Military Bases in Daegu Ranked as 2nd Riskiest for Males to Be Sexually Assaulted
If you are a male soldier stationed in Daegu here is something to be aware of:
Male soldiers based at Baumholder in Germany were more at risk of being sexually assaulted than at any other Army post, according to a service-commissioned study that found two other posts in Germany with similar risks.
A Rand Corp. report released Friday examined sexual assault data at U.S. Army bases worldwide and found elevated risks of male sexual assault at Vilseck and Landstuhl in Germany. (……..)
When adjusting for key factors such as age, marital status and education, LRMC rated as the riskiest, followed by Baumholder and Daegu, South Korea, the report said.
Stars & Stripes
You can read more at the link, but for sexual assaults on women Camp Humphreys and bases in Daegu ranked 7th and 8th across the Army which is really high as well.
VERY briefly scanning this article and a general RAND study on male sexual assault, these things jumped out:
– This report’s numbers are a bit contrived. Bases with infantry units, due to age, education, and occupation, have more incidents, primarily due to hazing and situational homosexuality. This study “adjusted” for this. Unclear what conclusion can be drawn with these remaining numbers.
– Those identifying as homosexual or transgender FAR outnumber heterosexuals as victims. Nobody saw that coming, right?
– A lot of the numbers thrown around are LIFETIME risk of sexual assault rather than being related to the military, which has a lower rate.
Protip: “In addition, victims may intentionally ejaculate to minimize the assault duration, or offenders may make the victim ejaculate as a strategy to confuse the victim and discourage reporting.” This is about 18% in the civilian world. No statistics in the military.
“You can’t report it if you liked it,” is a clever strategy on a vulnerable, low-self esteem victim.
Don’t get any ideas, johnhenry.
So many terms have been so bandied about that I’m not certain what they mean.
Does this mean forced intercourse? Or is just calling someone a “pansy” listed too?
A RAND report states this… seems reasonable:
Review of Previous Research on Male Sexual Assault Characteristics
Research addressing various aspects of male sexual assault, including estimated preva-
lence and characteristics, has slowly increased over the past several decades.
Definition of Sexual Assault
DoD Instruction 6495.02 defines sexual assault, similar to Article 120 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C. 920), as
intentional sexual contact characterized by the use of force, threats, intimidation,
or abuse of authority or when the victim does not or cannot consent. As used in
this Instruction, the term includes a broad category of sexual offenses consisting of
the following specific UCMJ offenses: rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual con-
tact, abusive sexual contact, forcible sodomy (forced oral or anal sex), or attempts
to commit these offenses. (DoD, 2013, p. 91)
To be clear, DoD defines consent to include “words or overt acts indicating a freely
given agreement to the sexual conduct at issue by a competent person,” and consent
cannot be given if the person is “sleeping or incapacitated, such as due to age, alcohol
or drugs, or mental incapacity” (DoD, 2012, p. 15). These definitions are consistent
with most U.S. state statutes on sexual assault, the majority of which include both pen-
etrative and nonpenetrative sexual contact crimes, offender behaviors beyond physi-
cal force (such as threats and intimidation), and situations in which the victim is not
legally capable of providing consent (Tracy et al., 2012).
Back in the early ’70’s you couldn’t walk down to the ville without being sexually assulted…but it would cost you $2.00 for a”short time” or $5.00 for an “overnighter”. 🙁