What's wrong with this advice on rape in House of Cards?

[AK84]

Then frankly it’s not that much of an issue. Because if you have a situation where officers are abusing subordinates and getting away with it, you have much bigger problems than some words in guidelines, there is a command failing.:(:mad:
I recall reading in a British WW2 memoirs, that the officer told his men that if any of them as much as looked at a local girl the wrong way, he would shoot the offender himself. Stick needs to be maintained. This is a military discipline issue.

[Shodan]

@Clothahump

Never, ever give in to rape. Always fight back. Always. I can’t say this often enough.

If one looks at the classification of rapists and what it takes to resist them, the question has to be asked: why in the world would anyone say to not fight back?

For example, the most common classification is the

This class covers a little over 80% of the attacks. He can be resisted with sometimes little more than a raised voice and projected anger. So…if 8 times out of 10, someone can resist successfully with minimum physical effort, why not do so?

The remaining categories

all show escalating levels of violence toward the victim and require correspondingly higher levels of physical effort. The last class, the Sadist, is your Ted Bundy kind of individual and here the victim is literally fighting for her life.

This +1. When I taught women’s self-defense, I taught exactly the same thing as Clothahump.

Always fight back. If he is a sexual sadist, he is going to hurt you whether you resist or not, and if you resist, you have a chance - statistically, a fairly good chance - of not being raped. If he is a power-reassurance rapist, the longer you resist, the greater the chance that he will get scared and run off.

Just don’t fight back a little, or in escalating doses. It is on-off - before, you are not fighting, after, you are trying to kill/blind/castrate/cripple him so you can run away. Even on a date - the instant he makes it clear that he doesn’t think you get to say No is the instant that he becomes a rapist and needs to be seriously injured.

[ul][li]Make noise[]Run away []Make more noise[]Fight like hell no matter what.[]Keep making noise.[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@AK84

I recall reading in a British WW2 memoirs, that the officer told his men that if any of them as much as looked at a local girl the wrong way, he would shoot the offender himself. Stick needs to be maintained. This is a military discipline issue.

That has absolutely nothing to do with in-service abuse.

[Zsofia]

@AK84

Then frankly it’s not that much of an issue. Because if you have a situation where officers are abusing subordinates and getting away with it, you have much bigger problems than some words in guidelines, there is a command failing.:(:mad:
I recall reading in a British WW2 memoirs, that the officer told his men that if any of them as much as looked at a local girl the wrong way, he would shoot the offender himself. Stick needs to be maintained. This is a military discipline issue.

Well obviously. But the point here is that how an organization claims to be fixing a problem can be very revealing. The brass was claiming that they were taking steps, and one of the steps they were taking is this particular brochure. Which makes their attitude about the problem very clear.

[Typo_Negative]

I have no cite. This is from memory (admittedly old).

We had a class in school that looked at a lot of data and said that women should fight back for 2 reasons.

1. It does not affect the level of violence the rapist uses. The rapist has already decided the level of violence he will use whether the victim fights back or not.

2. Studies showed that women who fought back recovered from the ordeal more quickly and more completely (psychologically) than those who submitted.

[Poysyn]

@Czarcasm

That has absolutely nothing to do with in-service abuse.

Rape of a subordinate is simple - it should always be considered a rape unless the subordinate directly states otherwise. Rape among peers is a little tougher to address.

I know there has been a lot of attention recently given to rape within the military, which is a very good thing. There were and continue to be many survivors of sexual assault badly treated in the military.

I can only speak as a Canadian service woman, but I will say the one time I had to go through the system as a victim, I was generally treated well and the few minor mis-steps (which seemed to be borne of ignorance instead of malice) were rectified immediately.

[pendgwen]

@AK84

Then frankly it’s not that much of an issue. Because if you have a situation where officers are abusing subordinates and getting away with it, you have much bigger problems than some words in guidelines, there is a command failing.

Exactly. The protocol as quoted reflects a cultural problem within the military. Saying that the protocol needs revision is also saying that the attitude toward in-service sexual violence has to change.

[Shodan]

@Typo_Negative

I have no cite. This is from memory (admittedly old).

We had a class in school that looked at a lot of data and said that women should fight back for 2 reasons.

1. It does not affect the level of violence the rapist uses. The rapist has already decided the level of violence he will use whether the victim fights back or not.

2. Studies showed that women who fought back recovered from the ordeal more quickly and more completely (psychologically) than those who submitted.

As well as

3. You have a very good chance of not being raped if you fight back (or better, escape). That chance is much less if you submit.

Regards,
Shodan