Below is the entire text of an open letter purportedly written by a female enlisted member of the United States Air Force. The original is posted here.

Maybe this letter is real, and maybe it’s a work of fiction; but its sentiment is undeniably true. The only certainty in the politicization of the military’s response to sexual assaults is that there will be victims.

Dear SARC,

I got up this morning as an Airman in the United States Air Force. I got up and I put on my uniform, I pulled back my hair, I looked in the mirror and an Airman looked back. A strong, confident military professional stared out of my bathroom mirror, and I met her eyes with pride. Then I came to your briefing. I came to your briefing and I listened to you talk to me, at times it seemed directly to me, about sexual assault. You talked about a lot of things, about rivers and bridges, you talked about saving people and victimization. In fact you talked for almost a full ninety minutes, and you disgusted me.

You made me a victim today, and I am nobody’s victim. I am an American Airman in the most powerful Air Force in the world, and you made me into a helpless whore. A sensitive, defenseless woman who has no power to protect herself, who has nothing in common with the men she works with. You made me untouchable, and by doing that you made me a target. You gave me a transparent parasol, called it an umbrella and told me to stand idly by while you placed everything from rape to inappropriate shoulder brushes in a crowded hallway underneath it. You put my face up on your slides; my face, my uniform, my honor, and you made me hold this ridiculous contraption of your own devising and called me empowered. You called me strong. You told me, and everyone else who was listening to you this morning that I had a right to dictate what they said. That I had a right to dictate what they looked at. That I had a right to dictate what they listened to. That somehow, in my shop, I was the only person who mattered. That they can’t listen to the radio because they might play the Beatles, or Sir Mix-A-Lot, and that I might be offended. That if someone plays a Katy Perry song, I might have flashbacks to a night where I made a bad decision. I might be hurt, and I’m fragile right? Of course I am, you made me that way.

You are the reason I room alone when I deploy. You are the reason that wives are terrified that their husbands are cheating on them when they leave, and I leave with them. When I walk into a room and people are laughing and having a good time, you are the reason they take one look at me and either stop talking or leave. They’re afraid. They’re afraid of me, and it’s because of you. They are afraid that with all of this “power” I have, I can destroy them. They will never respect me or the power and the authority I have as a person, or the power I have as an Airman, because I am nothing more than a victim. That I as a victim, somehow I control their fate. With one sentence, I can destroy the rest of their lives.

“He sexually assaulted me.”

I say enough. He didn’t assault me, you did; and I say enough is enough. If you want to help me, you need to stop calling me a victim. If you want to save me, you need to help me to be equal in the eyes of the people I work with. If you want to change a culture, you need to lessen the gap between men and women, not widen it. Women don’t need their own set of rules: physical training scores, buildings, rooms, raters, sponsors, deployment buddies. When I can only deploy with another woman ‘buddy’ you are telling me and the people around me that I can’t take care of myself. When you forbid me from going into my male friends room to play X-Box on a deployment with the other people on my shift, you isolate me. When you isolate me, you make me a target. When you make me a target, you make me a victim. You don’t make me equal, you make me hated. If I am going to be hated, it will be because of who I am, not because of who you have made me. I am not a victim. I am an American Airman, I am a Warrior, and I have answered my nation’s call.

Help me be what I am, or be quiet and get out of my way.

31 Responses to “You made me a victim today . . . you made me into a helpless whore”

  1. K fischer says:

    interesting.  If all servicemen are afraid of sleeping with a servicewoman because of the fear of being falsely accused of rape, then the only men who will sleep with a servicewoman are rapists because they don’t care.  Why not make it a crime for a serviceman to insert his penis into the vulva of a servicewoman?

  2. stewie says:

    Eh, this is about as over the top as the extreme sex assault victim side is.  It’s got a nice touch of “thanks Obama” to it for every issue plaguing her life or every issue she has with the military (somehow different PT scores are now the fault of the SARC? We’ve paired up women with women on deployments more or less since there have been women in the military).  I dropped my toothbrush in the toilet this morning, thanks a lot SARC (and Obama).  Some of the sentiment is true, but it’s turned up to 11 and used to more or less attack every gender related issue in the military whether it pre or post dates the sex assault programs or whether it’s related to them or not.

  3. Zachary D Spilman says:

    I checked the original just to be sure stewie. My reproduction is accurate. Obama appears nowhere in the piece.

