect the increase of homosexuals in the military

> but, rather, those assaults are �somewhat similar to prison rape.�
>
> �Well, that�s a great slogan to use for recruiting young men into the
> military, isn�t it? It�s outrageous. And yet, the Department of
> Defense doesn�t quite know what to do with these figures, and so they
> just sort of put them in there and hope nobody notices,� said

[Dakota]

He didn't say that "the rise in male-on-male sexual
assault does not reflect the increase of homosexuals".

Here's what the Washington Times article says.

Aaron Belkin, who heads The Palm Center, which studies gays and
lesbians in the military, said �very few� male-on-male perpetrators
are gay, saying such incidents are �somewhat similar to prison rape.�

�It is important to try as hard as possible to eliminate sexual
assaults from the military, but I don�t think that procedural reforms
will do much to lower the incidence rate unless military culture
changes dramatically,� said Mr. Belkin, whose 2012 book �Bring Me
Men,� included a case study on male-on-male rape in the military.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/olxfg7d

>
>> �Well, that�s a great slogan to use for recruiting young men into the
>> military, isn�t it? It�s outrageous. And yet, the Department of
>> Defense doesn�t quite know what to do with these figures, and so they
>> just sort of put them in there and hope nobody notices,� said
>> Donnelly, who points out The Palm Center is a homosexual activist
>> organization.
>>
>> J Young
>> jdyo...@ymail.com
>>
>> Honesty. Decency. Integrity
>

No one who is honest, decent, or who has integrity would use the
Washington(Moonie) Times, World Net Daily, or the anti-woman/anti-gay
Center for Military Readiness as sources.

Check out who's on the board of that misnamed right-wing fundy loon
organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Military_Readiness

In contrast, "The Palm Center is a research institute committed to
sponsoring state-of-the-art scholarship to enhance the quality of
public dialogue about critical and controversial issues of the day.
For the past decade, the Palm Center's research on sexual minorities
in the military has been published in leading social scientific
journals. The Palm Center seeks to be a resource for
university-affiliated as well as independent scholars, students,
journalists, opinion leaders, and members of the public."

http://www.palmcenter.org/about

None of woman-hating, self-loathing gay J's other sources are scholars
who publish in scientific journals. They're just a bunch of bigots
like vile J.

[Syd M.]

On May 22, 12:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> There was a time I opposed gays serving in the military but I changed
> my opinion about two years ago. I realized that there was nothing
> wrong with having gays serve in front-line battle units. If normal men
> could make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, homos should be
> afforded the same opportunity. As we have seen, opponents of 'gays in
> the military' greatest fear has been realized, that gays couldn't keep
> their paws off of young soldiers just entering the service.

Stop lying.

PDW

[Dakota]

I knew a couple of guys who got kicked out of the army for being gay
back in the late '60s. None of us knew they were gay until then. One
was a good guy and the other one was a jerk. Nearly everybody missed
the good guy but we were all glad the jerk was gone. Their sexuality
wasn't a big deal.

[Davej]

On May 21, 11:35 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> There was a time I opposed gays serving in the military but I changed
> my opinion about two years ago.

Is that when you finally realized you were gay?

[Syd M.]

Too bad that that is all IBen can see...

PDW

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<147d0948-84f5-4bde...@o2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

No, he wanted them in the military to put in the front lines to be
killed.

Any time "J" claims to support some group, it's not hard to find the
thorn in the rose.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Marcus Aurelius]

Read the books: "Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military"
and " Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systematic
Discrimination Against Men". Also, read the article: "Feminist Gulag:
No Prosecution Necessary".
I do not remembering any one insulting gays while I was in the
military.
However, I do remember, while I was getting my military physical at
the induction center, an obviously gay man with a big smile on his
face laughing as he was told that he was unfit for military service
because of his homosexuality.
Many heterosexual men, during the War in Vietnam, falsely claimed that
they were homosexual in order to avoid military service.
When I was in Vietnam, it was not uncommon for combat infantrymen to
get into fist fights with each other then, afterwards, shake hands,
laugh, and remain the best of friends! This same manly behavior is
often recounted in Vietnam War films and other American War films
about other wars, including W.W. II.
Honor was paramount. Complaints about the same were unheard of.
I never heard about any complaints concerning sexual assault nor
sexual harassment while I was in the U.S. Army from 1968-1970.
The current lies and slanders about sexual assault and harassment in
the military have one purpose: "To further systematic discrimintion
against men in the military."
Women in the military and through out American society receive
preferrential treatment by law and custom.
The XIX (19th) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1920) which gave
women the right to vote did not contemplate women being required, as a
requisite of this right, to perform mandatory military service
inclusive of combat duty.
However, in effect, this amendment has given women an electoral
majority in the U.S.A. over men that has been increasing.
As per a quote from the Chapter of this book of Government and
Feminism:

"Male voting rates have declined sharply since the mid-1960s i.e. the
beginning of the Matriarchal social and political construct
(feminism).
Between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections, the male voting rate
declined from 72 to 53 percent.
Because the USA has a winner take all, bought, and gerrymandered form
of electoral representation, the female absolute and electoral
majority has a disproportionately adverse affect on male political
representation, male rights, and male equality.
The female vote makes up approximately 54-56% of the total in the
U.S.A..
This results in a political framework that produces a socio-political-
economic-legal that is essentially matrifocal,gynocentric, and
Matriarchal."

