Legislation Seeks to Stop Porn Sales on Military Bases
Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 05:12PM Republican Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia last week sponsored legislation designed to stem the sale of pornography on military installations:
Broun’s legislation, the “Military Honor and Decency Act,” closes a loophole in current law that is allowing the sale of sexually explicit material on American military installations located both within the United States and around the world. Although the “National Defense Authorization Act of 1997” expressly prevents the Secretary of Defense from permitting the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on property under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense (DoD), subsequent regulations adopted by the Department of Defense have continued to allow the sale of sexually explicit material to occur. Congressman Broun’s legislation closes these existing loopholes in DoD regulations to bring the Department into compliance with the intent of the 1997 law so that taxpayers will not be footing the costs of distributing pornography.
Playboy was determined not to be sexually explicit by the Defense Department’s Resale Activities Board of Review and although Penthouse initially was banned, new ownership and a new editing team have revised its format, and the Defense Department board allowed it to return to exchanges after another review last year. Isn’t that sweet?
It would seem Congressman Broun is doing more for military families than the Army is with its Army Family Covenant. I was at the signing of the Army Family Covenant on Ft. Leavenworth and the Army’s pact with families seems to focus on logistics rather than fundamentals. It’s unclear how a “strong, supportive environment where (families) can thrive” is sustained while our Post Exchange (PX) and shoppettes carry pornography. Porn defeats the family, it doesn’t compliment it. It destroys the family, it doesn’t support it.
“Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit.”
“Allowing sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes, feeding a base addiction, eroding the family as the primary building block of society, and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad.”
It’s good to know someone’s looking out for us. I urge my readers to contact their congressmen and women and ask that they support Rep. Paul Broun’s “Military Honor and Decency Act.” We military families have been signing petitions for years to rid pornography from our bases to no avail. If you support the troops and respect the military family and all they sacrifice for our great country, please WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE.
HAT TIP: feminine-genius
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1786240
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (105)
This will go over like a lead balloon.
DELETED
Amy,
I thank you for your support of the war. I believe you are mistaken on this subject. We have a lot of people in the military and a lot of different backgrounds. Playboy is far and away the least offensive men's magazine I've seen in the hands of military personnel. By denying service personnel access to controlled mild erotica, you are certainly giving them no reason to avoid some of the really despicable material out there.
Christoph,
There is this thing called class. You should look into it.
Playboy is far and away the least offensive magazine... for whom? Do you think about the wives, the little girls on post whose dads are soldiers? Or do you think of yourself, what men want and that is the litmus test?
No one is "denying service personnel access to controlled mild erotica". Servicemen are free to buy it but it shouldn't be available on post. That's all this is about: stepping up the dignity of military families by prohibiting such materials.
Our military parish recently had an anti-porn petition and we have pages of names of military personel and their families (including mine) sign in protest of porn at the shoppettes and PX here on Ft. Leavenworth. It is incompatible with the Army Family Covenant.
Should military posts have topless bars too? Where do you draw the line? All a soldier has to do is cross over the gate and go to the nearest 7-11 for all the porn he wants.
I understand your point and as a woman I'm at a disadvantage to fully appreciate the male sex drive, but as a human being I am fully able to appreciate human dignity. And as a mother of 2 daughters and 2 sons the idea of porn, even what you call mild porn, is completely repugnant. It has no place on a miltiary base.
Amy,
Twenty years ago we had bases in the Philippines and the service clubs on those bases had prostitutes onsite. Playboy does not threaten or demean you in any significant way by comparison.
A very substantial part of the objection to this law is that we've seen this kind of slippery slope. Another is that it is just really bad law. Banning publications from the exchange that have already been analyzed as non-obscene because some people choose to be offended invites abusive objections.
Put it in this context: what if a group of military wives decides that gun magazines are offensive? What if they decide that religious magazines are offensive?
What if they decide to ban church workers on base because the separation of church and state? We just don't need that kind of help from Congress.
Patrick, my family is preparing to PCS to the ROK (South Korea). I understand the "service clubs". I don't think one vice should justify another. By the way, GEN Caldwell here at Leavenworth put out an PA condeming human trafficing, including prostitution. I'll have to get the Power Point slide show tomorrow at work and post it. These sex industries are all connected.
Non-obscene? What sort of nudity becomes obsene then? Guns and nudity/sexuality are two completely different genres.
Check this out from Pamela Paul's book, Pornified: How Pornography Is Transforming Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families, the picture she paints of pornography is a far cry from innocent male exploration. It is a practice that tears apart families and marriages:
I cannot think of a single useful purpose for pornography. If men "have to masturbate" as you described on your blog, they don't need porn. No one needs porn. The fall of culture begins with sexualization of women, which leads to cheapening of the human being, both men and women, and to abortion, then child abuse.. it's a downward spiral.
Your argument reminds me of the guy who wants to smoke a little pot but his purchase ends up funding terrorists.