    But insofar as that’s not your point, I think you miss the bigger message: Creating victims is injustice, especially when the Government cuts them from whole cloth.

  4. RY says:

    I love it.  It’s a bit sarcasm to make a point but it’s a message I’ve heard numerous times particularly from women who feel independent and reject paternalism.  There seems to be a fairly large portion of servicewomen who feel this way, that they are treated as fragile and weak and need extra protection because they cannot stand up for themselves (when they believe the exact opposite).   

  5. Advocaat says:

    I found the comments on the John Q. Public blog more insightful than the letter itself.  As a rough barometer of how the current approach to SA is being received by the force, DoD should take notice how far off target it is.

  6. DCGoneGalt says:

    Advocaat:  DOD and political leadership (who do I mean by “political leadership”, Stewie?) for the most part could not care less about the opinions of the general members of the rank and file if those attitudes and opinions differ from their own.  This entire campaign is designed the way it is because the Pentagon believes the hoi polloi unwashed masses need a good social re-engineering on the issue.  Instead of taking preventive steps to educate the force with reasonable briefs and throwing prosecutorial resources at predators, the DOD created a brainwashing campaign based on false statistics based off misleading definitions and junk anonymous surveys that DOD enthusiastically use to misleadingly trumpet as proof of 26k sexual assaults (or whatever number it is today, it’s hard to keep up).  The response was/is so outlandish that the rank and file, who are a lot smarter and more honorable than their “leadership” believe them to be, seem to have reached a point where they are doing more than simply tuning out the message.  They are pushing back. Treating your force like morons by briefing them material that they know to be childishly misleading leads to them not trusting you on that issue, and eventually that lack of trust will be detrimental to good order and discipline.  But the powers that be seem to be unable and/or unwilling to listen, and I think it is because they despise the attitudes of the rank and file for not conforming to the social justice lectures (briefs based on politics not fact) of their social and political aristocratic leadership. 
     
    This is is why there will never be reform that provides true juries to military members. IMO, political and Pentagon leadership do not trust the rank and file and hold their attitudes in contempt, which is why every reform will limit authority at the local command level and eventually centralize it at the Penatgon/Congress.  This centralization will likely speed up as leadership begins to see questioning and challenges that make it clear that lack of trust and contempt runs both ways. 

  7. stewie says:

    Wait, Zach, you mean there’s not a single mention of Obama?  Why did I type Obama then? It’s almost like I was trying to compare it to another, similar phenomenon where folks try to blame everything that goes wrong on one thing no matter how unrelated.
     
    Sure, “creating” victims is injustice.  Of course, I don’t believe her when she asserts she was “created” as a victim.  Nor do I agree that simply because we have SA training, that means she’s become a victim.  SOME of what we are doing in SA training is absolutely over the top, confusing, and problematic, but she seems to object to the very idea that anyone else even has to moderate their behavior at all. 
     
    And she introduces completely unrelated things like APFT testing standards which turn it into a anti-feminist rant.  Wanna have a measured, objective discussion about the problems with how we handle SA training and prosecution, I’m fully on-board.  But this “feminzai” rant I’ll pass on.

  8. dyskolos says:

    A polemic; to be taken with a grain of salt.

  9. DCGoneGalt says:

    At least no one at the latest round of briefings brought up mustaches, because that would have been an over-the-line micro-aggression that could not stand.  However, you never know and this letter may start up a debate along the lines of the “Great Mustache March Controversy of 2014”.  For those of you not familiar, Mustache March is (was?) apparently a micro-aggression of the patriarchy that stigmatized women and furthered a culture of intolerance.  And if you think that is stupid, then you are part of the problem.
    http://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20140318/NEWS01/303180045/Opinion-Mustache-March-lose
    IMO, this letter (or its comments) will not be taken seriously by AF leadership or lead to a question of whether the current training is on-target.  The latest round of training spoke of bridges and in the spirit of that metaphor the AF crossed the bridge of keeping SAPR training relevant long ago.  Apparently, now whatever SAPR says is the truth and is cloaked in the shield of PC from which Air Force leadership run scared from even the most seemingly insane of PC slights . . . even something so ridiculous as the “Great Mustache March Controversy of 2014”, which led to a “nothing to see here” from CSAF:

    And contrary to last year’s Mustache March — when Welsh publicly and enthusiastically encouraged units to hold mustache-growing contests — there’s been no similar discussions this year at the top levels of the Air Force, Herritage said.
    “The topic hasn’t come up at all,” he said.

    http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/03/03/air-force-general-mark-welsh-sitting-out-this-mustache-march/24322827/
     
    A mustache.
     

