While I don't agree with the types of questions being asked of these women during this trial, as a former naval officer and Naval Academy grad, I don't have much sympathy for the naval officer who is losing her career. There are two reasons for this.

(1) She broke the law. Whether the law is right or wrong is an entirely different topic. She is a commissioned officer and has sworn to defend the constitution. With that comes a certain expectation of judgment and responsibility, and the Navy is well within the law in discharging her.

(2) She's making it that much harder for those of us who worked hard to be good leaders and taken seriously by our male peers. If she was having sex with men without breaking any laws or standards of conduct, that's one thing, but that's not the case here. During my time in the service two different female sailors posed in Playboy at different partially wearing their military uniforms. Each time I was asked by male colleagues to defend the concept of women serving in the military. I know that was unfair and shouldn't happen, but it does. I just wanted to do my job and be a good officer, but these women made it that much harder for me every day.

Once again, if LCDR Dickinson had not broken the law or military standards of conduct, she would have my utmost sympathy and I would be defending her to no end. Unfortunately, that's not what happened here.

The worst part is that all the johns get a pass. That's infuriating.

But surely we can agree that it's not in the best interests of the Navy to have officers who are (or were) doubling as prostitutes.

I'm a wee bit confused. This is a money laundering case, correct?

So why are they talking about the sexual practices of these women and ruining their lives, and not to the men who PAID the woman charged in this MONEY. I'm failing to see exactly what a woman's period has to do with money laundering, especially if the men writing cheques are completely removed from the equation.

Sick case of "slut" shaming. And it sounds like the questions they're being asked are just going to be used as masturbatory material later on.

tgood, i have a huge problem with point 2.

men get busted for shit like this, and much worse all the goddamn time. Men in politics, men in sports, men in the army, men in the police. No one ever asks them to defend their genders right to be in these positions. The individual either gets sacked, or doesn't, but the gender goes on its own merry way. As it should be. You're blaming this naval officer for everyone else's misogyny.

enlisted men who get busted for soliciting a prostitute are either discharged or given an article 15, meaning possible loss of rank, confinement, etc. I've seen enlisted women get the same punishment for basically prostituing themselves though not in the way this officer did, doing things like shower shows for money on ships. I'm not sure what happens to officers as I never saw that personally other than the lead Air Force JAG being accused of sexual harassment and assault and losing his career. Yes its unfair and misogynistic that a whole gender is put on trial but specific to this O-4, she broke the law and if you dont have at least a bird on your collar or 6 stripes on your shoulder, that ends your military career, regardless of gender. She knew that going into it.

I'm not blaming her for everyone else's misogyny. What I'm saying is that there's already a huge perception throughout the military that the only reason we joined is to get laid (thank you Senator Webb). Taking your clothes off in a magazine or becoming a prostitute reinforces that stereotype. Women are still very much pioneers in the armed forces. Everything we do is scrutinized for failure. You're right, men do questionable things all the time and it doesn't reflect on their gender as a whole, but in the military it does often get them in trouble and sometimes even kicked out. If you don't believe me, go to this link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/24/stufflebeam.fired/

I'm confused. What is the trial about? Money laundering? Because if so, both the Prosecution and Defense are asking pointless and degrading questions about the escort service. I understand if they are trying to "prove" that the service exists, but do they really need to ask questions like 'What would happen if you were menstruating?'

At least the judge seems to have a good head on his shoulders, letting the lawyers know "That's enough" when they've gone too far.

I'm also confused as to why it is "necessary" for the names of all the employees to be released to the public. What does that do? And if that happens, shouldn't the names of all the clients be released as well?

This is so sickening. As Dana Milbank points out in his article, the prostitution ring generated only $2 million, which is such a small sum for a federal money-laundering case. Who does it benefit to reveal the names of the prostitutes and the details of their sexual encounters? Even more revolting is that the men are getting off scot-free. Given that prostitution is illegal in this country, shouldn't the johns also be punished? Ugh. Just...ugh. I'm so pissed off.

From my reading of the article, many of the women worked for the escort service a long time ago.

The only outrage here is that the men didnt get prosecuted to the same extent of the women.

Both sides are guilty, and both sides should serve the full punishment under the law.

Yeah, I guess I'm not following this clearly either. It seems the trial is intentionally degrading, but as for the comment that this is ruining women's careers -- doesn't that kind of put them in the passive stance the same way they said Kristen "ruined" Gov. Spitzer's career, when really he ruined his own? I mean if you're a prostitute and you get caught, you can't say the judge "ruined" your day job. Isn't that a double-standard, or am I missing a huge chunk of insight? (Possible.)

to be honest, my entire knowledge of courtroom mores comes from Law and Order, but isn't it the defense attorney's job to object to irrelevant questions (I know Jack McCoy does all the time). What is he doing while the prosecutor is asking all of these completely irrelevant and invasive questions?

If the employee list is made public, somebody needs to make sure the client list goes public too.

Yeah a woman already committed suicide over this. Her career and life was ruined when this story came out because she was a professor and was having trouble making ends meet. And this when the JOHNS identities were being PROTECTED. THAT is what totally GALLS me.

What. The. Hell.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/2020/Story?id=3141213&page=4

Wow. Remind me to cite this article any time anyone questions our culture's sexual double standard.

I mean if you're a prostitute and you get caught, you can't say the judge "ruined" your day job.

They are dragging women on to the stand who haven't worked for the escort service in years. 15 years in one case! It isn't ruining their "day jobs." In some cases it's ruining careers they've spent years building. Careers, that are quite possibly what allowed them to quit doing sex work to begin with. And as for the women needing to "serve full punishment under the law": my understanding is that the individual women aren't on trial. So the whole thing is set up to punish them (through public humiliation and ruining their current jobs) but without having an actual trial. And the fact that they are releasing the women's names! And f*cking David Vitter is sitting in Congress right now. God, it makes me sick.

Now see, Vitter "received forgiveness from God and my wife", so he gets a free pass. God bless the GOP!

is this the same David Vitter of title X and IHS fame? the very same ass hat who has ensured that Native American women will now have no shot at equal access to abortion services and some other quality reproductive care.

beautiful.

what a load of garbage.

anyone who thinks we are living in an equal day and age are delusional.

But surely we can agree that it's not in the best interests of the Navy to have officers who are (or were) doubling as prostitutes.

Yeah, I'm sure that's how the people whose homes and cities and hospitals and countries our military has destroyed feel. "Unbelievable! When they burned down my house, stole priceless family heirlooms, killed my family and ransacked the hospital, I said to myself: At least none of them was ever a sex worker. Now I can't even take comfort in that!"

Elise, that was not contributory to this discussion.

"So why are they talking about the sexual practices of these women and ruining their lives, and not to the men who PAID the woman charged in this MONEY."

It's because it's a money laundering charge. The men weren't involved in money laundering. If I buy something from someone I'm not involved in laundering money. The person who takes the money is if it they hide/transfer/conceal/etc it.