In These Times: Why Soldiers Rape

Features > August 13, 2008
Why Soldiers Rape
Culture of misogyny, illegal occupation, fuel sexual violence in military

By Helen Benedict



An alarming number of women soldiers are being sexually abused by their comrades-in-arms, both at war and at home. This fact has received a fair amount of attention lately from researchers and the press — and deservedly so.

But the attention always focuses on the women: where they were when assaulted, their relations with the assailant, the effects on their mental health and careers, whether they are being adequately helped, and so on. That discussion, as valuable as it is, misses a fundamental point. To understand military sexual assault, let alone know how to stop it, we must focus on the perpetrators. We need to ask: Why do soldiers rape?

Rape in civilian life is already unacceptably common. One in six women is raped or sexually assaulted in her lifetime, according to the National Institute of Justice, a number so high it should be considered an epidemic.

In the military, however, the situation is even worse. Rape is almost twice as frequent as it is among civilians, especially in wartime. Soldiers are taught to regard one another as family, so military rape resembles incest. And most of the soldiers who rape are older and of higher rank than their victims, so are taking advantage of their authority to attack the very people they are supposed to protect.

Department of Defense reports show that nearly 90 percent of rape victims in the Army are junior-ranking women, whose average age is 21, while most of the assailants are non-commissioned officers or junior men, whose average age is 28. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3848/why_soldiers_rape/

volunteer for the rape camps (aka military bases) is guilty of aiding abuse, at the least.

And with the culture of no consequences for criminal behavior created by the Bush administration, rapists know that they can get away with it.

Exactly. Murder Iraqi civilians? Don't sweat it.....Abuse prisoers in Gitmo? No biggie.

Lawlessness is the law in twisted Bushworld.

And before I say what that explanation is, I want to make it completely clear that even if that exaplanation is correct, that does not justify rape by the military. Or by non-military. We can and do transcend evolutionarily-derived instinctive behaviour all the time. Any time somebody uses contraception, or abstinence, to prevent pregnancy that person is overriding instinctive behaviour. Because we are capable (some of us, anyway) of rational thought we can override our instincts on moral or other grounds no matter how tempting it is to give in to those instincts. We can enact laws making rape the second-most severe crime on the books, and such behaviour by the military (when enacted upon civilians, anyway) a capital crime.

The explanation was that this aspect of our behaviour transcends species. If a male kills another male then instincts honed by evolution urge him to impregnate (or try to) that dead male's mate. The chances are that a pregnant female will be unable to provide for herself for the duration of pregnancy, and even less likely to be able to provide for herself and her new offspring when she comes to term. The pregnant female is unlikely to be able to attract a new mate or, if she does, that mate is likely to kill and eat the new offspring when born (this happens in lions). Hardly seems worth the effort. But for men it's not much of an investment in time or labour and there's a small chance the offspring will survive to adulthood. Evolution positively selects for this behaviour.

Instincts aren't very selective though. They don't care if the female you find after you kill an enemy is the mate of that enemy, some random female of the enemy's kin, or even a female of your own kin. Any unattached female in the proximity will do. You've just killed, you have adrenaline coursing through your veins and there's a female.

But unlike other species we are (mainly) rational beings. Capable of realizing that such behaviour is wrong. Capable of passing laws against it. Passing military codes that rank looting and rape with desertion, insubordination and treason together: capital crimes that, in some circumstances, can be dealt with by summary justice (superior officer shooting you).

Having said all that, I am appalled that in civilian life, without the instinctive drives that come after killing, 1 in 6 women have been raped. Even with the example of the Bush maladministration staring me in the face I thought that as a species we were better than that; that only a tiny minority were as evil as Cheney.

i can't say that i'm experienced in the matter, but i doubt that killing someone is any more of an aphrodesiac than other, less lethal, vigorous activity. but i'll take your word for it, that killing makes you horny.

however, while the vast majority of adult males do have instincts for consensual sex, but we also have instincts against trying to breed with someone who is opposed to the idea; or for that matter, being anywhere near someone who is violently resisting your advances.

most of us manage to get horny from time to time without committing rape. in any event, evolution is unlikely to particularly favor rape in any circumstance. as you point out, it usually takes a victim capable of surviving and willing to raise the kid to the point of maturity. this doesn't always happen, even in the relatively small cases where the victim does become pregnant.

finally, i'm not aware of any study that suggests the existence of a "rape gene", which presumably would be necessary to prove that rape in any circumstance is evolutionarily favored.

