US judge says lesbians can be ‘cured’ by male soldiers.

"An American judge has been accused of advocating corrective rape for lesbians."

Wow, I'm almost speechless at the views expressed by this magistrate.

Isn't that like 6 months old?

Yes, yes it is.

Damn timestamps. However I'm not from the US so I hadn't seen it till now. It is still a pretty bad view to express.

Edit:

Have a more recent not great news story about homosexuality then:
The US Senator who introduced a bill to ban discussion of homosexuality in schools says he has received hundreds of angry letters from parents around the world.

edited 7th May '11 6:18:28 PM by IanExMachina

Well no shit, you can't ignore that which is spreading through society as acceptable.

Regardless of your views on homosexuality I find it mind boggling that anyone ( especially a judge who has likely seen many a sexual assault case in graphic detail )Would consider correction rape an effective or justified 'treatment' for homosexuality.

How the hell do these people become our JUDGES?

My theory is that they get tenure when they are still rational decent educated human beings and then decide to go insane

Whether it was effective or not, it still wouldn't be justified.

But I notice that the judge didn't actually suggest it.

His statements could be taken to advocate either 'corrective rape', or, I don't know, just a general sort of a sexuality transfer via osmosis.

What does he think, these women are lesbians because they just don't spend enough time around men and so have forgotten how sexy they are or something?

Where do these people spring from, America?

Judges around the world, seem to be a lower form of life than even politicians. I'm shocked and appalled by the idea of anyone advocating rape as a cure for homosexuality but not surprised it came from a judge.

The crap that judges do is a bit of a berserk button for me, so I'll stop now.

How the hell is this nutter a judge still?

Judges have nigh-absolute job security.

I think that his comments have been misunderstood. He was an ignorant asshole who does not understand how sexuality works, but he was not an evil ignorant asshole who does not understand how sexuality works and supports rape.

According to the article, the magistrate said “it fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate – a tough job but someone had to do it” (emphasis mine). Add me to those who take that to mean he advocates forcible sexual intercourse - aka rape.

edited 7th May '11 7:29:26 PM by Wolf1066

Why soldiers in particular?

Reconsidering, and I think I'll go with Ignorant Slightly Creepy But Unaware Asshole.

At that time, the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was being debated.

Wow....my dumb shit quota for the day has been met.

“it fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate.''

Yes thank god for some good old-fashioned values

Something tells me that a few words were cut out of the original statement... And going back through one of the links, I find I am right...

"it fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate — a tough job but someone had to do it." starts with "In the early evolutionary years of the human species"

Which makes the statement itself less "offensive" and more "100% accurate."

As for the correlation to the modern day? Yeah.. that's a tad wrong though...

edited 7th May '11 8:09:49 PM by Swish

Thank you for thinking about it.

Swish, you're awesome. Everyone else, try not to be so trusting of the internet.

edited 7th May '11 8:16:23 PM by Ultrayellow

I'm not sure it really does make it any less offensive. True or not, he didn't just decide to state that piece of evolutionary psychology at random. He said it while talking about sexuality issues in the modern day, which means he thinks that it has relevance now.

And somehow, this leads him to believe that lesbian women should be placed in an environment with as many promiscuous straight men as possible.

Um still not any better at all.

His correlation to modern day is wrong...

But I don't see where he's advocating rape... I mean that statement, in it entirety, and where it was placed in relationship with the rest of the article he wrote, makes it seem that he's arguing that gay men should not be allowed to serve because they'll rape other men, because that's what men have been programmed to do, if it says anything...

Yes, it implies that lesbians would be raped(along with any straight man if gay men are allowed to serve), but it also implies that all women in the military will be(and are) raped.

Making the implication is not "better"... But it's definitely not advocating rape.

edited 7th May '11 8:44:27 PM by Swish

My word, are there still people who believe that our cave-dwelling ancestors used to just bash women on the head and have their way with them? How quaint.

And still disturbing that the judge sees it relevant in the context of 'modern soldiers "curing" lesbians of their urges.