A matched set regarding military officers; or, excuse me, Sir, but those officers are no gentlemen.

Mug shot of Lt. Col. Jeff. Krusinski

Truly proving that stupid is as stupid does, Lt Col Jeff Krusinski, 41, the Air Force’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response boss, was arrested for drunkenly assaulting a woman who successfully fended him off.  We don’t know why he ended up so battered, but I’d like to think that his intended victim savaged him.

Oh, and right about now, I feel the compulsion to repeat his title:  the Air Force’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response boss.  To be honest, I’m not surprised.  There’s a vast chasm between the corporate message to men that they shouldn’t “get into trouble by doing x, y & z” (and the military is corporate in that way) and the fact that we have a culture that, for all its talk about feminism and liberation, does not respect women. Exhibit A — a screen grab from Victoria’s Secret:

Shop the Collection - Victoria's Secret - Mozilla Firefox 572013 34053 PM.bmp

Instead, our culture, with its obsessive focus on making women available for sex (clothes, birth control, hook-up culture, etc.), talks directly to men’s primitive lizard brains.  And when the lizard brain is brought to the forefront — alcohol, opportunity, insanity — none of the minatory lessons are going to stop the guy.  This has nothing to do with any individual woman’s behavior.  No women “asks” for it — but are culture implies that every woman does.

So I now invite you to sit back, relax, and enjoy a Navy training video from the early mid-1960s, telling officers how they should respect women:

For an antidote to both sordidness and silliness, please allow me to introduce you to the amazing, charming, heroic Capt. Eric Brown, a pilot in the Royal Navy during WWII.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

     
    Thanks for this…..our culture really is circling the drain!!
     
    Men need to take note, and do the one thing they can to avoid Krusinski’s fate — stay in control of all your faculties!!
     
    I do not excuse his behavior because he was drunk….he CHOSE to get drunk.  I’m pointing out to men in general, as I do to women in general — there are actions that can put you at great risk, and other actions that will keep you safer.  Choose your actions wisely.

  2. Danny Lemieux says

    First, I do not condone one iota this officer’s behavior. His career should be over! 
    That being said, what do people think is going to happen in a military where men and women are, for the most part, at the peak of their sexual activity, men are trained to be hyper-testosteronated, women and men are forced into close quarters together for extended periods with bucket loads of stress are dumped into the mix, stirred under high heat with endless incantations threatening imminent death?
    The solution? Well, one solution is to let’s assign them to work and live together in even closer quarters, such as nuclear submarines assigned to disappear under the ocean for months at a time.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/29/pub-navy-combats-critics-fight-let-women-submarines/
    A close friend served on a U.S. tender during the First Gulf War. He told me that sex between sailors (men and women only, back then) was rampant and that, when hostilities threatened to erupt, many women deliberately got pregnant so that they would be reassigned back to the U.S. (to their surprise and to the outrage of civil libertarians, they were dishonorably discharged)
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/15/20040615-115647-8125r/?page=all
    Liberal social engineers, of course, are shocked, shocked that soldiers are ordinary human beings that gravitate toward (gasp! OMG!) having sex with other human beings.
    Women are absolutely necessary in the modern military. But, perhaps, some segregation of units by sex would be a good idea. 
    This story is pathetic. It is also inevitable.
     

  3. erisguy says

    In “In Harm’s Way” (1965) Kirk Douglas plays a naval officer who rapes a nurse prior to bombing at Pearl Harbor. Make of that what you will.

  4. says

    erisguy: Men have always raped women and will always rape women.  Nevertheless, we have a culture now that sells women as sex objects in a way never even contemplated in the bad-old pre-women’s lib days in America. 

  5. Mike Devx says

    I certainly think our culture is drowning in sexuality, and could use perhaps a little less of it, but more troublesome to me is how utterly moronic (or high-school sophomoric) the sexual advertising and meme influence is.  We’re so fricking immature and our cultural sexual imagery is at the level of a fifteen-year-old drooling over his hot high school chemistry teacher.
     
    Sex sells, certainly, but our culture could be a lot more adult about it.
     
    Having said that, Book I don’t think I would have chosen the Victoria Secret ad page to make the point.  I don’t find that page offensive at all.  Certainly the company – run by women for women? – is going to sell swimwear and negligees and such by using the most beautiful women they can possibly find.  And for bathing suits, they’re going to choose beach backgrounds.  These ads too are targeted at women, not men.  I’m sure a lot of men are aware they can find great eye candy in Victoria Secret advertising products, but I doubt it’s the first place they’d go to, to look for it!
     

  6. says

     
    BW will answer for herself, Mike….here’s my take.
     
