Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Both the U.K. and the U.S. armed forces have male soldier on soldier rape as a horrific statistic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2881672/Soldiers-accused-gang-raping-male-recruits-barracks-alleged-bullying-tactics.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2010/12/2010122182546344551.html

I picked Aljazeera and the Daily Mail as they are politically diametrically opposed and the agreed consensus here should support this problem is true.

It's not just male soldiers who are raped, female soldiers are also:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10678790/Military-rape-Fighting-the-invisible-war-inside-the-Armed-Forces.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10624398/Military-rape-is-like-being-abused-by-your-family.html

The Telegraph is a very right wing, pro military paper.


Is it any wonder then, they might use rape as a weapon of war,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

Is this the cost of having a large mercenary army?

Yeah, it's awful how the military generally has a "shut up, it didn't happen" approach to rape while in service.

Those in charge are more fearful of the stain acknowledging the abuses might incur than caring that their own countrymen/women are being assaulted. It's similar to how the Catholic Church is (or was) with their sweeping-under-the-rug of child abuse at the hands of Priest.

Originally posted by Robtard
Those in charge are more fearful of the stain acknowledging the abuses might incur than caring that their own countrymen/women are being assaulted. It's similar to how the Catholic Church is (or was) with their sweeping-under-the-rug of child abuse at the hands of Priest.

I agree with that but it doesn't explain the predisposition for rape of others even there own colleagues. Why would men need to do that and why would others go along with it (I do not mean the higher ups, officer class and politicians).

This assumes there's a predisposition to begin with.

Rapist exist in probably every culture, the military likely just serves as an easier means to rape with the generally accepted code-of-silence. Add to it the groupthink mentality of the military and you get small rape-gangs singling out and abusing someone seen as weaker or easy prey.

Originally posted by Robtard
This assumes there's a predisposition to begin with.

Rapist exist in probably every culture, the military likely just serves as an easier means to rape with the generally accepted code-of-silence. Add to it the groupthink mentality of the military and you get small rape-gangs singling out and abusing someone seen as weaker or easy prey.

I don't disagree with any off that, the reason for rape usually isn't sexual or at least not exclusively sexual. Power is the key and many men who want to belong to a pack are often insecure on their own, that coupled with low intelligence and the military groupthink mentality and predisposition of military recruits to violence would almost certainly lead to the scenarios we've looked at.

I wonder though if this sort of pack creature is not exactly the type of person drawn to military service and the reasons for joining far less altruistic than serving ones country.

The military, like cops, have this ass backwards code of silence at times.

Though I do have to say pretty much 100% of the time when I hear a story about rape by soldiers it is always about male soldiers raping female soldiers. So does male on male rape not happen as much?

Originally posted by Surtur
The military, like cops, have this ass backwards code of silence at times.

Though I do have to say pretty much 100% of the time when I hear a story about rape by soldiers it is always about male soldiers raping female soldiers. So does male on male rape not happen as much?

I suspect it perhaps happens more within barracks particularly looking at the first two articles. I don't think we even need to extrapolate a hidden figure.

Yeah barracks rape...just awful. I've had to deal with the problem.

Originally posted by riv6672
Yeah barracks rape...just awful. I've had to deal with the problem.

What happened man?

Originally posted by Surtur
The military, like cops, have this ass backwards code of silence at times.

Though I do have to say pretty much 100% of the time when I hear a story about rape by soldiers it is always about male soldiers raping female soldiers. So does male on male rape not happen as much?


There are more male than female rapes overall, but that's because there's 20+ males for every female in the military.

But you're still more likely to get raped and/or sexually harassed if you're female. Largely so.

Originally posted by Robtard
There are more male than female rapes overall, but that's because there's 20+ males for every female in the military.

But you're still more likely to get raped and/or sexually harassed if you're female. Largely so.

In the U.S. many soldiers have very low IQ's

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2008/01/dumb_and_dumber.html

This is also true in the U.K.

But according to New Scientist, intelligence is a disadvantage for soldiers and the most intelligent die first.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16297-intelligent-soldiers-most-likely-to-die-in-battle.html

Oh great...all we need is people telling our military intelligence is a bad thing.

You seem to be all over the place and your motive seems to be driven by a need to crap on the military. Anyhow.

I'm not surprised, in the early 90's I had a roommate who was dumber than a bag of hammers, so dumb he actually failed the US Army's basic aptitude test, but his recruiter gave him the answers in advance to his re-testing and he passed, barely at that. He only lasted about a year in the army, despite being an MP (Military Police) and having a general sense of when drug screenings took place, he popped positive for marijuana use and was discharged.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu

But according to New Scientist, intelligence is a disadvantage for soldiers and the most intelligent die first.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16297-intelligent-soldiers-most-likely-to-die-in-battle.html

That reasoning is the total opposite of what the article says. The theory presented is that intelligent people made for better soldiers and so were more likely to be put in the hazardous front line.

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh great...all we need is people telling our military intelligence is a bad thing.

I wonder how much truth is in this?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/31/us-army-racism-iraq-afghanistan

This is what a soldier said about it:

"As I suffer from PTSD caused by a series of events involving the DoDIG and Army CID, this article was very triggering for me to read but I felt it was imperative to get through it. Every item I read here rang absolutely true save mine involved "circling the wagons" involving crimes against children. A very important article and I am glad you shared it. Thank you."

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That reasoning is the total opposite of what the article says. The theory presented is that intelligent people made for better soldiers and so were more likely to be put in the hazardous front line.

Ergo it's a disadvantage for them, as they die first.

Originally posted by Robtard
You seem to be all over the place and your motive seems to be driven by a need to crap on the military. Anyhow.

I'm not surprised, in the early 90's I had a roommate who was dumber than a bag of hammers, so dumb he actually failed the US Army's basic aptitude test, but his recruiter gave him the answers in advance to his re-testing and he passed, barely at that. He only lasted about a year in the army, despite being an MP (Military Police) and having a general sense of when drug screenings took place, he popped positive for marijuana use and was discharged.

Well, I am not surprised someone as dumb as a bag of spanners became a cop anywhere. I'm not trying to crap on anyone, I am just seeing if we can profile someone who thrives in an environment where rape is rampant and whilst may not be a rapist themselves is complicit in his silence.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Ergo it's a disadvantage for them, as they die first.

If you are accepting that intelligence is something looked for in soliders you are pretty much undermining your original point.

Yeah, these seem like two issues. 1) Intelligent people make better soldiers and 2) being a good soldier is not good for your odds of survival as a soldier.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you are accepting that intelligence is something looked for in soliders you are pretty much undermining your original point.

Not really, my original point was intelligence is a disadvantage for soldiers meaning they die first - leaving the less intelligent soldiers to continue raping and stuff, unless of course one of the intelligent ones survives as some sort of "Mr. Big" in the barracks.

This is maybe even more disturbing than the culture of rape.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/487875/British-Armed-Forces-90-paedophile-Military-Freedom-of-information-Arrest

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/10789407.Paedophile_army_officer_is_jailed/