Posted on 04/22/2008 10:13:04 PM PDT by OnRightOnLeftCoast
A female midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy testified Tuesday that a fellow midshipman raped her in her dorm room after he had been drinking. Mark Calvanico is accused of rape, making a false statement to investigators, conduct unbecoming an officer and unauthorized absence.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
[The accuser's roommate] said Calvanico and her roommate had a burgeoning romance that they were concerned violated the school's fraternization policy.
She said she didn't hear signs of a struggle but that she did hear a rustling coming from her roommate's bed.
Under questioning by the defense, [Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agent Michelle] Robinson said Calvanico's DNA was not found on a vaginal swab of the accuser or on any of the blankets, sheets or clothes. Robinson also said no bruises or cuts were found on the accuser's genitals.
Thinking the same thing.
Rape is conduct unbecoming a Commander in Chief but the MSM gave President Clinton a pass on it anyway and said “it’s just sex”. Even NOW said the first grope is free.
Why is it that I view these rape claims with a jaundiced eye these days?
Maybe it has something to do with the new definition of rape. If a woman consents, then decides afterwards she didn’t really want to then it’s rape. That might have something to do with my cynical attitude.
The guy may be a jerk and unfit to be a Naval officer, but that doesn’t mean he raped her; especially with no physical evidence. Why did she allow him to come back so many times without reporting him and why did her room-mate not do something if there was a rape happening?
The act of visiting the room of a female, after lights out - should be sufficient violation of the non fraternization standard for the male, and the MULTIPLE visits in the past and the night in question - before the "rape" - without being reported by the female should be sufficient to end her stay at the Academy...
Yeah, I agree. They should both be cashiered out - pronto!
Ditto!
Maybe for the same reason you (and I and the rest of us) get that feeling when the headline reads: "Racial slurs painted on car", or "Couple claim discrimination".
I don’t think women should be at the service academies in the first place. I had two sons at USNA (’01 and ‘02), but discipline has been going downhill for years.
“Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agent Michelle Robinson testified that DNA from both midshipmen was found on the inside and outside of a pair of boxer shorts Calvanico had been wearing that night.”
Amen. The fear of being un-PC is conduct unbecoming to an academy devoted to training warriors.
It is what it is. No changing it. My advice? Build a bridge and get over it.
Women have been at the academies for more than a quater of a century - that’s a generation. They serve side-by-side (and in command) on every platform (other than subs).
If you want them out of the academies, then they should be out of the ROTC’s, too. What’s the next? Bar them from serving? That’s your next logical step.
The question that always comes to mind is,"How does having women in the military improve combat effectiveness or even day to day discipline?"
How could a rape have taken place with another woman in the room? If it were really a rape, I would expect the victim to call out for help from her roommate.
That insignificant little tidbit is far from anything even resembling evidence of rape. Her case is weak.
Concur. Gerald Ford got the ball rolling, but Carter would’ve if Ford didn’t. Way too late to reverse the process now.
You can get tossed from the Boat School just for bumpin' uglies in Bancroft Hall.
There's nothing wrong, in theory, with having women at the service academies. The "problem" stems with the fact that the women at the service academies are held to different standards than the men.
It doesn't, it has to be compensated for.
I reply, with respect, that there is something wrong with women at the academies.
It is not good or proper for women to have to fight, or want to fight, this country's wars. It is the duty of the men to do that. My wife said it well, "A woman's job is to make Marines, not be one."
You are right, of course, it cannot be changed back, but I am hoping for our culture to return to the old roles, the biblical roles, for men and women. Where every woman lived under the provision and protection of a man; either her husband, brother, or father.
I know I am old fashioned in this regard, but it would grieve me to know that my daughter, if I had one, would think it a better life to be in the military rather than making a godly home for her family.
“I am hoping for our culture to return to the old roles, the biblical roles, for men and women. Where every woman lived under the provision and protection of a man; either her husband, brother, or father.”
Sounds just like Sharia law to me
I know you're being sincere, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, but that's just backwards thinking, my friend. When you assign some sort of gender roles to the different sexes, you're automatically placing artificial limits on them, and therefore, you're restricting the liberty of human beings---as in their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness---and to do that is decidedly un-American.
Sexual plumbing, in this day and age, has little bearing on one's fitness as a Naval or Marine Corps officer. If a woman can meet the same commissioning requirements that a man must meet, there's no reason she shouldn't be commissioned as an officer . . . and every commissioning source should be open to a woman. It's only fair.
Correct.
Here's one way to look at it: Why don't we use children in our military, and put them in harm's way? There are in fact jobs they could do competently. The Moslems obviously recognize this. But it is obscene to suggest it, doesn't it?
We have this idea that the whole point of a military is to protect our society's vulnerable core, from which the life of our people is nourished and preserved. Children are obviously part of that, since they are our future. Throughout history, women have been recognized as part of our core as well. Not to so recognize them is to ignore the facts of biology. And it seems crass and disrespectful of womanhood.
The other problem is that of military effectiveness. The fact is that, because a woman's body is built to gestate and nourish babies and small children, it is a walking vulnerability, compared to a man's body. Years of experience with women in martial arts, including black belts, has only confirmed this reality.
"No changing it," is an understandable response. But unchangeable things change all the time—such as the all-male military and law enforcement we grew up with. Such as the primacy of General Motors. And so on.
Women in the service sure did improve MY morale! That promotes good order and discipline in and of itself.
Enjoy your continued work a Bob Jones University
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.