Wednesday, May 08, 2013

But Hey! What Do We Know?

According to a new Pentagon report, sexual assaults within the military have gone up.  This AP report, posted on, gives some numbers:

"The report says that of the 1.4 million active duty personnel, 6.1 percent of active duty women — or 12,100 — say they experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, a sharp increase over the 8,600 who said that in 2010. For men, the number increased from 10,700 to 13,900. A majority of the offenders were military members or Defense Department civilians or contractors, the report said."

Gosh.  Who could possibly have predicted something like this ever happening?  I mean, these are professional soldiers who only think about doing their jobs.  They could easily maintain discipline whilst working closely with members of the opposite sex, right?  Who could possibly have foreseen this?

I don't know.  Maybe rational and reasonable people who deal in the real world without regard to nonsensical political correctness and the fools who champion it.  It was totally obvious to them that such a consequence was more than mere potential.  It was bound to happen.

And what of those men who experienced unwanted sexual contact?  Who was applying the pressure?  I wonder.  (No I don't)  I'm sure it was all women officers abusing their authority.  (No I'm not)  No way could lesbian officers have done so to subordinate women, or homosexual men toward men.

Yeah.  Let's just mix all these people together, men, women, homosexuals, lesbians.  What could go wrong?


Two reports released this week show gun homicides in the U.S. are down since the 1990s.  One is a study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics.  It showed gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11.101 in2011.  A reduction of 39%.

Another report by the Pew Research Center found a similar decline.  It found that the number of homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in '93 to 3.6 in 2010.  A 49% decline.

Even non-fatal crimes involving guns shrank by about 70% over that period.  But the Pew group polled people in March and found that 56% thought that the number of gun crimes is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% thought the opposite.

Just think about all those blood-thirsty gun owners out there.  Aren't they trying hard enough?  One would think with the increase in gun purchases recently that we'd see an increase in such numbers.


Both of the above stories seem to indicate that the leftists don't know what the hell they're talking about.  If they did, we'd not see increases in sexual assaults in the military.  If they did, we'd not see a decrease in gun crimes while gun ownership increases.  These realities will be ignored by them. 


Feodor said...

So out with equality because men can't handle it, I guess.

In 1949, you'd have chastised Harry Truman with evidence that racial crimes and conflict had risen after his 1948 order.

Well.... yeah! Duh.

Mark said...

Feo's probably right. They're probably just coincidences.

Hey, Feo, instead of setting up straw men, why don't you offer an explanation for these statistics?

Jim said...

What am I missing here? What happened between 2010 and 2012 that would make women in the military more likely to be victims of unwanted sexual contact? (Other than empowerment to report it.)

What are you suggesting?

Craig said...

The interesting thing about the gun crimes numbers is that while gun crime dropped significantly, gun ownership rose significantly. I realize that contradicts the left's narrative that more guns equal more gun crimes.

As much as I hate to admit it, Jim might have a point. the increased numbers could be due to better reporting. I suspect that it is probably a combination of both.

Neil said...

When the Leftist media is working overtime to cover things up (the real impact of gun ownership, Gosnell, Benghazi, etc.) I wonder if it ever occurs to them how much easier work would be if they would just report the truth?

Feodor said...

Well, Neil, let's point out a few things.

1) You don't read left wing media.

2) You don't read the New York Times and its investigations into Benghazi, it's claim that many lessons should be learned from the Gosnell case, and its decades long coverage of the issue of guns. I dare you to find a media source you approve of that is as balanced as this:

3) So, not having read any left wing media, but spouting off blanket statements as you have simply makes you the run of the mill simp that you are.

Marshall Art said...


Jim might have a point if I was concerning myself with the rise in incidents. I'm more concerned that it was happening at the level it was, given that we were told concerns about mixing the genders were foolish.

Jim said...

The genders have been "mixed" since at least WWI so I'm unclear what you are talking about inre foolish concerns. Care to elaborate?