    I don’t see anything offensive in using beautiful women, even in bathing suits, to sell stuff…especially when it’s bathing suits you’re selling.
     
    What I find objectionable is the “type” of display that’s going on in many of these ads.  A few years ago, there was a fascinating analysis of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, focusing on the poses of the models, and pointing out the explicitly pornographic edge to the imagery being presented…..showing how the specific poses were previously found only in the porn industry’s productions.  Women “presenting” themselves in much the way that animals do, or appearing to be dead, etc.  I’ve noticed that the imagery in SI has been significantly toned down in the years since.  For that matter, even the Victoria’s Secret catalog has moderated the poses from those I remember back in the early ’90s.
     
    When women are constantly being shown in this way, it has its effect.  Decent men may be influenced less, but when they see a colleague dressed in the way that only streetwalkers used to be, it’s an effort for them to set aside and treat the women around them as serious.  Less stable, or more sociopathic, or just drunk, men may be “released” to do evil.  Evil actions should be punished…..but our culture is encouraging evil by abandoning good taste and appropriateness.
     
     

  7. Michael Adams says

    I keep the television on at work, most of the time.  It helps keep me awake. Today, when the Benghazi hearings recessed or got too intense, I flipped channels, and landed for a bit on a movie, set in the Victorian era.  What struck me was that, for a supposedly sexually repressed age, there was an enormous emphasis on sexual characteristics,  like the huge bustles, emphasizing women’s  hips, and the push-up corsets.  Women did not go around half naked, as they do, today, but there was a goodly amount of feminine distraction, a hundred and twenty years back, too. It seems so apparent  to me, although I suppose not so much to everyone else, that we wear clothes, and deodorant,  to allow us to think about something besides reproduction, all day, every day.  I should like to think, that, eventually, people would come to see that all that selling of sexual activity, that is not going to be delivered,  is designed to keep people from thinking clearly, and making rational choices.
     
    Notice, I am not talking about violating God’s law, but rather the simple rules of common sense. When boorish men stare at women’s chests, sometimes the woman will say something like, “I’m up here,” pointing at their faces. I heartily concur, so  much so that I wonder that woman who want to be taken seriously dress rather like whores, to work in executive jobs. If I want to be taken seriously, I don’t wear my Speedo to work. No matter how close I am to washboard abs, I don’t want to be taken for a real or imitation adolescent.
     
    Also, yeah, I’m glad she resisted “with extreme prejudice.” His face a story tells!
     
     

  8. says

    Our Leftist culture, yes. Hollywood profit, porn profit, and abortion for profit culture.
     
    Evil cannot be fought by those too scared to hate it for what it is. Those that do not wish to see, can never be on the side of justice and truth.
     
    The reason why the Army and other organizations like it give power point slides on preventing rape is a politically and culturally motivated re-engineering of the backbone of US national defense by the Left. People don’t have to believe it. It is what it is. Arming people and having them be able to fight without orders, is a little bit too risky for a slave economy.

  9. says

    I don’t really care about people providing products and services according to the sexual appetites and demands of humanity. What I do focus quite well on is how all this money and profit coincidentally happens to end up in the hands of the Left, to be used to wage war against children. That, perhaps, is something I can’t easily ignore.
     
    Although, on an objective basis, the Japanese have a far better grasp of sexual desires for men vs women, than those in the Western world.

  10. says

    Something people should be mindful of is how the Left uses social engineering to keep women under control. They don’t necessarily use force, money, or punishment, although those do exist in their schemes. What they use predominantly is the same thing that keeps women in Africa in the female genital mutilation circle. It is enforced by women, for women. Why? Because society says so. To go against society is to suicide.
     
    This is the true power of social engineering as a weapon. You don’t need concentration camps. You don’t need assassinations. You don’t need courts or lawyers or police. You don’t even need an army to enforce it. The slaves will do it to themselves, on their own.

  11. Ron19 says

    Re Michael Adams #7:
     
    When boorish men stare at women’s chests, sometimes the woman will say something like, “I’m up here,” pointing at their faces. I heartily concur, so  much so that I wonder that woman who want to be taken seriously dress rather like whores, to work in executive jobs.
     
    The boorish men aren’t the ones that do the “rape rape” and assault of women, except perhaps date rape.
     
    The real predators do not attack the swimsuit models or the executives or the women who live their lives in a confident manner; they are inaccessible to the everyday monsters, and never being seriously attacked, are free to do whatever they want, no matter how provocative. 
     
    The real victims of the real predators are the weak, and being careful isn’t enough to stop the monsters from going after them, no matter how careful and non-provocative they live their lives, because the monsters have been provoked by the unreachables.  The predators, like most men and boys, are constantly conditioned to think of women as sex objects instead of real people worthy of simple human respect.
     
