Tulsa Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) Champ, we're talking prison rape type questions. As in, has anyone from work put their hoo-hah in any of your orifices in the last 12 months. That was about halfway through, up to that point it was the standard hostile work environment questions ( i.e. sexual jokes, gay jokes, etc). All of us in the flight room definitely got a good laugh out of it, but I was puzzled as to what the angle was for the survey. Surely, someone else got selected or do I have some sort of special mark in my records. Edited August 24, 2014 by Tulsa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breckey Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I got the same thing. Answered "no" to every question because they had the descriptor "were you offended" or something similar on almost all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HossHarris Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Decline the focus groups without legal representation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I got the same thing. Answered "no" to every question because they had the descriptor "were you offended" or something similar on almost all of them. So...are you saying someone did or did not put their hoohah in one of your orifices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB Stacker Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Per the brief, after pilot training will be ROTC. Because when I think "which of the three commissioning sources needs the most attention regarding SAPR," the clear answer is ROTC and not the place where athletes have raped women for years with impunity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Because when I think "which of the three commissioning sources needs the most attention regarding SAPR," the clear answer is ROTC and not the place where athletes have raped women for years with impunity. Whoa, whoa, whoa.. lets not get in the way of some traditions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boilermaker Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 My buddy was in one of the focus groups and he felt they were asking leading questions to get incriminating information. And 3 on the briefing of "We won't investigate, but we'll turn it over to investigators" bit What sorts of questions do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 This is why I tell my fellow cadets to look elsewhere both in ROTC and when they hit AD. Not worth the potential liability, especially with cases flaring up from years ago. While this year it happened to be suicide awareness due to the timing (RW death and an airman at our local base all in the same week) the first thing normally brought up during ROTC commanders' calls is SAPR. Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB Stacker Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Whoa, whoa, whoa.. lets not get in the way of some traditions It's all rum roofies, sodomy, and the lash more sodomy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitteEinBit Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) This is why I tell my fellow cadets to look elsewhere both in ROTC and when they hit AD. Not worth the potential liability, especially with cases flaring up from years ago.If dudes have cases flaring up from years ago, they've got some bad shit! That's why I always say wrap that shit up! Oh wait...you're talking about....nevermind.....In all seriousness, I have a dirty sense of humor. I've joked at work...but even I know rape, sexual assault, harassment are bad. Does the Air Force really see an increasing problem here? (I don't have access to the stats) Is there a new generation of dirtiness entering our force or are we just overreacting? If we did a "cleanup" a few years back, wouldn't it stand to reason that we shouldn't still be having these problems?It is kind of like the AF and its increasing focus on physical fitness over the past 12 years, but somehow our personnel medical costs still keep rising...weird.You would think we would have fix the problem after all these years with all those great CBTs and "all calls." This isn't a new phenomenon and it certainly isn't something only in the flying community. Every few years we come up with new CBTs and even more sternly worded memos condemning these behaviors, but it isn't working. Maybe (and this is just me talking) this is a human behavior that can only be eradicated by focusing on the humans performing this behavior and removing them from service as opposed to trying to reassure those of us who already know this behavior is bad, that it is bad through additional CBTs and other time-wasting seminars. I don't know anyone in my dirty circle of friends who would tolerate this behavior, and I'm pretty sure it is the same with 93.1% of us in the AF. Lets focus on the other 6.9%...those dirty MFs! Edited August 25, 2014 by BitteEinBit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Because when I think "which of the three commissioning sources needs the most attention regarding SAPR," the clear answer is ROTC and not the place where athletes have raped women for years with impunity.. The NBA? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Hungus Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Florida State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10percenttruth Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Because when I think "which of the three commissioning sources needs the most attention regarding SAPR," the clear answer is ROTC and not the place where athletes have raped women for years with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoo Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Champ, we're talking prison rape type questions. As in, has anyone from work put their hoo-hah in any of your orifices in the last 12 months. That was about halfway through, up to that point it was the standard hostile work environment questions ( i.e. sexual jokes, gay jokes, etc). All of us in the flight room definitely got a good laugh out of it, but I was puzzled as to what the angle was for the survey. Surely, someone else got selected or do I have some sort of special mark in my records. Just took the survey here and was equally perplexed, not to mention left feeling slightly violated. I no shit looked around to make sure nobody was looking at my monitor. Anyhow, talked it over with a Navy counterpart. Apparently the Navy did a survey a couple years ago in which the definition of sexual assualt was incredibly vague; everything from merely touching someone's knee to full-on rape was lumped in the same category. The results yielded something like 50,000 instances of sexual assault. This iteration was most likely an attempt to better define and assign more accurate numbers to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boilermaker Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 If dudes have cases flaring up from years ago, they've got some bad shit! That's why I always say wrap that shit up! Oh wait...you're talking