Many women are raped when they don't think they are in danger. Most are raped by acquaintances. What kind of "prevention" can there be? When is she wearing too much make-up? What is too little clothing? Only long pants? Never short skirts? Should a woman got to college and study with boys? There are rapes in college. Should women not work with men? There is sexual assault in the workplace. Should women stay in the home? According to your logic, the best way to prevent rape is for women to stay at home, completely covered when she goes out, never work, and only ever be accompanied by a man. This is the logical conclusion to your argument. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live among the Taliban. Nothing will prevent rape 100%. But the prevention begins with the those who commit or will commit the crime. Prevention is raising young men to love virtue, not selfishness. Overcoming evil in the heart of man is the path to virtue, not surpressing the freedoms of others.

Two things: 1) How typical. "The woman is just being emotional. Don't listen to her." I'm not being emotional. I'm making rational points. I've also pointed out biases from my own perspective. But my opposition to making a woman responsible in any way for sexual assault is not emotional. It's a well-thought-out view. Sheepdog and I just disagree. Please don't be dismissive by calling my views "emotional."

2) He did suggest blaming the victim: He wrote, "This is why responsibility lies in the assaulted party's lap- regardless of my personal wishes for it not to." 

Listen, I know he holds the rapist responsible. I also know he wants women to make thoughtful, wise decisions that don't put them at unnecessary risk. I hear what he is saying. But when it comes to the workplace or even just hanging out with friends or even a date, whether in the military or not, if a woman is raped, you don't hold her responsible, even partially. That's just what I believe.

ET--I think what undermines the military by having women in combat is that women are naturally weaker and men are naturally protective. Men will be distracted by their impulses to defend women as well as to compensate for their physical weaknesses.

ET---"Before Colin Powell became a Democrat, he came out against gays in the military and women in combat zones because these specific demograpic groups can undermine (through no fault of their own, necessarily) the focus of the mission. Let us remember that the military does not exist to provide equal opportunity for citizens; it exists solely to protect citizens."I agree. I don't think women should be in combat.

Mike--I know what you are saying. I've seen it u close, however, we still can't blame women or assume that soldiers will inevitably act like monsters.

absolutely.

One thing I am reacting to is nothing is more frustrating that being looked upon with suspicion just for being a woman, for being myself. There have been times when I've been looked at by other women and men with suspicion just because I was talking to a man. Or worse, others equating me just talking as "flirting" just because I'm a woman! I could be talking about the sky being blue and I'm held up to scrutiny! This is offensive. I'm not doing anything wrong by just being myself. No woman is. The suspicion should be directed to the person with impure thoughts, not the woman just being herself. 

I agree that a man can be falsely accused. This is just as bad (and maybe a topic for another post). However, we do need clear definitions of sexual assault. When a woman says no, she means no.

You're right. I'm sorry. 

I just inserted an addition to my post about the false reports. However, the issue about how conservatives should handle the issue of sexual assault and women remains something we need to grapple with as far as our arguments about women in combat.

You're so right. The law preached restrains sin to a degree. Ultimately, it is only restrained by the power of the Spirit, by grace. Moral relativism only feeds immorality.

As to your last point--you are right.

lol!

On this we can agree. By the way, I don't mind heated discussion. I can be offended, and it's still all okay. :) We can just agree to disagree. 

I'm not insulted. Just offended. You see a beautiful woman and you see temptation. You do realize that not everyone who looks upon beauty sees a temptation? Could it become a temptation? Yes, if it is worshipped. But beauty as it is does not incite temptation. It is sin in the heart of man that creates temptation. Not external beauty. Law, truth, beauty--these do not cause sin. Evil that twists these to be something they are not. This is the seed of temptation.

This is so offensive, words fail me.

Please read what I wrote in #9.