I was going to say something, but…nah, too easy.
I’ve heard that argued about male homophobes in general. Certainly it’s not true in every case, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a contributing factor.
Tom Cruise thunders at Jack Nicholson:
“Did you order a Code Head?”
“You’re damn right I did!”
To analyze this line of, uhmmm, reasoning logically, a few factors you seem to be forgetting have to be included. Although there may appear to be proportionately more potential victims within the environment under discussion, you need to look at the potential number of victimizers and their psychology. There are several factors that make it highly unlikely that the proportion of potential gay victimizers would be the same as or even greater than those that rape in the general population, including the fact that there are so few gay men compared to straight men.
Mainly, you have to look at the propensity of gay man to rape in the general population. I’m not saying gay men don’t rape, but the statistics will show that number to be far fewer proportionately than straight male rape. Moving on from there, even if you factor in the effects of and fallout from living in close quarters, and sexual deprivation for all male military population, ask yourself:
(i) What would lead a gay male who entered the military knowing he has to hide his sexuality to not only out himself, but to out himself in a way that would likely lead to, if not severe retaliation among the enlisted men, official expulsion and rape charges?
(ii) Wouldn’t the dynamics affecting the potential for rape when comparing male-female rape and male-male rape have an effect on that potential? You mention discounting the orientation of the rapist, but you’ve also discounted not only that rape has very little to do with desire but also the known facts about the power dynamics at work in rape. Those dynamics for male-female aren’t nearly as prevalent, pervasive or applicable when in your fantasy about male-male rape.
The above makes the potential for male-male rape extremely unlikely and logically leads to a significantly lower number proportionately for military male-male rape than that of military male-female rape.
Either way, he is safe, who’d want to do that goofy looking sumbitch? Poor bastard will probably die a virgin (fake alligator tears)
As I understand it they generally shave them.
“You CAN’T HANDLE THE GLUTES!”
Yep. That chap so pings the 'dar.
So you’re saying the next time I need a little manscaping, I should get drunk and pass out in a barracks somewhere? Good to know.
Unless you can find some reliable sources for that, that sounds just a bit over the top.
If you could believe everything that happens in porn, “Pizza Delivery Guy” would be the world’s most sought after job.
My fantasies are fragile - please handle them with care.
The posters who described Rekers’ and Black’s “homosexual rape” as drunken pranks are right on. I was in the Army Infantry for 3 years, and I can’t TELL you how many times I’ve seen guys teabagged in their sleep (or other such sophomoric horsing around). It’s just a nasty type of hazing…calling it sexual assault would be a stretch. Rape? Uh-uh. Don’t buy it.
I wonder what these anti-gay blokes would have to say about what goes on in frat houses after a few cases/kegs have been consumed?
I’ve been hoping for the repeal of DADT for 16 years. One of the best, toughest, most disciplined, most masculine, most mature and mot squared-away squadmates I ever had, set off my gaydar BIG time.
And Greece helped.
ETA: Damn you, Polycarp!
Seconded.
The Economists’s Democracy in America blog has an item today pointing out a major flaw in FRC’s logic:
(referring to the statistic that homosexuals in the military are three times as likely to commit sexual assault)
From way up in his ass, at that.
Here’s his “reasoning”: 8.2% of reported sexual assaults among the military were same-sex–7.55% man-on-man, 0.61% woman-on-woman. Therefore, 8.2% of people in the military who commit sexual assault are homosexuals.
Homosexuals make up 3% of the overall population, he says, and therefore homosexuals are 8.2/3 times more likely to commit sexual assault than you’d expect.
It’s hard to find a place to start peeling that orange of bullshit. For one thing, 3% is the low-end estimate of homosexuals in the population, especially once you include everyone with bi tendencies. For another, just because a sexual assault is man-on-man it doesn’t mean it’s perpetrated by someone who identifies as gay (or would if he could).
For yet another, you wouldn’t expect the population of homosexuals who join the military to be a perfect analogue to the population as a whole. In fact, even if you accept his superhuman leaps of logic and his conclusion, a much better explanation would be that the current DADT policy keeps the most honorable and law-abiding homosexuals out and the ones that do join up are disproportionately degenerates.
It makes me mad when people lie with statistics. It makes me stabbily furious when people barely put any effort into lying with statistics, because they know their audience is too stupid to realize it or so eager to accept it that they won’t care.
Sebastian Junger, who has writtena book about the 14 months he spent with troops in Afghanistan, was a guest on The Daily Show last week and discussed the hazing ritual of Blood In/Blood Out- basically getting clobbered by every man in your squad (unless you’re injured in a firefight). He said he pins much of this on just sheer boredom, though of course such fraternal rites have existed for thousands of years. (Read page 217 of the preview from that for an odd comment about gay sex; I’d cut and paste but since it’s a scan it won’t let me.)
I would guess- based on no evidence I’ll admit- that the most homophobic soldiers would probably be the under 21 crowd who’ve had little exposure to gays and think they’re all effeminate promiscuous stereotypes. While I’ve nothing against the effeminate I seriously doubt many would ever consider going into active service.
Since less than 1% of sexual assault was woman on woman even though in general women are more likely to experiment with same sex sexuality than men, I wonder what excuse the FRC would give for wanting to ban lesbians from serving openly.
I’m going to hell for asking this, but my chances were never all that great anyways…
How does a lesbian commit “rape” on an unwilling victim? I can certainly see thwarted attraction leading to something akin to harassment, but violent physical assault? Doesn’t make sense, simply on the basis of, well, apparatus.
Basically severe sexual harassment, groping, inappropriate touching, the assailant rubbing herself on the other woman’s face, etc… I think it’d be difficult to force cunnilingus on somebody or force somebody to perform cunnilingus without a weapon or a second assailant, but the rest could be done. Moreso if the assailant ranks the assailed.