Marshall Art said...

feo demonstrates his orientation toward prideful arrogance and condescension. I would ask him when the coverage his values began in relation to the events covered and/or right-wing charges of media disregard. The NYT has its moments, but don't pretend they aren't slanted. Who isn't?

Marshall Art said...


I don't believe the genders have been mixed to the extent they currently are. I don't believe they served aboard Naval vessels to the extent they are now, nor in combat support units as they are now. Simply because women had some level of presence in the military since WWII, the point isn't negated in the least.

Feodor said...

"I would ask him when the coverage his values began in relation to the events covered and/or right-wing charges of media disregard."


Marshall Art said...

Change "his" to "he" and then use that intellect of which you are so proud.

Feodor said...

You must be the one who is proud of my smarts; you mention almost every comment to me.

Well, the article I copied was in '08. Long before the current front burner time we're spending. But you can search yourself and find that the Times has written about guns and crime, guns and constitutional issues three, four, five times a year when no one is talking about it and more in years when we do. And it's always gives several sides and debates the data - as a responsible media source should.

As for Gosnell, there's an early April article - coming in the middle of about fifteen articles on the case - which opines that the case should be getting increased press coverage and that there are many lessons to be learned.

Too many Benghazi stories to review just now - perhaps fifty.

I can't help but think about how much smarter you and Glenn and the Simp would be if you simply gave time to read just the New York Times. That must be a non-starter, though, as you guys seem wedded to your hate media.

Speaking of slanted media, since the Simp brought it up, and abhorrent Republican behavior, please, Neil – or Marshall, tell me why the Republicans are making such a public show of indignity regarding Benghazi but made no peep about the 13 Benghazi-like tragedies under Bush the shrub:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

The Republicans should be ashamed at themselves for using American blood to score political points.

Where is Neil and where are the shameless right wing media? Gutless.

Jim said...

Feo, thanks for posting these details. Here's an interesting anecdote:

When a guest on The O'Reilly Factor this week tried to call attention to these apparently non-"outrageous" attacks during the Bush terms, Boo Boo O'Reilly claimed that they were mostly counting incidents in Iraq. None from your list was in Iraq.

O'Reilly proves once again that he is a liar.

Feodor said...

Of course, I got these facts from liberal media. So, somewhere in these facts must be hidden, secret things if Neil is to survive mentally.

Maybe the fatalities were mannequins?

Marshall Art said...


I read your NYT piece. Kudos to them for stating the obvious. They really went out on a limb. Perhaps you could include evidence that what we read can be legitimately called "hate media". I'm sure you absorb tons of stories from tons of such sources in order have standing to make such an accusation. I await examples.

It is interesting how you lefties believe citing one example refutes the legitimate generalizations regarding the left. It doesn't.

As to your "smarts", my mentions are in response to your repeated and unjustified posturing as being of superior intelligence. You're not.

"please, Neil – or Marshall, tell me why the Republicans are making such a public show of indignity regarding Benghazi but made no peep about the 13 Benghazi-like tragedies under Bush"

We can start with the purposeful misinformation regarding a lame anti-Muhammed video provoking the attack. Bush didn't try to cover up anything about any of those attacks because it might harm his re-election chances. With immediate knowledge that it was never an demonstration but an attack, they sent Rice to bullshit the nation.

We can add that the attack was feared, if not certain to occur, and requests for assistance were ignored or refused. Don't know if the same can be said for any of the Bush era attacks, which, by the way, were during the larger on-going wars. THIS incident was in direct conflict with Obama's narrative that tried to suggest terrorism was all but quashed. After all, he got bin Laden, don't you know, and thus all is well.

Bush never went out of his way to avoid terms like "terrorism" or "jihad".

Those are enough to justify right-wing concern over this particular incident. Lefties try hard to cover for their messiah and when his failures cannot be ignored, they typically look elsewhere in order to childishly say, "Well, he did it, too!". Typical.