    Numerous times I’ve come across woman who were careless in their attempt to be non-provocative, and wound up being much more provocative than they expected to be.  An example of that was on the Seinfeld episode where Elaine had Cramer take her Christmas card photo.  She dressed in a somewhat daring unbuttoned/braless top, which would just show some cleavage.  However, when she posed, she turned sideways and exposed her nipple for the camera.  She was so enamored of herself that she didn’t notice that, but everybody she sent the card to did notice, and many of them commented on it to her.  I don’t have to work to remember actual live instances of this, because they automatically imprint on my memory, and have much more staying power in my mind than deliberate attempts at extreme, total exposure.
     

  12. says

    Earl’s nailed it regarding the Victoria’s Secret ads.  Shopping for swimsuits with a teen is very difficult as you try to explain away bikini bottoms cut so low you need a full Brazilian wax, or tops so minute you fall out in every direction, and poses so provocative they’re directly out of the Playboy Handbook.

    The models are lovely, truly, but the message is too close to pornography to make a parent happy.  Same with Abercrombie, which uses almost-naked models to sell clothes.

  13. says

    To start off my comment, about this guy being drunk: well, I honestly really have no other word than moronic for that. Getting drunk and loosing your senses is absolutely idiotic – and a LOT of people do not seem to be realizing that. The many stories I’ve heard about (young) people – my peers and some of my friends included – getting drunk, and the consequences thereof, are definitely a contributing factor to the fact I have choosen to be a teetotaler. I’d even dare to say that the ban on alcohol is the only part of the islamic ideology that I have any understanding and respect for…
     
    About the military, is that not, or should that not be a place for young, aggressive, testosterone-filled men? Much of the military, I would think, should be off-limits to women.
     
    “In “In Harm’s Way” (1965) Kirk Douglas plays a naval officer who rapes a nurse prior to bombing at Pearl Harbor. Make of that what you will.”Rape is nothing new and probably has existed throughout human history. From a purely theoretical point of view, all men can rape women. But the fact is that most men dead and alive never have nor ever will. That doesn’t make rape any less disgusting, of course, but less us not presume that rape is a crime that implicates all men, like the feminazi squad likes to do.
     
    “Having said that, Book I don’t think I would have chosen the Victoria Secret ad page to make the point.  I don’t find that page offensive at all.  Certainly the company – run by women for women? – is going to sell swimwear and negligees and such by using the most beautiful women they can possibly find.  And for bathing suits, they’re going to choose beach backgrounds.  These ads too are targeted at women, not men.  I’m sure a lot of men are aware they can find great eye candy in Victoria Secret advertising products, but I doubt it’s the first place they’d go to, to look for it!”Well, you could probably think of better examples to make the point than Victoria’s Secret, but I think Bookworm would like to keep some decency and propriety on her blog. Mike has a good point, but I would beg to disagree about the ‘most beautiful women’ thing. I really don’t find these women that beautiful. Maybe I just don’t like skinny models and lots of make-up and other fakery.
     
    To add a confession to this… I admit I do sometimes look at women in bathing suits, or somewhat scantily-clad women, or pin-up/boudoir style pictures. I read a few at least somewhat known conservative blogs by male bloggers who happen to sometimes post pictures of said nature (The Other McCain, Camp of Saints, American Power,…). Of course, those posts, which R.S. McCain of The Other McCain coined as ‘Rule 5′, are only part of their activities, and I don’t primarily read their blogs for this stuff (you could avoid those posts if you wanted to). So, you see, yes, I do look at sexy stuff from time to time and don’t really have a big problem with it. I don’t mind sexy, but I like to see it done in a way that remains stylish and classy. Raunchy and whorish are not my cup of tea. I do also have definite boundaries and their are things I do not want to see, and will not look up. I also do not consider women to be mere sex objects – women are a lot more than that, certainly.

    I don’t see anything offensive in using beautiful women, even in bathing suits, to sell stuff…especially when it’s bathing suits you’re selling.”In my experience, usually it actually isn’t bathing suits they’re selling. I remember examples of beer, cars, perfume,… you name it.
    I do not find using ‘sexiness’ to sell things all that offensive either, and I’m not going to rail against it, but I do wonder what kind of cultural image it gives, especially to those in non-Western countries. Not that I give a crap about what the fuzzy-faced nutjobs in the Muslim world think of us, but still. Also, these fuzzy-faced goat lovers are amongst the biggest consumers of porn, especially the more depraved and deviant kinds.
     