about....nevermind..... In all seriousness, I have a dirty sense of humor. I've joked at work...but even I know rape, sexual assault, harassment are bad. Does the Air Force really see an increasing problem here? (I don't have access to the stats) Is there a new generation of dirtiness entering our force or are we just overreacting? If we did a "cleanup" a few years back, wouldn't it stand to reason that we shouldn't still be having these problems? It is kind of like the AF and its increasing focus on physical fitness over the past 12 years, but somehow our personnel medical costs still keep rising...weird. You would think we would have fix the problem after all these years with all those great CBTs and "all calls." This isn't a new phenomenon and it certainly isn't something only in the flying community. Every few years we come up with new CBTs and even more sternly worded memos condemning these behaviors, but it isn't working. Maybe (and this is just me talking) this is a human behavior that can only be eradicated by focusing on the humans performing this behavior and removing them from service as opposed to trying to reassure those of us who already know this behavior is bad, that it is bad through additional CBTs and other time-wasting seminars. I don't know anyone in my dirty circle of friends who would tolerate this behavior, and I'm pretty sure it is the same with 93.1% of us in the AF. Lets focus on the other 6.9%...those dirty MFs! I also don't have the statistics, but I'd like to know how we compare to the US population, i.e. there are x number of offenses per y number of total people vs the same numbers for the general populace. I imagine the AF has significantly less occurrences per capita. I've also yet to see a stated goal for the number of offenses. Obviously we are working toward zero, but we also know that's impossible. That being the case, if we don't define an acceptable number, and as stated, we'll never reach zero, then this continual focus on SAPR will never end. Further, I doubt we'll ever define an acceptable number because it would be unpopular. Who is going to stand up and publicly say any number of annual rapes are "acceptable." Finally, I'd argue that as time goes by and we do reach a number that is statistically representative of our lowest possible number of incidents, the rate will virtually cease to decrease, and in an effort to further decrease these numbers; briefs, training, etc will increase. Think exponential functions from calculus where the graph approaches but never reaches zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComingLeft Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Two standard deviations below the general population, accounting for like demographics? Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herk Driver Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 The stated goal is zero. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 The stated goal is zero. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! There is but one way to achieve that goal...disband the military. No one to be assaulted or do the assaulting. Ipso facto, target achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Looks like Clemson University is doing some sexual assault 'training' of their own... http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5923 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Looks like Clemson University is doing some sexual assault 'training' of their own...http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5923 Nice. My school had a Sexual Violence Awareness CBT (Title IX requirement for registration), but it wasn't invasive. Frankly, the AF could probably stand to learn from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaddebate Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-adopts-means-sex-assault-rule-25826956Gov. Jerry Brown announced Sunday that he has signed a bill that makes California the first in the nation to define when "yes means yes" and adopt requirements for colleges to follow when investigating sexual assault reports. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance [...] institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault [...] The policy shall include [...] An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. [...] [...] the complainant [is] unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances: The complainant was asleep or unconscious. The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication [...] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) Haven't finished it yet, and some of the editorializing is.. annoying. But I found it a good read and indicative of the problems our leaders face when trying to make all parties happy. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/the-militarys-rough-justice-on-sexual-assault.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1 (Prosecutor) Christensen stayed behind with (Victim) Kris. She had just returned from deployment in Qatar, but her eyes conveyed a weariness deeper than jet lag. While Kris was gone, the wing commander visited (Rapist) Brooks in jail, as had several of his squadron buddies — a show of support that the victim herself had not once received. Kris was told that there had been an “all-operators” meeting in her absence, in which the operations commander informed the squadron that Brooks was found guilty and sentenced to jail time. But, the commander added, there were two sides to every story, and people could continue to believe whatever they wanted, regardless of the jury’s verdict. More important, Kris told Christensen that after years of glowing performance evaluations, she had recently been downgraded — Newberry wrote that she needed to keep her “emotions in check.” There was nothing Christensen could think to say. He had done his job. But this was not justice. As he would later remark: “When the commander is so obviously supporting the accused over the victim, it sends a clear message that it’s O.K. not to believe her and to shun her. And so why would a woman come forward, knowing what Kris has gone through?” Wow. Edited November 30, 2014 by 17D_guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhhello Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Haven't finished it yet, and some of the editorializing is.. annoying. But I found it a good read and indicative of the problems our leaders face when trying to make all parties happy. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/the-militarys-rough-justice-on-sexual-assault.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1 Wow. Wow is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Wow is right. 2 How fucking sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDonut Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 ... the place where athletes have raped women for years with impunity. Since that shit never happens at college campuses. Let's compare rape statistics for US colleges and compare it to the academies and reevaluate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now