As to Jim's anecdote citing O'Reilly, a link to the video that supports his charge would be helpful. I doubt Jim got it right.

Neil will survive quite easily if you are the one threatening. You're weak sauce.

Jim said...

I didn't get it exactly right. It was actually his "Talking Points".

"Jon Stewart claimed there were '54 attacks on diplomatic targets that killed 13 Americans' during the Bush administration. But many of the cited attacks occurred in Iraq during the war and none of the attacks were at the level of Benghazi."

Based on Feo's list, this is clearly false.

Marshall Art said...

I didn't see the O'Reilly episode or hear his Talking Points memo to which you refer, but I don't see what is false about what he said based on your quote (assuming it is accurate). feo listed thirteen attacks. That leaves 41 others. How does the 13 listed by feo make the statement "many of the cited attacks" false? What about those other 41? How many of those were as O'Reilly said, occurring in Iraq during the war?

Feodor said...

"Bush didn't try to cover up anything about any of those attacks because it might harm his re-election chances."

He had the press in his pocket since everybody either over committed or were pressured to uphold a blind patriotism that - in cases like yourself - still covers over his crimes.

Perhaps we should investigate, though. Can you ask Fox to dig into this?

Oh, I forgot. American blood is only meaningful to you and them for one purpose only.

Marshall Art said...

A reprint of a feo comment, with his insult of another visitor revised:

(Neil) said, "When the Leftist media is working overtime to cover things up.."

Marshall - forgetting the context that the Simp set, said, "Kudos to them for stating the obvious."

I'm not really sorry how you guys don't agree.


As for my "smarts," Marshall, I'll readily agree that I am not more natively intelligent than you are. But I did seek - and was lucky enough - to immerse myself in about a 1000 times better education than you. But it didn't stop there. Since then I've continued to soak up the God made world and its fantastical mysteries as well as its heart-breaking brutalities.

All of which boils down to feeling sorry for you.

May 12, 2013 at 4:07 PM

My response:

Point 1,
We aren't disagreeing at all. You seem to think that one source speaks for all of lib media. We aren't that dishonest.

Point 2,

It's good you agree, except that I don't claim superior intelligence of any kind over anyone. I simply claim that what I know is obvious to any honest and honorable person (and that isn't even a claim regarding my own level of honesty or honor). And I've never disputed your claims of having a better education. I dispute it's done you any good, or that you are a good example of what "better" education can do for anyone.

What you've soaked up is an entirely different story. More accurate is your creating your own god and base everything else around it.

As for your next bit, Bush had press support for about 30 seconds after the towers fell. They sought to disparage him from that point on, especially as regards the war on terrorism. There have been no crimes or the Bush-hating press would have found them by now, or invented them.

All innocent life is meaningful to me and most honest and honorable people. I've never taken any other position. What I have said is that if it comes down to them or us, I vote to save us. I don't apologize for that.

Feodor said...

Oh, right, I forgot how the "dear leader" needs to be protected.

You've got a little North Korea here to defend.

Marshall Art said...

More like, Bush-haters like yourself need to start speaking truthfully. I won't hold my breath.

Andrew Clarke said...

Interested to read your comment on sexual harassment in the military; and I agree, political correctness is NOT the same as wise governance and decision making. When will they learn.

Andrew Clarke said...

I too heard that increased gun ownership coincides with decreased crime, at least home ownership crime. The conclusion is, if would be intruders think a house could be defended, they are less likely to try invading it. I can see why people are concerned about the availability of firearms, but I can see why people of good character want to own them, too. Even in our quiet street, we've had one attempted break in - while we were home!

Dan Trabue said...


Are you seriously suggesting that your opinion of men in the US Armed Forces is that they are so out of control that they can't prevent themselves from attacking and raping women?


Is your regard for these young men truly that low?

Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

"If you put men around women, they won't be able to stop themselves from attacking and raping those women..."