Evolution most certainly does favour rape in some species. In those species where an alpha male has a vast harem and the other males are without mates, rape happens frequently. It is well-documented in, for example, some species of seal. Come to think of it, in those species the males without mates feel inferior, and "let down" by females. Which seems to be the typical profile of rapists in civilian life.

We certainly have instincts that cause us to indulge in sexual behaviour. In many species there are also strong instincts to cheat on mates. For males it's because very little time, energy and bodily fluids are required, so any (consensual) opportunity is worth taking. Even with a female that doesn't have a mate and will have difficulty supporting herself and her offspring—it is less likely that she will be succesful than would a female with a (cuckolded) mate but it's far from impossible. And females cheat too: there was a study done on budgerigars a few years ago that demonstrated this (the female benefits by increasing the variability of the genes of her children, which means in changing circumstances it's more likely that at least one will survive).

You make an error in assuming it unlikely the female would become pregnant in the animal-specie equivalent of murder-rape. Humans are almost unique amongst species in that the female gives no indication of being at the fertile point of her cycle. In most species it's very obvious, and therefore more likely that any fight to the death would be over a fertile female.

A biologist would not speak of a gene "for" a certain type of behaviour except as short-hand terminology amongst other biologists. A biologist speaking to non-biologists would explain that there may be a gene, which all other things being equal increases the likelihood of the individual carrying a particular allele of that gene to behave in a certain way under certain circumstances.

Rape of civilians during wartime has long been documented in the history of many cultures. You can even find it in the Bible, except there it is not genetically-determined but JHVH telling his chosen people to kill all the males of the enemy, to kill all the females of the enemy who are not virgins, and to take the virgins for themselves—not so much an instinct as a commandment. There are also reports (based upon confessions which may be confabulation) that murderers find that committing murder makes them horny.

The fact that you know of no study does not mean that there has not been one (which may have found for or against the idea). Even if no such study has not been performed does not mean that the hypothesis is false: by your argument no study would ever be done about anything because if no study has been done that means the hypothesis is worthless which means there's no point doing a study.

I'm confused why a person would write that in response to an article that outlines specific behaviors showing how this is a culture that is explicitly not only tolerated, but taught and encouraged as part of training in the military.

I did not write "It's just our nature." Nor did I try to imply it, because that phrase indicates an attitude of "It's in our genes so we shouldn't do anything about it."

The article in the OP did not show that this behaviour arose from culture, it conjectured that. It offered three reasons why the behaviour might arise from culture. Behaviour which has been common throughout history in all cultures. And, if autobiographies and confessions can be believed, appears to be common in "ordinary" killers too.

That doesn't make it right. It does mean that, if this behaviour is partly instinctive, that we need to take greater steps to prevent it. A soldier who rapes a civilian woman of the enemy is guilty of a war crime carrying the death penalty—something I consider indicative of how common this behaviour has been throughout military history and of how firmly it has to be discouraged. It is only relatively recently in western cultures that females have been in the military and the penalty for a soldier raping a comrade carries a less-severe penalty (if it is reported and investigated, which is unlikely). If there is an instinctive component to this then it means that we need to do more to deal with it.

And before anybody jumps to a false conclusion, not all instinctive behaviour is bad or should be legislated against. Mother love is instinctive, driven strongly by evolution in mammals, and should not be legislated against. Instincts that lead to consensual sexual behaviour are not wrong and should not be legislated against. Instincts that lead to non-consensual behaviour, like rape, are definitely wrong and need strong legislation.

My point in all this was that if these rapes are even partly driven by an instinct of "killing is sexually arousing" then a simple lecture during induction like "Remember that these women are your comrades so please don't rape them." isn't going to carry sufficient weight to cause a significant change in the incidence.

"The article in the OP did not show that this behaviour arose from culture, "


What I claimed was that the article "outlines specific behaviors showing how this is a culture that is explicitly not only tolerated, but taught and encouraged as part of training in the military."

tolerated, taught, encouraged within the military culture, and I stand by my comment. The songs that are taught to recruits are an example. The language used by drill instructors to demean men by implying they are like women is another example.

From my personal experiences in the military, I also stand by the comment that it's cultural, encouraged, enjoyed and condoned by unit commanders. This happens even when women are present - and in some cases it's considered an "honor" to be a woman who is present while misogynistic pig behavior is going on - it's a sign you are accepted as "one of the guys" despite being female.

Even within Veterans for Peace (!), there are some people who have loudly defending using sexist and homophobic slurs against men and women in their discussion lists.

