Want to prevent rapes, sexual assaults and wartime pregnancy? The simple answer is desegregated living arrangements–in the field at least. Where do you think the one or two women in your platoon are most safe, and lease likely to have sex with another solder? If you guessed, “In a room or tent with 10 other male platoon mates”, you’re on the right path. Even if one of them is a rapey pervert who’s slipped through the cracks, there are still a half dozen people in the room to prevent unwanted conduct. The notion that two females should be put in a room all by themselves away from everyone else is laughable. They are less protected, and the increased privacy will do more to encourage promiscuity than prevent it. If someone wanted to sneak into that tent while one of them is in the shower, there is no teammate around to intervene.
I’m not trying to say that all women are promiscuous and/or need protection. What I’m saying is that IF one is trying to prevent sexual intercourse and/or sexual assaults, the best thing to do is house males and females together in squad sized quarters or larger. Back in garrison, everyone has his or her own personal room. In the field, everyone should be together. It strengthens the team, and actually prevents most of the problems people are worried about. The ironic thing is that most people see the solution as putting 20 males in one tent and 2 females in another. As an infantry First Sergeant, I would never do something like that. When we’re out in the woods, there is no segrating and no privacy. Magically, there’s no problems. The problems arise when you start segregating soldiers and giving female soldiers extra privacy. The way I explain it to my soldiers is that we are all brothers and sisters. You’re not going to try to sneak a peak at your brother’s dick or your sister’s tits, so don’t do it here either. Everyone seems to be fine with it.
We still have a long way to go, though. I’m fighting uphill battles against an organization that still thinks single occupancy port-a-johns need to be labeled MALE or FEMALE. That aggravates the hell out of me.
I’m remembering a snip I saw in the news about some Spanish troops in Afghanistan. The female soldiers talked about people being surprised by their headgear but accepting “it’s the uniform” as a somewhat confusing, foreigners are weird answer (no problem with the helmets as those covered the hair, but seeing the helmet exchanged by a beret was surprising). One of the male soldiers talked about the people there being surprised at seeing female soldiers: “sometimes people are surprised that I take orders from a woman. I say 'what, don’t you take orders from your mother? I do! The (male) Lieutenant is as my father, the (female) Corporal as my mother. They’re both smarter than me, so when they give me an order I follow it.”
And damn but is that portapotty thing stupid.
On a related topic – after participating in a lot of threads on gender-segregation in rest rooms, I’ve concluded that the reason we do it is for modesty, and the primary reason public restrooms are sometimes dangerous is BECAUSE they are sex segregated. The really big ones, where there are always several people in them, are perfectly safe. It’s the ones where you might be alone that are risky. And that sort of public restroom is a place a potential rapist can go and wait until the only other person there is a woman much weaker than he is, and he can be pretty safe from having a large guy randomly walk in. And completely safe from having her ask her boyfriend/husband/son/father to accompany her to the restroom because it might not be safe for her to go alone.
Someone thinks single occupancy porta-johns need to be labeled MALE or FEMALE? Have they never studied queuing theory? What madness. (although I’m always jealous that men can use that little urinal shoot on the side, and don’t have to TOUCH anything in the john.)
Navy Ships are large. There are always places to find that are pretty private. In my experience it was to take a quick nap or read a book during a slow point on the day, but I can see areas like Load Centers, Voids, Supply storage areas and the like being utilized.
@Nava: I think most ships had a free condom policy, at least before and while at over-seas ports. Maybe that was only while I was in. I was in towards the beginning of the AIDS scare (when it was no longer just a “gay disease”) and the Navy seemed to prefer guys hitting ports like the Philippines or Thailand to have as many condoms as they needed. on my carrier at least, they were on a small shelf just outside of sickbay. Nobody watching or commenting. Take 1 or take 20, didn’t matter.
Even if they had that, that was likely not the case pre-AIDS and post-AIDS it doesn’t take into account that condoms are the kind of method that should be used in combination. When I lived in the US, the medical insurance we were required to pay for only included one form of “female medicine”: abortions. I’m still traumatized by that and still consider coverage of other birth control methods to be one of the best things about Obamacare. I expect that the US Armed Forces would at least cover pregnancy care, but did they cover female-side birth prevention?