Myself, I believe that these young men are entirely capable of being, you know, basically moral people and the armed services are capable of finding the deviants and stopping them/not accepting them in the first place. Because such behavior has no place in the civilized world, INCLUDING the army.

You know, my son goes to church with MANY young women and he has never once had cause to lose control and rape them.

Maybe you need to meet a better caliber of men (ie, real, decent men, not perverts).

Marshall Art said...

There are many kinds of perverts, Daniel. You celebrate some of them routinely. But putting that aside,

"Are you seriously suggesting that your opinion of men in the US Armed Forces is that they are so out of control that they can't prevent themselves from attacking and raping women?"

I'm seriously suggesting the objections to mixing the sexes were spot on and these reports prove it. Not surprised that you would take my comments as an indictment of all military personnel. Because that's what it sounds like you're saying, which is strange given the post includes the numbers. 26,000 people out of 1.4 million. Considering of that numbers, some may have been victimized by the same person, that drops the number of offenders below that 26K mark. But is there an acceptable number? I don't think so, but it would most certainly be much lower were the policy not changed so that opportunity would be increased.

One could also easily imagine that the number could certainly be higher if those who resist their urges didn't, or if those who fantasize acted on the fantasies. The main point is that mixing the sexes was a stupid idea and these results were predicted by rational minds not corrupted by leftist notions of political correctness.

Dan Trabue said...

The point is, Marshall, that you're saying we shouldn't "mix" the sexes because there is SOME good percentage of men who will attack women. But I don't think you're saying that, in general, we shouldn't "mix" the sexes, only in the military.

Why would you single out the military unless you thought they were more likely to be rapists?

Or is it the case that you don't think men and women should intermingle in ANY setting?

Feodor said...

Suicides are also way up. Because women are serving in the military, Marshall says.

Marshall Art said...

"Because that's what it sounds like you're saying."

Another example of dishonesty from the false priest. Well done, liar.

Feodor said...

What other cause could there be, Marshall, for the dramatic rise in suicides over the past few years - just as more women are serving and serving on the front lines?

Marshall Art said...


Obviously, men and women work together all the time. However, there is a far different and unique dynamic in the military. They work in closer quarters, often for months at a time. Pregnancies are far more common now in the Navy as women are on ships at sea in greater numbers than ever before. There was a time when they weren't on ships at all, and strangely, there were no pregnancies reported by sailors.

The point, once again, that I was making was that this consequence was foreseen and dismissed by people like yourself. It was a bad idea then and remains so because it ignores certain realities regarding human nature. And don't forget, this story reports that the incidents of unwanted sexual contact has gone up. This means it was already an issue and now its worse.

I would point out that the story does not speak much about who is perpetrating these acts. Your responses seem to indicate you are thinking only of male perpetrators. I don't know if men are exclusively at fault. But note that men are victims as well. Who would you suppose is responsible for men being victimized in this manner? Women are in more positions of authority and cannot be ruled out as perpetrators. And who else might victimize a man in this manner? Any guesses or speculations?

I would also point out your own post regarding proselytizing in the military. Is it possible, do you think, that without a more constant influence of religious teaching that these incidents might increase?

Once again, as this type of behavior was easily foreseen by people unaffected by politically correct claptrap, reports such as this are not surprising. And the military has been negatively impacted in just the manner expected. They're policies that should never have been put in place and I don't doubt that things will get worse before anyone musters the courage to do the right thing and reverse them.

Another case of treating different as identical for a misbegotten idea of "fairness" and "justice".

Marshall Art said...


I've heard that in Britain, similar incidents aren't uncommon due the fact that the criminal element has little fear of lethal responses to their criminal acts. It's predicted behavior by those who think more deeply (not that deep thought is truly required in this case, either) than others about human nature.

Marshall Art said...

"What other cause could there be, Marshall, for the dramatic rise in suicides over the past few years..."

The question is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and an unwarranted and dishonest attack in suggesting that I would promote the mixing of the sexes as having anything to do with vets killing themselves. If you wish to discuss suicides in the military, do so at your own blog.