  10. stewie says:

    While there are certainly much bigger fish, seems to me a morale booster that only men can participate in isn’t the best idea.  Not sure that’s “PC” just seems like common sense.  Come up with morale competitions both sexes can participate in seems not a hard thing to do.
    Not sure why anyone would need to defend or get upset at the loss of “a mustache” as you say.  Also only tenuously tied to SA training.

  11. k fischer says:

    Perhaps the writer of this letter is completely wrong.  Perhaps sexual assault is running rampant in the military and the SARC is doing the best that he or she can in preventing it through the briefing.  Look at the statistics from the DoD Sexual Assault research: 6,131 reports of sexual assault and charges are only preferred in 588 of them?  That is a 9% prosecution rate of reported sexual assaults.  The fact that 1,400 of them are restricted provides no comfort because that only shows that Servicewomen (at least 20% of them) are still afraid of retaliation for reporting.  Then, of the 9% of the cases that are prosecuted at a Court-martial, 25% of those cases result in a full acquittal of all charges. 
     
    So, either the military still sucks at prosecuting sexual assault, or there are a lot of false allegations in the military.  Either way, should the SARC be blasted because she says that a song with some misogynistic lyrics about the size of a woman’s derriere should not be played in the workplace?  Men should learn how to keep their hands to themselves and not want to have sexual relations with anyone they work with.  Men should not drink underage.  If they are of the age to drink, they should not provide alcohol to females who are not of the age to drink.  Nor, should men over 21 drink with females who are of the age to drink as they might lose control of their wits and attempt to have sexual relations with a female with whom they work.  If men followed these simple tips, then there would be much less sexual assault in the military. 
     
    And, if this particular Airman does not like it because she is not looked at the same way as the cool chick in the unit who can hang with the guys, drink with the guys, listen to Sir Mix a Lot, and play x-box with the guys and not get raped, well, maybe she needs to be a little more professional herself and not add to the victim blaming rape culture that makes up the military.  She appears to be the exception to the rule according to the paid professionals who teach Sexual Assault awareness, part of which $257 million taxpayers’ dollars are going.  Some women are indeed fragile and cannot utter “No” out of fear that they will be hurt further than just sexual assault.  And, they certainly are, on the whole, physically inadequate to perform on PT tests compared to their male counterparts, but, the fact that they get to “take it easy” on PT tests sheds some light why they are unable to fight back or say No.  Certainly, men shouldn’t be ignorant of this fact.  Instead, each and every male should be reminded of this each and every day, so they err on the bright side of right and refrain from having sex with a coworker.  We can talk about how unfair it is until we are blue in the face, but that is the terrain of the battlefield.
     
    Military men need to focus on breaking things and killing people, not trying to hook up with their female coworkers.  If they have any sexual urges needing satisfaction, then they can stick their hand in a glass of beer to get their date drunk.  That way they don’t have to worry about STD’s, pregnancies/child support, HIV, or false rape accusations.  Problem solved with one simple rule that my boss told me in high school when I got caught in a hotel room with a coworker and he didn’t fire me (I did room service for a hotel): Don’t stick your pen in company ink.  And, let’s face it, it is always a man’s choice where he sticks his pen. 
     
    Congress really should just prohibit sexual relationships between all Servicemembers since men seem to be too stupid to know when a woman is consenting and women are unable to hold their liquor or express their lack of desire to engage in intercourse in some cases.  Then, we can get back to just your basic jump out of the bushes/break into your house sexual assaults and get away from these non-stranger rapes.

  12. DCGoneGalt says:

    Stewie:  You should cross into the blue, you would get stars eventually.  It was a fun event, those with mustaches looked ridiculous and those who weren’t perpetually in search of something to be offended by made fun of the mustaches.  Many women and men joined in for unit photos at the end of the month wearing fake mustaches.  Morale cannot be high when even something so innocent as Mustche March is found to be afoul of ever-evolving PC Commandments.