And even if they did that explicitly, rather than by implication, that does not explain why this sort of behaviour has been common throughout history and across cultures.

As I think I said in my first response to the OP, instinct may be another factor at work. And although I may have been less than diligent in pointing it out in every post of mine in this thread, I said fairly often that if instinct was another factor then it was a partial factor.

Practices in the US military may well make this behaviour more likely than in the UK military (or less, I haven't served in either). But as with any behaviour, there can be both genetic and environmental components. And if there are genetic components then even a radical change to the environment may not entirely suppress this behaviour entirely.

I leave you to contemplate this wikipedia article. The third paragraph describes the basic idea of sexual arousal after murder, although is regrettably lacking in citations. It takes only a very, very small increase in reproductive success from this kind of behaviour to result in evolutionary selection. And since it is quite easy to see how this can lead to an increase in reproductive success, I'm fairly sure that it has indeed been selected. That's not to justify it or to dismiss it as "natural" but to say that we have to recognize that it's more deeply-rooted than just a result of military training.

absolutely they do that, as well as teaching that sexual humiliation is a form of controlling and terrorizing "the enemy."

If you are asking whether or not they say "go out and rape women" as a matter of official policy, the answer is No.

Is that the only way you teach this lesson - by direct declarative statements? No.

The reason I bristle at people redirecting questions of culture when they are raised to refocus the discussion on instinct is that it serves to prevent honest discussion of these contributing factors. It has the "look over here!" factor, to focus people on issues that can't be changed, rather than doing the more difficult work of examining ethics, oppression, and systems of power.

My complaint, in other words, isn't that instinct is-never-and-cannot-ever-be a contributing factor to men's violence against women. It's that there are other issues at play that need to be examined and it's counter to women's rights for men to disrupt women's rights advocates when they talk about what must be changed, to focus on that which cannot be changed.

My objective was not to distract but to try for a better understanding.

I still don't buy the "culture only" issue. Some people raised by straight parents in an environment that castigates homosexuality turn out gay. Some people raised by gay parents turn out straight. So at least one component of human sexuality (sexual orientation) has very little to do with culture.

I saw a (very compelling) video mentioned in another thread today. It mentioned that the average age at which children discover their sexuality/orientation is 13. If thirteen years of being immersed in a homophobic environment has little or no influence in somebody realizing that he or she is gay then I am far from convinced that a year or two in the army, at an age when opinions are less malleable than in childhood, has a major effect.

The only significant effect on outward behaviour that being raised in a homophobic environment is likely to do is cause somebody to conceal it (there are many other issues such as guilt, fear, envy that you cannot express yourself in ways that your straight cohort does that I'm not trying to minimize). Indoctrination, however subtle or unsubtle, isn't going to cause you to switch your true orientation (though it may influence the orientation you present to the outside world).

To put it another way, seven years of Bush has probably persuaded only a handful of people who were fundamentally honest and ethical to become corrupt. But it has persuaded a lot of people who were already dishonest and corrupt to be more open about it and to become greedier.

But it's obvious I'll never convince you that there are any factors other than the culture of the army at work. So why didn't you rape anyone if there are no other influences at work?

Ignoring your misrepresentation of any/everyone's views as a "culture only" issue for now.

This thread is about the cultural influences relating to patriarchy and violence.

That is completely unrelated to sexual ORIENTATION being determined at birth.

I am not willing to engage in any discussion based on the premise that sexual orientation serves - in any way - as an appropriate analogy for rape.

Hi

"Ignoring your misrepresentation of any/everyone's views as a "culture only" issue for now."

I have absolutely no desire to play tricks on you. If you believe that I have done so then let's discuss it. Either here or in private—your choice. I don't misrepresent intentionally. I might be wrong, I might misunderstand, but I do not deliberately misrepresent. Believe that or not, as you wish.

"This thread is about the cultural influences relating to patriarchy and violence."

Yeah, that's what you intended this thread to be about. It's a shame, from your POV, that people digress onto whatever they happen to think (rightly or wrongly) is relevant.

"That is completely unrelated to sexual ORIENTATION being determined at birth."

I am more than willing to entertain that notion, but it will take more than your desire to convince me.

Really.

Read again, and you'll note that anything that I said (I hope, but I'm fallible) applies to early childhood. I have a reason for using that frame of reference because my own sexuality was determined at that age. Actually, that was the age at which I realized my own sexuality, it may well have been determined earlier,

Dude, I have have had a minority (heterosexual, and legal) sexual preference since I was four, maybe five, years old. I fucking know whereof I speak. I'm 52 now. My gay friends point out that it's still possible that I could be aroused by a male who played to my fetish,but I consider it unlikely. I know what I like.