Amy,
I have not checked lately, but I'm really very sure that Playboy has not run a "Girls of Al Qaeda" feature yet. Playboy works pretty diligently to make sure women in their magazines are not exploited or abused. They do not always succeed, but they do a lot better than you are giving them credit for. This is not the same as drug lords moving product in the intestines of illegal immigrants. These are women who like showing off their bodies and do not mind accepting money for doing so tastefully.
There is a useful purpose for pornography, it is called getting sexually aroused. This is more important to some people than others. I promise you that the people who are happy with Playboy are not the monsters you imagine them to be. The people going for Hustler and the specialty publications are closer to what you seek to condemn.
I suppose our definitions of tasteful differs. Do you have a wife or daughter? I cannot believe you would hold these views of acceptablilty if you had a woman, daughter, mother, wife, to be accountable to. But then that is porn in a nutshell: self-absorbtion.
amy p,
I understand you don't want your family around that stuff, I don't either, but whats next, the sports illustrated swimsuit issue? I think Patrick is generaly correct in his assement.
So, let's just assume for a minute (not saying that this may have happened, but I digress) that I take a few nude digital photographs of my wife for my own, er, "personal use" while on deployment. Does that equal "pornography" in your book?
Joe, that is a silly complaint.
No one has yet to address how porn affects women. If it were your daughter, wife, girlfriend, sister, mother in those mags would it matter then? How do you feel about the affect of porn on your sons? How is it productive? Achieving sexual arosal isn’t productive in and of itself.
There is no need for pornography on military bases. Period. Every military post is attached to a city or town where porn is readily available. The sexualization of women is NOT helpful to the soldier, especially when he’s deployed and working in a host country.
The comments here confirm that pornography is mainstreamed and socially acceptable. The trends (I’ve done analysis on this blog before) that helped mainstream it started with the sexual revolution and abortion. They have led to an increase in STDs, prostitution, domestic violence, child abuse. Pornography is part of a package that sullies human sexuality. It has been reduced to a self-absorbed function rather than a celebration and expression of love.
We’re talking about nudity, Robert, not bathing suits. There is a definitive difference. And although masturbation and porn and irrevocably tied to each other, no on needs porn for that purpose. On one hand the men here are saying they’re so macho they have to have their porn lest testosterone completely swallow them up. On the other they’re admitting their own weakness because they cannot achieve sexuality without it. I think that’s pretty pathetic. Any man who has to pay for it is… well, I’ll just leave it at that.
What you people do is completely up to you but sanctioning pornography by selling it on a military base is completely inappropriate and makes a mockery of the so-called Army Family Covenant.
Again, no one is “denying” a soldier pornography. In consideration of everyone in the military, which includes families, I advocate making bases family friendly. Or are soldiers who “need” porn to embarrassed to go off post to buy it?
So when they newly incorporated, sexually fustrated troops, finally get to go on leave, what do you think will happen?
In the Infantry units that may not see a female form or even hear a females voice for *months*?
I'm sorry, I understand the sentiment to which you are applying your logical regarding punishment of those women and children, but are you not enacting the same idealism for those troops?
I think you may have created an image in your mind, idolising the very troops that you are attempting to "protect" but you are forgetting something very basic and simple.
We are human. We are male. And we crave sexuality as much if not more so than the female genre of ths species.
So in essence what you are saying is, when John gets deployed overseas, and is asked to patrol cities, kill or be killed, watch his friends die or be blown up by an IED but he does not have the right to see a picture of a naked female form?
That is to say the least illogical
Amy,
I thought you were a conservative...since when did you want the government to intervene in more in the lives of Americans?! I thought you were from the party that wanted government to be removed from our lives???
I'm down w/RV on this one.
SF, the military is the one of the largest branches in the government in America. But let’s follow your logic… why censor websites in elementary schools for pornographic content? Why not allow XXX movies at the PX, too? Or anti-black magazines? Gay mags?
Because the military isn’t a social experienment. You guys are acting as if soldiers are college kids from National Lampoon. They are expected to be PROFESSIONALS. They are supposed to be disciplined.
Okay, just ask yourself this: if Playboy is so harmless, why do they put it behind a black cover in the PX and shoppette? Maybe because it’s indecent? Hmmmm…..
Tell me how pornography is consistent with the Seven Army Values:
LOYALTY
Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers. Bearing true faith and allegiance is a matter of believing in and devoting yourself to something or someone. A loyal Soldier is one who supports the leadership and stands up for fellow Soldiers. By wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army you are expressing your loyalty. And by doing your share, you show your loyalty to your unit.
DUTY
Fulfill your obligations. Doing your duty means more than carrying out your assigned tasks. Duty means being able to accomplish tasks as part of a team. The work of the U.S. Army is a complex combination of missions, tasks and responsibilities—all in constant motion. Our work entails building one assignment onto another. You fulfill your obligations as a part of your unit every time you resist the temptation to take “shortcuts” that might undermine the integrity of the final product
RESPECT
Treat people as they should be treated. In the Soldier’s Code, we pledge to “treat others with dignity and respect while expecting others to do the same.” Respect is what allows us to appreciate the best in other people. Respect is trusting that all people have done their jobs and fulfilled their duty. And self-respect is a vital ingredient with the Army value of respect, which results from knowing you have put forth your best effort. The Army is one team and each of us has something to contribute.