  13. stewie says:

    Not sure “recognizing an event that is purely a morale booster and differentiates across gender lines, excluding one, is a bad idea” equates to “perpetually in search of something to be offended by.”
     
    I think morale can be quite high if you spend five minutes looking for silly but relatively unimportant things that aren’t based on a gender (or other differentiators). Like I said, not high on the fish to be fried list in my mind, but also something that easily could be changed to something more inclusive, harming no one.

  14. Advocaat says:

    Stewie, you made my former mustache a victim today, although I will disagree w/ DCGG that MM was fun–I found it to be very slightly only-just amusing but only b/c facial hair was a wispy middle finger up the CoC.  2014 was my last MM and I shaved the same day I heard CSAF and my MAJCOM/CC had sanctioned it.  I do think DCGG is spot-on in making the connection to this thread in that CSAF remained mustache-free this year only b/c it was the path of least resistance–just like the military’s approach to SA.

  15. DCGoneGalt says:

    Advocaat:  Most of the March Mustaches were a middle finger to any objective standard of beauty and grooming standards.  I saw some pretty funky-looking Fu Manchu/hipster ‘staches that I must admit that were impressive for growing to such punch-able length in only 31 days.

  16. No Mustache, No Deference says:

    2014 was my last MM and I shaved the same day I heard CSAF and my MAJCOM/CC had sanctioned it. 

    Ha!  I think that has been a common response by many folks – once “the man” decided to appropriate what had been an unofficial and disorganized bit of collective silliness into something “official-ish,” it wasn’t fun anymore.
     

  17. RKincaid3 (RK3PO) says:

    Sigh…we–the US military–are indeed our own worst enemy and are managed (not led) by politicians in and out of uniform.
     
    Shamelessly shameful we are.

  18. Anonymous deployed SJA with initials NM says:

    During my time as a litigator, I had a forensic psychologist tell me that most people who are sexually assaulted are not traumatized.  He mentioned that having a system in place that labels the individual a “victim” and over-emphasizes the potential for serious trauma can have the effect of increasing the chances that an individual will actually be traumatized. 
    It would be nice if we could find a way to educate folks without increasing the chances they will be traumatized if something bad does happen to them.  I appreciate “raging against the machine” and think that this letter is an attempt to do that.  But real value will not be found at either extreme.  Like most political issues, it seems like the fringes are controlling the discussion.
    Not sure if I have a recommended solution.  But I do believe it’s important to not over-react and continue to make decisions based on what is reasonable. 

  19. stewie says:

    Well, you can find a forensic psychologist to tell you anything you want to hear.  The idea that “most” (a very scientific term) people who are sexually assaulted are not traumatized doesn’t pass the smell test.  Now, the degree of traumatization undoubtedly varies.  Some handle it decently well, some have some issues, and some fall apart.  But the idea that a sexual assault, if it actually happens (which I assume is the conceit for the doc here) does not lead to some trauma in most people is pretty unlikely. 
     
    While I think the word alleged should always be used, I doubt the difference between using alleged and not using alleged leads the victim to feel more or less traumatized.  Color me skeptical.

  20. Phil Cave says:

    @ADSJAWINM
     
    Part of what the psychologist was talking to you about is properly called “iatrogenic” injury.  It’s somewhat similar to the medical communities use.   In some limited situations, I have brought that up in a case.   Just as you, meaning trusted others can create a crime that wasn’t, injury can also be created.
     

    In the context of persuasive messages from trusted and/or authoritative others, a woman can come to attach a label of sexual assault to an ambiguously defined, perhaps undesired sexual encounter due to external pressures of suggestion when trusted others take a strong stance that what she experienced was sexual assault, thereby convincing herself that she was sexually assaulted even if that was not her construction of the event.  Pressure from others to label an undesired sexual encounter as sexual assault is heightened in the context of military training (SHARP, SAPR) promulgating definitions of sexual assault at the very low end of the threshold, i.e., if the victim had one drink, and the accused is sober it is sexual assault. 

    This from a government expert on counter-intuitive behavior.
     
    For a little bit on the iatrogenic issue (or just Google “iatrogenic psychological injury:”  http://hhpronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Health-Highlights-Young.pdf
     
    For those of you who have Ceci & Hembrooke, Expert Witnesses in Child Abuse Cases, on your bookshelf there is a simple discussion at page 111-112 to give you a start.  Interestingly they say:
     

    (Jones 1991) discussed several sources of iatrogenic harm, including overzealous professional intervention, repeated interviews or use of multiple interviewers, the use of disclosure work by therapists [think PE and EMDR for PTSD] . . . 

