Hmmm. Posted this at http://www.matthewyglesias.com/
stirred up more of a shitstorm than I reckoned on.

"the touching of another without their consent in a sexual manner, including attempts, in order to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust or sexual desires of the accused, the victim, or both."

This seems a bit broad for a definition of sexual misconduct. Who decides the difference between "lust or sexual desires" or just plain horsing around? If I walked onto the campus of one of the seven sisters I would adjust my behavior accordingly.

"It seems to me--without in ANY WAY undermining the horrible seriousness of the crime of rape--that in an effort to up the numbers this organization is defining rape in a way most of us would not define it."

I would agree with that statement wholeheartedly. The service academies are primarily male. Always have been. Males tend to view humor in a different fashion than women. Grab-ass and crude locker room jokes are the way men bond.

I do not believe that 43 out of 579 women (31 of them SENIORS) were the victims or "attempted" victims of sexual assault.

Leaving aside the ACTUAL incidents of rape (which are real and deplorable), this poll is misleading.
Simply put, women should not expect politically correct treatment at one of the service academies.
Guess what? When one steps into an all (or mostly all, indeed, historically ALL) male environment, one should expect to be treated accordingly. These institutions are in the business of training American citizens in the grim business of war after all. This is fairly new ground for women (in the context of our society).

Actual Rape is NEVER excusable. Having your ass grabbed or commented on is a different story. Women who cannot tell the difference do not need to pursue the military as a career.

"Guess what? When one steps into an all (or mostly all, indeed, historically ALL) male environment, one should expect to be treated accordingly. These institutions are in the business of training American citizens in the grim business of war after all. This is fairly new ground for women (in the context of our society).

Actual Rape is NEVER excusable. Having your ass grabbed or commented on is a different story. Women who cannot tell the difference do not need to pursue the military as a career."

The above comment is so absurd, it's hard to believe that the author was serious. I might ask if "actual rape is Never excusable," does that mean that attempted rape is as long as it wasn't completed?

As to the military being an all-male, that hasn't been true for more than a half-century. I served in the Navy from 57 to 79, and in all but one command I was in (a fighter squadron) there were women.

If Trophies case is valid, another might say that the military has historically been segregated so people of color who want to join the military thay should be prepared to be treated as less capable, inferior humans.

I think not. And neither should women be forced to accept being harrassed by 'real men.'

Nope, attempted rape IS rape, under the law of most states. Look it up.

Hey, glad you served from '57 to '79 sir. You witnessed first hand the integration of the military - in terms of color and gender.

"If Trophies case is valid, another might say that the military has historically been segregated so people of color who want to join the military hay should be prepared to be treated as less capable, inferior humans."

HELLO, THIS WAS THE CASE. Yeah, than you witnessed it. If you were in in '57 than YOU WITNESSED segregation. Or perhaps you averted your eyes.

Arryo, I was talking about the service academies. Which have only recently (last couple of decades) been gender mixed, Not the military as a whole. THESE (service acadamies) have been, HISTORICALLY, a gender biased center of higher learning. The higher learning being - HOW TO KILL PEOPLE MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN THE ENEMY.

Not a frame of reference for most people. Killing the Enemy. Women have been historically locked out of this theoretical knowledge until the modern era. Hey, do I have a problem with women as members of the armed forces? Nope. They can do an equally good/shitty job as the next person.

Recently, we have allowed women into these institutions. Institutions(all male) that have been revered in our relatively short history. Adjustments should be allowed for.

I certainly don't believe the statistics in this article http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/30/academy.assaults/index.html

You know, the relevant news item we are commenting on?

18.8%. That is one out of five. The Air Force Academy has been "integrated" for close to two decades. One out of five women serving there have been sexually assaulted? Nope, not true.

The service academies are not hotbeds of violent sexual encounters. Ask any senior female officer.

(Where do I go to wash the fucking dead possum taste out of my mouth for being the ring-knockers defender?)

Guess what? When one steps into an all (or mostly all, indeed, historically ALL) male environment, one should expect to be treated accordingly. These institutions are in the business of training American citizens in the grim business of war after all. This is fairly new ground for women (in the context of our society). Actual Rape is NEVER excusable. Having your ass grabbed or commented on is a different story. Women who cannot tell the difference do not need to pursue the military as a career.

Yeah! Dem bitches deserve it for coming into man's territory! A little ass-grabbing never hurt anyone anyway, we're all there to learn to KILL!

Puh-leeeeeez!

--Kynn

PS: If a gay man started grabbing asses or making lewd comments at a military academy, he would be thrown out -- if he weren't first KILLED by his fellow soldiers.

I get the feeling that women entered the service academies in order to serve in the various services. They wanted to be "soldiers" to use a simplified generic term - squids, zoomies and leathernecks please don't take offense.

They didn't join the academies to be the butts (no pun intended) of locker room mentalities or towel-snapping good ole boy jokes.

They felt that they had something to offer their country, and truth be told, would get something back in exchange.

I'm sure most of the male service academy first year men didn't join in order to participate in locker room joviality, either. Some, a few gifted athletes, joined to play sports, but most went there for the education, and for the chance to take the first step up on the career ladder.

So, just exactly why is it all right to subject women to something the men probably didn't want? It's not really about locker room mentality. It's about the mentality engendered by a societal attitude.

Women really aren't property, folks. Isn't that one of the secondary reasons we 'defeated the evil doers in Afghanistan' ?

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams