President Obama may have admitted that sexual assault is a serious problem in the military -- but what he hasn’t conceded are that his own policies have helped create it. For the past few years, the Pentagon has downplayed the effects of open homosexuality sexuality and the addition of women on the front lines. But it will have a tough time doing that now with the rate of male-on-male assault at its highest levels. A stunning 3,840 military men were raped last year, headlines screamed.
While outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel insists the military had made “real progress” on the problem, the latest numbers certainly don’t bear that out. The total number of sexual assaults (at least the known cases) actually climbed by another eight percent -- a statistic the administration pins on better reporting, not an actual spike in abuse. Either way, the message is clear: there has been a significant change in military culture, and reversing those trends will be nearly impossible with the radical sexualization of our forces.
“Almost 6,000 victims reported a sexual assault in 2014, up from 5,500 last year, according to the report… only 1 in 10 victims reported a sexual crime in 2012, compared to 1 in 4 this year.” And while the media is adept at burying the story, the real scoop is that in Rand Corporation’s survey “more than half of the victims are men.”
The White House has spent Barack Obama’s entire presidency turning the military into a social experiment, beginning with the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Of course, what’s interesting about these statistics is that they were released at a time when the military is having trouble finding new recruits. Fewer people see the military as a “good choice” for their future. And given these statistics, it’s not difficult to see why.
In their attempts to blame the repeal of DADT for the sexual assaults of men in the military, Perkins and company are pushing ignorant ideas about sexual assault itself.
According to Media Matters:
A study by Palm Center, a research institute focused on sexuality and the military, has found no evidence that open service has led to increased sexual assault. Nor, the center reported, did repeal lead to a decline in military cohesion or morale . . . Increased reporting of incidents may well reflect Defense Department efforts to encourage servicemembers to speak up if they've been assaulted. Emphasizing that sexual assault remains a "heinous" problem, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA), co-chair of the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, told CNN that the rise in reports may well reflect "legislative and military changes" encouraging people to come forward.
As The New York Times reported in June 2013, the military's DADT policy discouraged victims of male-on-male sexual assault from reporting incidents, for fear that admitting to even non-consensual same-sex relations could lead to discharge.
Furthermore, in creating the stereotype of the predatory gay male, FRC exploits and undermines the real problem of male-on-male rape in the military.
A December 14, 2013 article in The Baltimore Sun, Breaking the Silence, talked extensively about this issue. The article noted that the problem has unfortunately existed for decades. It also noted that male-on-male rape in the military was not an issue of sex but of power and emasculation:
Military data show that the typical perpetrator is a man who has served longer in the military than his victim and holds a higher rank. In most cases, the assailant identifies as heterosexual.
Roger Canaff, who has trained Army lawyers in prosecuting sexual assault cases, says many attacks amount to a particularly violent form of hazing.
It “isn't necessarily seen as a sexual act,” says Canaff, a former prosecutor in New York and Virginia. “It's seen as a humiliating act. It's the ultimate act of emasculation.
“You see that in fraternity life, sometimes. You see that in the civilian world. The military has it also.”
It's obviously sad that Perkins continues to practice the tactic of repeating a lie consistently, even after it is refuted, until it is believed more than the truth.
Not a bad tactic, but not necessarily a Christian one, either.