     
    While the authors are primarily talking about child cases, I’m not seeing anything to suggest the same cannot help in adult cases. 
     

  21. Alfonso Decimo says:

    Regarding the discussion of iatrogenic injury to an adult sexual assault victim, I would anticipate difficulty convincing the judge that such expert testimony is relevant and reliable. If it’s allowed, I doubt it would be effective and persuasive to a members panel at court-martial. In particular, if raised on the merits to show the victim did not consider herself a victim until treatment, a court-martial is unlikely to adopt this analysis, IMO. However, it may be more relevant and persuasive for sentencing.    

  22. Phil Cave says:

    @AD:  I do know of two judges who have allowed such testimony–would all judges allow it, well that’s a different question.  And it may be relevant to so-called counter-intuitive behavior.  Part of my point is that it is not restricted to formal treatment but is an injury caused by the system.  When a CW says she’s upset by “having to go through this,” she’s expressing a form of iatrogenic injury.  IMV.

  23. Alfonso Decimo says:

    @PC: I agree the Government may open the door to such expert testimony by inviting the victim-witness to testify as you describe, or if the judge has allowed the Government to present expert testimony on counter-intuitive victim behavior, as in United States v. Flesher, 73 M.J. 303 (CAAF 2014). (This presumes the judge conducts a sufficient inquiry and analysis, unlike the judge in Flesher.)   

  24. Phil Cave says:

    @AD, I should add that I agree with you that any value in bringing up II is more often appropriate in sentencing than on the merits.

  25. A Chic says:

    @AD – clearly you don’t mean AF trial judges. They always approve motions to compel experts, even if, just as someone pointed out earlier, some forensic psychs will say whatever they get paid to say. But I’m off topic. 
     
    k fischer – I agree that there are some women that are fragile and fear telling a guy no. But those women shouldn’t be in the military, they are simply not qualified. If she can’t tell a guy no b/c she’s afraid (that he won’t like her), then I certainly don’t want to be put in any combat situation with those women.  They’ll crack before the bullets start flying. Everyone in today’s military needs to be ready to deploy.  I’m going to assume that you are not in the military by your utterly insensitive comment that men are too stupid to know when a woman consents and your absurd new law. My husband and I are both in the military. I can assure you that my husband knows when I’m consenting, even when we’re drinking. Or maybe it’s your position that because my husband is a male in the military, that is clear and convincing evidence that he’s raping other military females and I’m just too stupid to know it or afraid I’ll be kicked out of the boys club if I tell him to stop?  Finally, I’m going out on a limb here but your absurd law about no sex between any military members just might violate the Constitution. But I’m not really surprised you would blow off the Constitution , it seems common amongst those in your advocacy group.
    To the girl that wrote this, thanks for having the courage to say what at least one other female in the military is thinking. 

  26. Alfonso Decimo says:

    @AC: You’re right, all my court-martial experience has been in the Navy-Marine Corps.  I cannot fathom ALWAYS approving such motions.

  27. Constitutional Sex? says:

    @ A Chic – I am pretty sure k fischer’s post was meant sarcastically.  That being said, what Constitutiinal right do you think would be infringed by an order that service members are prohibited from having sexual relationships with each other?  I think the Constitution allows the military to do just about anything it likes in regulating conduct between service members – especially those on voluntary active duty.  It does not prohibit subordination of one to the other, I think it would have little trouble with the regulation of sex between personnel.  

  28. A Chic says:

    Constitutional Sex – The Constitution does not allow the military do just about anything it likes in regulating conduct between service members. Certainly there are times based on the mission that the MILITARY COMMANDER can determine that sexual relations would have a negative impact on the mission and therefore prohibit military members from having sexual relations.  Same applies with alcohol, pornography, etc.  We see it done on a regular basis for deployments, during basic training, etc.  But to make a flat out bar just because some people want to do crazy things with statistics  or make their political career on this issue does not have the necessary connection – nor is it done by a commander.  As to the Constitutional issue of intimate consensual sexual conduct, I guess maybe I need to read Lawrence v Texas again, because I must have missed the boat completely thinking there was a Constitutional issue in that case…
    I guess we’ll have to let k fisher speak for herself/himself.  I did not take the post as sarcastic at all, but just more man bashing by a victim advocacy group who doesn’t really want the facts.  If a man made statements about females like k fisher did about males, he would be considered sexists, fired from his job, and outcast from society.  But if a woman makes comments and gross generalizations like that, she’s an advocate and a champion for women’s rights. 