    “What I find objectionable is the “type” of display that’s going on in many of these ads.  A few years ago, there was a fascinating analysis of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, focusing on the poses of the models, and pointing out the explicitly pornographic edge to the imagery being presented…..showing how the specific poses were previously found only in the porn industry’s productions.”
    Wow, I didn’t know that. Do you perhaps have a link or some hint to that analysis?
     
    “When women are constantly being shown in this way, it has its effect.  Decent men may be influenced less, but when they see a colleague dressed in the way that only streetwalkers used to be, it’s an effort for them to set aside and treat the women around them as serious.  Less stable, or more sociopathic, or just drunk, men may be “released” to do evil.  Evil actions should be punished…..but our culture is encouraging evil by abandoning good taste and appropriateness”

    I guess the effect of all this – for lack of a better term – sleaze isn’t going to be the same on all men. I’m not sure whether it would have a big or even noticeable effect on most men, especially decent men. But there is something to be said for it having a negative effect on baser and not-so good men. When I see a woman dressed in what I’ll call a provocative or revealing way, I do admit to taking a look. While I can’t say I mind sexy, I’m usually repulsed by really raunchy sutff.

    Earl makes a good post in his last phrase, but one has to wonder how to define and delineate what is good taste and appropriateness. I think that, for example, one could certainly argue a bikini cannot ever fall into that category.
     
    When boorish men stare at women’s chests, sometimes the woman will say something like, “I’m up here,” pointing at their faces. I heartily concur, so  much so that I wonder that woman who want to be taken seriously dress rather like whores, to work in executive jobs. If I want to be taken seriously, I don’t wear my Speedo to work.I’m not sure if only boorish men look at women’s chests. Maybe boorish men continue staring or going even further than that. I would think that all men at least sometimes look at womens’ chests. I certainly do, but I do not disagree that you should look at a woman’s face if you talk to her. Neither do I disagree that a lot of cleavage probably isn’t a good way to get take seriously, but I wouldn’t personally equate or compare wearing cleavage, a bathing suite or whatever to being a harlot.
     
    The real victims of the real predators are the weak, and being careful isn’t enough to stop the monsters from going after them, no matter how careful and non-provocative they live their lives, because the monsters have been provoked by the unreachables.  The predators, like most men and boys, are constantly conditioned to think of women as sex objects instead of real people worthy of simple human respect.
    When I read this, I unwillingly had to think of the Muslim sex gangs that are running around England (and perhaps other countries to) raping, abusing and pimping out vulnerable white girls – often very young.
    Of course, being female, and especially if you’re white on top, means you automatically get not respect in Muslim culture.
     
    All of this does beg some interesting questions. First of all, what kind of dress et cetera is oké, and how do we keep propriety, appropriateness, decency, modesty et cetera in mind? What should and shouldn’t we accept? One could for example argue against bikinis. What kind of advertising are we going to do and allow? What should we as a society consider alright?
     

  14. says

    @Kevin_B – To me, a “boorish man” is one who allows a woman to notice that he’s staring at her chest…in fact, some of them make a point of letting (or getting) her to notice his stare.  I’m not sure that anyone possessing a Y chromosome hasn’t looked at at least one female chest.
     
    As for the article on “porn poses” in SI, I went looking a bit, but I’m pretty sure it was before everything was archived online…..given my age, it might have even been BEFORE “online”.  There’s plenty out there alleging that SI is printing porn, which is a different argument…but I did find one that said the magazine was posing women in positions commonly found in porn mags. 
     
    That was the position of the article I remember, and the author used the issue that had just come out to point out which poses and what their meaning was in pornography.  If you’ve been perusing the swimsuit issue as long as I have, perhaps you remember the photo of the girl floating on her back in a pool with her eyes closed….?  That would be the year that the article I’m talking about appeared – it might even have showed up in SI – they’ve been pretty good in their reactions to criticism, I think – they even allow people to pass on that particular issue and still keep their subscription for the rest of the year.

  15. says

    I enjoy looking at beautiful people, no doubt about that (hence my fondness for Dancing With the Stars).  But beautiful women modeling bathing suits is different from beautiful women aping porn star poses to model bathing suits.  Perhaps the Victoria’s Secret catalog wasn’t the best example, but I’d just spent a few hours talking my daughter down from wanting one and getting her into an attractive, class one-piece.

    Maybe I should have posted a flyer from some Ivy League university’s sex week instead….