The aforementioned makes American men and the men of other democratic
nations virtual slaves to the aforementioned feminist electoral
majority's foreign policy,military, and defense related objectives and
means.
In 1971 in the United States, draft resisters initiated a class-action
suit alleging that male only conscription violate men's rights to
equal protection under the US Constitution. When the case reached the
United States Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men's
rights group and multiple women's groups including the National
Organization for Women. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military
Selective Service Act stating that "the argument for registering women
was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in
the exercise of it's Constitutional powers, to focus on the question
of military need, rather than equity." (Wikipedia-Mens Rights)
This, in itself, is EXTREMELY unjust, oppressive, and discriminatory
towards men.
The personal, economic, cultural, and political attack, led by
feminists and their male feminist supporters, on returning Vietnam
Veterans was motivated, according to psychologists, by the impression
by women that Vietnam Veterans represented "the strong male image".
Should women and minorities have preference in employment, education,
and other wise over returning war veterans, inclusive of combat
veterans?
Our nation and our government determined, by law and custom that they
should.
This is what returning Vietnam Veterans faced.
Should Vietnam Veterans, in fact, be actively discriminated against in
employment, education, and otherwise?
Yes, this is what our nation and our government determined, by law,
and custom that they should.
The image of the aggressive feminist associating with long haired
effeminate base men for the purpose of denigrating returning Vietnam
Veterans and all men of character remains a shameful part of our
current and past history and culture.
The very organized,aggressive, demeaning,unprincipled, discriminatory
and sexist attacks on returning Vietnam Veterans in the late 1960's
and early 1970's by feminists set the pattern for the aggressive,
unprincipled,organized, and discriminatory attacks by feminists on men
subsequent to the same. In other words, the most efficacious means for
feminists to obtain their misandric goals is to DESTROY those that
oppose them or that they perceive as having the character and/or
motivation to do the same.

In this author's opinion, the fact that women were not required to
serve in the military nor the combat arms, although they had the same
right to vote as these men who sacrificed so much, encouraged an
arrogant, predatory, demeaning, exploitative, and discriminatory
attitude towards Vietnam Veterans.
Further, the fact that women and others, although they do not have to
serve in the military, are the electoral majority results in the fact
that this same majority unjustly determines when this nation goes to
war, how the war is to be fought, and how the returning veteran is to
be treated.
This results in the initiation of unwise and unnecessary wars, unwise
military strategies, the oppressive exploitation of those in the
military, and the initiation of wars motivated by the selfish and
unjust motives of this feminist electoral majority.
Should an electoral majority, which, by law, is determined to be too
weak or base to serve in the military, inclusive of the combat arms
and/or is unwilling and/or unable to serve in such a capacity, have
the right to determine when and how a nation is to engage in military
operations, inclusive of war, and how the returning veteran is to be
treated?
Of course not. Our present system gives the electoral majority that
does not serve, women and others, the means and motive to exploit and
denigrate men who serve in the military. Again, this was exemplified
in the War in Vietnam and the hostile, insulting, and discriminatory
treatment that Vietnam Veterans received by the same individuals and
groups, women and others, which were exempt from and/or avoided said
service and who, at the same time, demanded and received preferential
treatment in employment, education, and law over returning Vietnam
veterans, even combat veterans.
Men should refuse to serve in the military in the USA and other
nations unless there is a reasonable correlation between military
service, especially mandatory military service (the military draft)
and electoral representation (the right to vote) and until those other
republican principles (equal rights and equal responsibilities for all
citizens-no more affirmative action) are restored.
This same electoral majority, unwilling and/or unable to serve in the
U.S. Military, granted itself preference by law and custom in
employment, education, the law, the receipt of social services and by
other means, both overt and covert, EVEN OVER RETURNING COMBAT
VETERANS.
The aforementioned results in an abusive, offensive, denigrating,
oppressive, and discriminatory attitude by American women not only
towards American military veterans but towards all men, especially men
who demonstrate the traditional male virtues.
This aggressive and unprincipled attack on returning Vietnam Veterans,
as the "strong male image" was merely the initial assault on those
American men, by feminists, both male and female, who demonstrated
any of the traditional male virtues.
It continues in all spheres of American life.
American women have found it to be politically, economically,
socially, and culturally advantageous for them to form alliances with
base and weak men for the purpose of dominating and exploiting men who
have the traditional male virtues.
As per the experience of the returning Vietnam Veteran, the same
alliance continues to this date with the result that the traditional
male culture in the U.S.A. has been destroyed.
No wonder that men from foreign countries routinely laugh at the
effeminate nature of American men who have been degraded out of fear,
obedience, and the shame of being men from our women who have made to
feel guilty for just being men.
Metrosexual, base, and effeminate men have become de rigeur welcome,
nourished, made safe, and have become "politically correct' in
American Society and in the eyes of the law.
Manly behavior is NOT.
Every single foreign war the U.S.A. has entered into in the past 50
years has progressively been less and less effective.
The U.S.A. no longer seems able to win a difficult war with
decisiveness and efficiency.
The military justice system, in the name of "political correctness",
has run amok, where even the most base, lying, evil, insecure,
mercenary, violent, and selfish women, some of whom have been
officially proven to be so, can easily destroy good soldiers of proven
great courage, great character, great patriotism, honor, and respect.
The men of our armed forces are no match psychologically, emotionally,
or spiritual for most men of foreign nations.

[John Q. Public]

On 5/22/2013 10:36 PM, Marcus Aurelius wrote:
> Read the books: "Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military"
> and " Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systematic
> Discrimination Against Men". Also, read the article: "Feminist Gulag:
> No Prosecution Necessary".
>

<snipped>
>

True.