Feodor said...

"It's predicted behavior by those who think more deeply..."

This is the long running joke coursing through every post on this blog.

For instance: if you were to show any sort of moderate thinking, you would have recognized that along many domains of destructive behavior there is a sharp increase among the military.

It only takes a moment to realize the founding causes among the military of: 1) suicides (to show you how relevant the phenomenon is, simpleton), 2) sexual assault along with other criminal acts, 3) and a slew of mental illnesses resulting in aggressive or depressive symptoms.

Let's try more than a decade of perpetual war. (What's the matter, Marshall, you forget we've been at war?) A decade in which there is a ten-fold survival rate among the severely wounded - survival but not thriving. A decade which turned in 2008 into a jobless prospect outside the military and a bad economy for an ever growing number of thousands upon thousands of serving soldiers and veterans.

So, OBVIOUSLY, to the moderately reflective person, there unavoidably would be a sharp increase in alcoholism, depression, aggressive patterns from the traumatized and the long-stressed. Shame, pain, so often for men turns into aggressive behavior that crosses so many lines, sexual assault being just one.

But no, you can't put two and two together; you start counting and you get lost in ghost trees.

Why have sexual assaults been on the rise in the military? Same reason that suicides have been on the rise. Same reason alcoholism has been on the rise. Same reason that depression, aggression, disorders of every description have been on the rise.

And your solution? Take freedom away from part of the population.

You're a nanny and a ninny all in one.

Marshall Art said...

"This is the long running joke coursing through every post on this blog."

What would make it a joke would be if someone like you actually provided some substantive rebuttal to points made. You haven't. You can't, because you are not capable. You might have a chance if you weren't so concerned with trying to sound more intelligent than others who post here. You're not. Not even close.

As to what you think are obvious causes, you offer no more than hunches you feel are necessary to deflect the point of this post. You present nothing in the way for serious evidence to support your weak hypothesis. If war alone was the reason for increases in sexual assaults, you'd have a hard time explaining those increases in assaults occurring in military academies and amongst those not yet deployed to battle zones. In short, you're making shit up.

You might have come up more intellectual had you not listed suicide and aggressive/depressive behaviors separately, when in fact they are of the same condition, with suicide being a manifestation of depression, and not a "condition" itself.

Your solution? Pretending that mixing the genders and tolerance of homosexuality has no negative effect on military discipline and unit cohesion.

You're an idiot and a false priest all in one.

Feodor said...

It's not a new thing that you take your by-the-seat-of-your-uneducated-pants opinions as "evidence" and then ask for more details from your betters.

You're a deceiver at heart.

That you consider "suicide and aggressive/ depressive behaviors" as "the same condition" is indeed evidence of your jejune intellectual abilities. And yet you think that you think deeply. You fool yourself at the least.

You're a deceiver at heart.

"Like the military’s ongoing challenge of suicide in the ranks, there is no single fix.... Nothing excuses sexual abuse, of course, but several things may help to explain it, U.S. military officers and veterans suggest:

– After a decade of combat, and the latest round of austerity imposed by sequester-mandated budget cuts, the troops are frayed. Nerves are on edge, drinking is exacerbating the problem, and peacetime cushions are shot."

"Today, Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey said that a decade of war may have undermined accountability on sexual assault."

USA TODAY interviewed lawmakers, social scientists and people who have worked on the sexual assault issue inside the military to determine why the Pentagon hasn't been able to stem this predatory tide. All pointed to two factors — one a new plague, the other as old as the military itself — standing in the way:

• A military culture more coarse toward women in the ranks, the result of stress from a decade of war and the status of women as second-class warriors barred from combat roles. Male recruits are drawn from a society where violence and objectification of women are staple elements of films and video games.

• A military justice system with origins dating to the Revolutionary War that gives commanders of accused troops ultimate power over legal proceedings.

Deep within the massive, two-volume Pentagon study is evidence that a male-dominated culture fosters sexual abuse.