  16. Spartacus says

    Earl, I’ve just had a vision:
     
    The author of the article you mentioned is at home on a Saturday.  He promised his wife that he would have the lawn mowed and gutters cleaned by late afternoon so that they could go out and have a nice dinner together.  But, he also has to finish his article, and he needs lots of evidence to back up his thesis before presenting it to his hard-nosed editor.  It’s getting on toward late afternoon, and his wife is wondering why she hasn’t heard a lawnmower yet.  She enters his study and catches him halfway through a tall stack of Playboys.  Defensively, he protests: “I’m not reading the articles, honey, just looking at the pictures!”

  17. says

    “To me, a “boorish man” is one who allows a woman to notice that he’s staring at her chest…in fact, some of them make a point of letting (or getting) her to notice his stare. I’m not sure that anyone possessing a Y chromosome hasn’t looked at at least one female chest.”
    That sounds like a useful disctinction, Earl. A man who does that is more than likely a boorish dude.
     
    “As for the article on “porn poses” in SI, I went looking a bit, but I’m pretty sure it was before everything was archived online…..given my age, it might have even been BEFORE “online”.  There’s plenty out there alleging that SI is printing porn, which is a different argument…but I did find one that said the magazine was posing women in positions commonly found in porn mags.”
    I did a little bit of searching myself. I did actually find some stuff, amongst which a few articles containing those allegations of pornographic poses. So I guess those articles are there. Good enough for me, for now at least. I must however note that much of the stuff seems to have a distinct feminist/feminazi slant.
     
    “That was the position of the article I remember, and the author used the issue that had just come out to point out which poses and what their meaning was in pornography.  If you’ve been perusing the swimsuit issue as long as I have, perhaps you remember the photo of the girl floating on her back in a pool with her eyes closed….?  That would be the year that the article I’m talking about appeared – it might even have showed up in SI – they’ve been pretty good in their reactions to criticism, I think – they even allow people to pass on that particular issue and still keep their subscription for the rest of the year.”
    Well, I have no history with the swimsuit issue other than hearing of it, so I wouldn’t know. I found some information on the topic, that’s good enough for me for now. Good thing that SI shows some grace/consideration with regards to criticism and people wanting to avoid the swimsuit issue.
     
    I enjoy looking at beautiful people, no doubt about that (hence my fondness for Dancing With the Stars).  But beautiful women modeling bathing suits is different from beautiful women aping porn star poses to model bathing suits.  Perhaps the Victoria’s Secret catalog wasn’t the best example, but I’d just spent a few hours talking my daughter down from wanting one and getting her into an attractive, class one-piece.
     
    Maybe I should have posted a flyer from some Ivy League university’s sex week instead….
    Well, Victoria’s Secret is an understandable example. I honestly don’t find it even that beautiful. Regarding the case with your daughter, I’d say that your frustration was very understandable.  I guess a lot of criticism could probably be given on the VS bathing suits.
     
    @ Spartacus: Nice one! I liked it.
     
    There’s plenty out there alleging that SI is printing porn, which is a different argument…
    Well, that begs an interesting question… how do we define pornography and what does and does not fall into that category?
     
    In any case, I’ve decided I should probably, given the fact I’ve already started reconsidering my likes and interests in other areas such as music (heavy metal and hard rock in particular), reconsider my like of ‘sexy stuff’. Perhaps there is some substance to the many criticisms.
     

  18. Mike Devx says

    This gay guy sees the “porn pose” problem this way:
     
    If I look at a sexy picture, it will probably say one of two things to me:
    1. “I am sexy and beautiful!”
    2. “Get me on the floor right now and do me.”
     
    The first of these is entirely acceptable and wonderful.  The second is what I think everyone is complaining about.  
     
    The difference between #1 and #2 usually has to do with a certain swivel-hipped pose, at least among female poses. There are other even more brazen “poses” but those are usually clearly porno in nature.  In the Victoria Secret’s page of Book’s post, one pose is clearly a #2 (top, 2nd from left), and two or three others hint at it.  The others I think are all wonderful.  (Then there is the question of the extremely skimpy and tiny suits, but that’s a different issue… and besides, we *are* talking about Victoria Secret, here.  They’re not exactly known for modesty.)
     
    I do see everyone’s criticisms, I think, but I still wouldn’t have chosen this Victoria Secrets ad page to highlight the criticism of the nature of sexuality and sexual advertising in our culture.  It’s not the worst offender by far, at least to me…

  19. says

     
    @Mike: I think that’s about right, actually.  And it was the point of the article I’m remembering, which was definitely NOT from a feminazi source – quite mainstream. 
     
    One big issue was the #2 type of pose — girls kneeling in the surf with their bums in the air in ways that mimicked the “presentation” pose of animals, as one “for instance”.
     
    Reading the article definitely “raised my consciousness”, and made me aware of why some of the “sexy” ads and photo spreads made me uncomfortable.

Leave a Reply