  29. stewie says:

    A Chic: First, I think you need to pause, and re-read what kf wrote, and turn your sarcasm meter on.  He’s not on the side of the “advocacy group” you appear to think he is.
     
    Second, instead of grouping up people as part of this or that “advocacy group,” and making, what was the word I’m looking for…gross generalizations, that’s it…and then dismissing their opinions, I would think it would be wiser to listen and judge the content of what they are saying piece by piece.
     
    You are correct however that the Constitution does not allow the military “to do just about anything it likes in regulating conduct between service members.”  But if you adopt this letter whole sale, I assume that means you think the problem includes different PT standards for women?
     
    As for women who are fearful…and whether they should be in the military.  Let me propose that perhaps there is a difference between one situation and how one reacts, and a different situation, and how one reacts.  One can be just fine on the battlefield, but have another area where they aren’t as “strong.”  For example, we all know Soldiers who are stellar performers in actual combat, but in garrison are unable to keep out of trouble.  One does not always inform the other is my point.
     
    Of course, someone who is incapacitated by alcohol isn’t able to be fearful because they aren’t there in the moment.  I think we all think the stopping sex assault train has gone several stations past the point it should have stopped…but the solution isn’t to take it all the way back to the station either.

  30. DCGoneGalt says:

    Maybe kfischer is actually an undercover POD-Person.  

  31. RKincaid3 (RK3PO) says:

    A Chic:
     

    Certainly there are times based on the mission that the MILITARY COMMANDER can determine that sexual relations would have a negative impact on the mission and therefore prohibit military members from having sexual relations. 

    From the cases I dealt with in Iraq, the government had little success in legally prohibiting sex between consenting adults–a clearly well established fundamental liberty interest that receives strict scrutiny–and that is why all the prohibitions I saw involved restrictions on when those consenting adults could be alone together.  Hence the requirements that: 1) males and females couldn’t be in each other’s rooms; or 2) room doors had to be kept 12 inches or more open; or 3) other variations of those limitations–all which could make consensual, non-public sex well nigh impossible without crossing that line of infringing upon a fundamental liberty interest.  Hell, that is why we had so many Soldiers getting caught in flagrante au naturel in such romantic environs as porta-johns, hot connexes–and any other place where they could be alone together for a little hanky-panky.  Places where the rules didn’t, by their very literal terms apply.  Thus, the CG, despite his/her awesome, God-like and veritably plenary power to prevent (without prohibiting consensual sex between adults) privacy and thus make engaging in sex unlikely, is powerless in the face of human nature’s commanding lust.
     
    Yes, I am tracking situations in Iraq and A-stan where commanders either received bad legal advice or flat out ignored their SJAs sage legal counsel and then issued illegal “no-sex” orders–but I am also tracking that in those few cases where that happened, when TDS pushed back against the proffered punishments, the responsible Crim Law shops suddenly decided that pursuing legal action against the Soldiers was a scab they didn’t want their CG to pick open–wisely so.  Indeed, I had one case where the Senior Trial Counsel tried to argue that a female Soldier getting pregnant in a combat zone (who then had to be re-deployed for health reasons) was a knowing violation on her part of the Army’s culture, customs and courtesies, was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting. Good luck making that argument at trial.  Sadly, the client didn’t want to risk it and unwisely accepted the Art 15, so in my case, the government got lucky and didn’t have to face the consequences of such stupidity.   But I am also aware that about a year later a CG made international news by trying to force an Art 15 on a female for that same reason and it was obviously a serious problem for the government, both legally and publicity wise.
     
    So, no, there are NOT times where based on the mission that the military commander can legally prohibit military members from having sexual relations–violating a fundamental liberty interest.  There are however, many other ways to skin that cat without ever having to deal with the legal and public heat such bone-headed orders create–even though such attempts will inevitably fail when the libido is driving the decision tree and where privacy of some sort can be found.