[Notice, Marshall, how experts know that the answer is the exact opposite to your yahoo disenfranchisement of women. You perpetuate the problem.]

Those who study the military say the coarsening of attitudes and the rise in sexual assaults should come as no surprise. David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland, says America's volunteer force has been under enormous strain after fighting two wars and enduring back-to-back deployments that lead to pathologies ranging from suicide to alcohol abuse and mental illness.

I found these in just the last ten minutes. Let this be a lesson to you that the truly educated can make very well informed hypotheses prior to evidence.

You, however, should just keep driving your truck and arriving on time. It's your only salvation, truly.

Marshall Art said...

You've provided nothing but opinion. I'd love to read the actual Pentagon report, but I've been unable to access it. And once again, if strain of military service in war zones is the cause, how does that have anything to do with assaults in military academies, boot camp training and ships at sea where direct contact with the enemy is not at the level of combat zones? What's more, at least two of your offerings speak to an ongoing culture into which mixing genders was predictably a very bad idea (the point of this post).

So try to find some REAL evidence and not just superficial suggestions as to why sexual assaults take place. All you've done is make my point for me. Then, try providing a truly educated explanation for why sexual assaults might NOT increase if women were kept separate from men.

I could be flipping burgers for a living and still outsmart you. Your education has done little to make you wise or perceptive.

Feodor said...

Is that your plan, Marshall, when stumped just repeat yourself?

"I'd love to read the actual Pentagon report, but I've been unable to access it."

Keep looking. I'm sure you will find in the lead author's middle initial confirmation of your beliefs.

Marshall Art said...

You're saying I'm stumped does not make it so. It does, however point to desperation on YOUR part. You cannot use your "explanation" to resolve the issue of assaults in academies, for example, and instead simply ignore it. As if that wasn't enough, nothing you've offered suggests the point of the post is in error. These types of problems were predicted. The predictions, incredible logical and based on human nature, went unheeded. The results are the high number of assaults.

What you so often fail to understand, given that your intention is to promote what you laughingly believe is superior intellect, is that straying from the topic does not render the point of the topic erroneous. It only proves an incredible inability to focus.

Feodor said...

Uh oh. Unanticipated additional evidence.

Marshall Art said...

"Uh oh. Unanticipated additional evidence."

Really???!! WHERE!!!??

Oh. Your NYT link? That constitutes evidence for what, exactly? That mixing hoards of young men with women isn't exactly a great idea? I didn't need additional evidence to support my premise, but thanks anyway. You're a pip.

Feodor said...

I certainly understand why you wouldn't want to read it. And I'll further understand your tried and true strategy of mindless denial if you ever do read it. After all, it's just yet more clarity that opening up military service to women has nothing to do with skyrocketing rates of sexual assault. Rather, male aggression, trauma and unending months of stress, and a license for immorality from immediate superiors all spur criminality from otherwise normal soldiers.

Not to mention sacrificing for Bush's fake war.

But you go ahead, Marshdll, you keep your brain turned off like a dipshit.

The light is carried by enough of us to overcome.

Marshall Art said...

I did read it. I read all the links you foolish lefties post as if you've got some real evidence to support your crap. There's nothing in this link that supports your position, especially given the fact that the men were supposedly told of the sexual "opportunities" in liberating France. So the question would then be, how many of those who invaded France were battled-scarred psychopaths who could no longer control their urges, as opposed to recruits who were indulging in what they were told were easy pickings?

What's more, the article had absolutely nothing to do with the number of assaults reported by both men and women victims within the military. But as I said, it does support my premise against the idiocy of mixing young men with women as if there couldn't possibly be any downsides.

My brain is not turned off, false priest. It can recognize your desperation in trying to legitimize a bad idea. Some day you'll have to turn on what passes for your brain.

Feodor said...

Apparently D-Day means nothing to you.

Marshall Art said...

Apparently you don't know how to engage in discussion. Irrelevant links do not help your position.