I can tell you, with an authority you cannot assert about sexual preferences. About hiding your own sexual preference because you're shit fucking scared that people of your preferred sex will laugh at it. I can tell you, with an authority you cannot assert about the sexual problems (which include severe moral doubts with some sexual preferences) I suffer.

I may not be the world's foremost expert upon sexuality, but I am deeply interested in every aspect of human sexuality in order to make sense of my own feelings. And those feelings give me moral doubts that you probably have never suffered.

I know why I have never raped anybody, no matter how sexually attractive I found her (that's my orientation—I prefer women) and no matter what my cultural influences said. You have yet to explain how you were immune from what you say was inescapable indoctrination.

"You have yet to explain how you were immune from what you say was inescapable indoctrination."

I was a victim of it.

The number of eyes you have is set at birth. But it's not a behaviour.

Your final sexual orientation is determined, in part, by your genes. It is a behaviour.

Your final sexual orientation is determined, in part, by the levels of certain hormones in your mother's bloodstream. It's still a behaviour.

There are many aspects of our physical bodies and our behaviour that are controlled to a greater or lesser extent by genes. Many of them cannot be assigned a moral value because there can be no moral dimension associated with them. Is it immoral to have a cleft palate? Of course not. Is it immoral to be left-handed? Of course not. And yet left-handedness is wrongly associated with evil in many cultures throughout history. The Latin word for right is "dexter" from which we derive "dextrous"; the Latin word for left is "sinister." In Islam food is eaten with the right (good) hand and the arse is wiped (without intervening toilet tissue) with the left (evil) hand (which is why amputation of the right hand is considered even more of a punishment in Islam than it would be in other religions). And yet rational people can see that being left-handed is no more immoral than being right-handed is moral.

Sexual orientation, in any rational person's opinion, is nobody's else's concern provided that it involves only consenting adults. Therefore Fred Phelps is both wrong and irrational to denounce gays. Consensual crimes are no crimes at all, except in the eyes of idiots (and some lawmakers are definitely idiots). The fact that it is a behaviour influenced by genes is neither here nor there when it comes to assigning a moral value to it.

Rape, in any rational person's opinion, is a crime. It is non-consensual. To deny that this behaviour is influenced by genes as well as by environment is just plain fucking stupid. Sorry, but there ya go. For starters, it is very rare for women to commit rape. Therefore having a Y gene greatly increases the likelihood that you will commit rape. The fact that it is a behaviour influenced by genes is neither here nor there when it comes to the morality of it, but is important when attempting to reduce the incidence of it.

Like it or not, you cannot change somebody's sexual orientation by changing the environment. That was tried early in the last century. Some homosexual men turned to psychiatry to "cure them of their perversion" (society in general, and those seeking a "cure," thought of it in those terms). Everything was tried, including Pavlovian conditioning. Most remained unchanged, an unlucky few ended up unable to function sexually (but still homosexual). None of them, not a single one, was "cured."

But you appear to believe that rape alone, of all our behaviours, is not influenced in any way by genes. Rape, alone, of all our behaviours, is controlled entirely by the environment we are in. I don't buy that for one nanosecond. It would be nice to believe, because then we would have an easy way to prevent rape. It's still worth changing military percerptions because it may reduce the incidence of rape in the military somewhat.

Hey, I bet we could, by altering the conditioning children endure, ensure that they abstain from sex before marriage. That's a sexual behaviour and, according to your thinking, we can change it purely by immersing them in a "don't have sex before marriage" environment. Oh, wait a minute, the talebangelicals already do that. And it doesn't work. Same incidence of pre-marital sex, but the abstinence crowd end up with more sexually-transmitted diseases because they're also taught that condoms are evil.

The rate of rape in the general population is closer to 5% lifetime. Also, you can't compare periodic rates, which is what you're talking about in the military with lifetime rates, but the rate per capita is a hell of a lot higher. However, stats suggest that a woman in the military is at 30+ times higher risk per capita for being raped than she is just walking around.

What can you expect from those that are being taught how to kill?

is taken seriously as a SOCIETAL issue, rates of rape will not change.

Having knuckle-draggers like bu$hit and McShit "leading" our country doesn't help the situation any. They are poster children for misogynist control freaks / rapists / abusers everywhere.