To that I have no idea at all. I think the women trainees with me in A school at Great Lakes had free access to some form of contraception, but I really do not know for sure. As an 18-22 year old, wasn’t really my concern at the time, so I don’t really know. We have women vets on the board though, hopefully they can answer from sure knowledge.
The sailors that needed glasses were equipped with Birth Control glasses at least, they helped cut down our sex lives at least. I understand they are gone now though.
It’s not where you are when you’re sleeping that matters; it’s where you are when you’re not sleeping. People can and do have sex in supply closets, vehicles, and jungles. Should all of those be segregated?
I’d think the military would want its female members to have IUDs or implants, and would actively encourage them doing so. It’s got to be costly to have troop pregnant.
What’s worse is that if there are only two in some particular location, then inevitably one of them will be MALE and the other will be FEMALE. This is to service an organization that is about 15% women. People think it makes perfect sense to set aside 50% of the portable latrines for 15% of the population because… Modesty? Sexual harassment? Rape prevention? What the fuck is the point. There is always a loooong line outside the male portos, and not a single person using the off-limits FEMALE one right next to it. Madness indeed.
Well, that might be only fair. At every concert & baseball game I’ve been to, the lines for the women’s room is always far longer.
And both situations suck. Unisex restrooms with privacy stalls and a privacy barrier around the urinals would be better for everyone.
I must have shitty reading comprehension. All I got from Ranger Jeff’s post was “permanent party females in the O-section”.
All I got was “urinals in their head”, which sounds distinctly uncomfortable. 
So some men get embarrassed and feel bad because women are their equals in that situation? Not going to shed a tear.
What would be a real sign of stupidity would be if there were a bank of 20 individual port-a-potties, 10 each male and female. Which I wouldn’t put past the military.
Of course, in that situation, I also wouldn’t put it past the military for some experienced old sergeant to instruct the troops to just ignore the labels on the doors.
The results have been highly positive so far. Decreases in sexism and harassment, with unit cohesion and morale unaffected. People living in the same quarters seem to experience a desexualization similar to the one in families, where the people you live with everyday are not perceived as sexualized.
There has been one complaint regarding the armys policy of nude bathing in the field. The army has declined to change it, citing the need to maintain hygiene in the field and readiness for combat operations as more important than modesty.
I visited my old army barracks for open day two years ago and I noticed the large number of female immigrants children now serving. I am surprised at the lack of problems with nude co-ed bathing.
Well, it is not a huge divide but the women are 12 % more positive. If a political party here polled a 12 # advantage we’d call it big. Women in general find female only quarters to be “bitchy” “gossipy” prone to cliques and outside the general information flow.
The number reporting a harassing comment or incident is now down to 16 %. However this is attributed by the reporting recruits to “individual assholishness” rather than a system flaw.
Well, frst off the media is not the only source of information. There are regular surveys, and major changes like this is not going to be run off the cuff with no controls or follow ups. There are studies.
However… thats not how media work. They have companies, stockholders and boards of directors. And they make their money by selling papers or ads. Conscription is no respecter of social status and every wing of the political spectrum have their kids serve. This would be big, big news.
Scandals with the conscripts always are and they get big headlines.
Well, to be honest, I expect this to be a bigger problem if/when the USA tries it, as we unfortunately have an ingrained culture that fights against sexual assault and rape claims by our servicewomen. We’re going to need a bigger hammer and some seriously stringent and punitive regulations to fight that battle.
Frankly, in the case of rape, I’d like to see the offender reduced to E-0, sentenced to 5 years in Leavenworth and then dishonorably discharged. Same punishment for any officer who covers it up. Busted out of all rank, imprisoned, court marshalled.
And the same for any officer who becomes aware of a complaint and fails to prosecute. Because covering up is awfully hard to prove. Having every claim of rape in the military lead to automatic prosecution, with no preliminary investigation permitted, would be a tiny loss and a huge gain. Obviously, making a false claim would then rain all hell down on the false claimant, but there are hardly any of those.
Eh? 15 is nearly twice as much as 8.
What about he said/she said claims that can’t be proved either true or false?