Skip to main content

View Diary: Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention Chief Arrested for Sexual Assault. (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In a sense, the classification of various (6+ / 0-)

    assaults as serious crimes on the basis of the victim's characteristics is unfair. Simple assault, one that involves no serious or obvious physical injury, is classified as a misdemeanor and has to be witnessed by an agent of law enforcement to be even charged as such. Which actually suggests that the infraction is directed towards the public official -- i.e. an assault in his presence is a misdemeanor, but not important, if there's no official present. That seems unfair on its face and signals that abuse, even a physical assault, is not in and of itself a serious infraction. It's to counter this conclusion that we are now in process of expanding the roster of victims (children, elders, LGBT, racial minorities, females) which may not be abused/assaulted with impunity. The law expects people who find it difficult to keep their hands to themselves to determine whom they can touch and who not. All because abuse/assault is considered OK unless and until someone objects. That hardly seems fair.
    Fairer would be for the default to be "don't touch," unless invited. Fairer would be for the right to privacy to be incorporated in the law from the start. If it were, then it would not be possible for legislatures to condition medical care on the insertion of a wand where it's not wanted. Overt recognition of the right to privacy and bodily integrity would preclude legislative interference in the doctor/patient relationship.

    What seems to have happened in this case is that a drunken fly boy misread some signals and took liberties that raised objections which he then tried to quash with a simple assault. Quashing complaints was probably part of his job -- to preserve the careers of flyboys who can't keep their hands to themselves.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Tue May 07, 2013 at 04:08:33 AM PDT

    •  a simple example of the backwards cultural norm: (8+ / 0-)

      I watched a couple interacting at a festival the other day. Husband and wife. I know the husband a little bit, the wife not so much. He's in many ways a nice, caring person and I doubt he would even recognize the issue I'm about to highlight:

      They had both gotten some food. He got fried dough. She got a hot meal. He saw her plate and wanted some of her food. He told her, "that looks good." She gave him a glare. He knew exactly what it meant, as he explicitly said, "I know that look means you don't want me to have any, but I can accept a look. She said, "but, I'm hungry!" He proceeded to take some of her food claiming, "you didn't actually say, "no.""
      The cultural norm of I can do what I want to you or with your stuff unless you proactively stop me is so backwards. It breeds aggression and a purposeful breaching of people's boundaries.

      In a culture which instills the concept of consent, one would never consider touching that food unless she explicitly said, "yes."

      Though this example is only about some food, a culture that doesn't wait for a yes, is a culture that fosters rape and other violations.

      We really need to change this.

    •  Wow. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Your diatribe throws me back to the bad old days when women who accused men of sexual assault were asked what they did to lead the man on.

      And one really important fact you completely failed to acknowledge is that this guy was not some "fly boy" misreading signals.  This was a man who was responsible for overseeing the sexual assault prevention unit.  

      •  Apparently, the people who put him in that (0+ / 0-)

        position misjudged his aptitudes.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:59:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or not. (0+ / 0-)

          The Air Force has some serious problems on this particular front and have had these problems a long time.  It would not be surprising to find out that he was picked because he tended to be sympathetic to accused attackers.

          26,000 assaults were anonymously reported in 2012.  Look at that number.  Now imagine how many people serving in the military would be expelled were each and every one of those reports of attacks found to be legitimate.

          There is a real problem here that needs to be addressed, but there are a lot of reasons why the commanders probably do not want to address the problem.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Elections (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Environment (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site