SELFLESS SERVICE
Put the welfare of the Nation, the Army and your subordinates before your own. Selfless service is larger than just one person. In serving your country, you are doing your duty loyally without thought of recognition or gain. The basic building block of selfless service is the commitment of each team member to go a little further, endure a little longer, and look a little closer to see how he or she can add to the effort.
HONOR
Live up to Army values. The Nation’s highest military award is The Medal of Honor. This award goes to Soldiers who make honor a matter of daily living—Soldiers who develop the habit of being honorable, and solidify that habit with every value choice they make. Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything you do.
INTEGRITY
Do what’s right, legally and morally. Integrity is a quality you develop by adhering to moral principles. It requires that you do and say nothing that deceives others. As your integrity grows, so does the trust others place in you. The more choices you make based on integrity, the more this highly prized value will affect your relationships with family and friends, and, finally, the fundamental acceptance of yourself.
PERSONAL COURAGE
Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral). Personal courage has long been associated with our Army. With physical courage, it is a matter of enduring physical duress and at times risking personal safety. Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others. You can build your personal courage by daily standing up for and acting upon the things that you know are honorable.
I do not idealize soldiers. I stopped doing that in 1993 when we joined. I am all too aware of the realities of soldiering and the frailty of man. But let me ask you this:
How many of you people have been a woman standing in a shoppette or PX surrounded by soldiers with that filth near the check out? Have any of you been intimidated like that? Suppose YOUR 14 year old was at the PX and there were a bunch of young guys looking at Playboy around her? How inappropriate would that be?
The military has changed. This is now an organization top heavy with families. If soldiers are so unprofessional that they want porn and so emasculated that they have to buy images in order to get sex, LET THEM DO IT OFF POST. No one is saying they cannot buy it. The issue is: SHOULD PORN BE SOLD ON POST?
The rapes of girls by servicemen in Japan… guess what they’re into? Porn. Strip bars. It isn’t good church going soldiers who are violating women and girls in other countries. It’s jerks who like porn. Pornography puts the emphasis on self and what self wants rather than on the 7 Army Values.
Finally, working on Ft. Leavenworth and being an Army wife, I can tell you that here are more men who are good, decent soldiers who don’t resort to porn than those who do. In fact, there are groups here that combat pornography and reject it as incompatible with military life. The men I know are good family men who live by a set of values that are an example to their daughters, wives and fellow soldiers.
If a guy wants to use porn, let that be on his head, but it should not be subsidized by the U.S. government/taxpayers nor should military families for all the sacrifices we offer our country be subjected to porn where we shop.
I’m not talking about censorship, I’m talking about freedom with RESPONSIBILITY. Get it elsewhere, soldier.
Bloodspite, again, soldiers can GO OFF POST. It's that simple.
Bloodspite, again, soldiers can GO OFF POST. It's that simple.
Off Post? In Egypt?
In Afghanistan?
In Iraq?
Countries that via Sharia law outlaw such things?
Unless of course you are condoning Sharia law over all military installations?
It's *not* that simple.
Have you ever considered the black cover is there to protect those folks with a more delicate sensibility, such as yourself?
The rapes of girls by servicemen in Japan
Be careful. Now you place yourself on a slippery slope, by linking servicemen who enjoy such material with criminal behavior. That is a a wide brush to paint. There are just as many whom have never drank a drop in their lives, and have never commited a crime.
should not be subsidized by the U.S. government/taxpayers nor should military families for all the sacrifices we offer our country be subjected to porn where we shop.
What tax money? Post PX's are private entities and privately funded whom have a contract to sell items on post to a large audience.
Unless your reffering to their soldiers actual income, at which point then you are crossing in to an area even more laden with discrepency, such as can soldiers purchase a firearm. Cigarettes. Alcohol.
Based on this definition, then I would be willing to alot them to a Class 6 type designation, and only sold there.
With your definition of on post comes the very items I listed above. Alcohol. Lets remove it from post as well, yes?
Tobaccoo in all its forms?
What about cologne? No need to have that on a military installation. They can buy it off post as well.
How about watches that are made in China?
Just a thought, the above are Army Value's NOT the Code of Conduct,
The Coe of Conduct is actually as follows
I: I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
II: I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, i will never surrender the members of my command while they still have a means to resist.
III: If I am captured, i will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
I'll defrain from the rest, unless you so desire me to continue.
There are good and decent soldiers who enjoy such items as described here.
Again I understand your arguement, I understand your feelings on the subject.
I just don't agree with it.
Such is "facing personal adversity" as defined by you.
Off Post? In Egypt?
In Afghanistan?
In Iraq?
U.S. soldiers are prohibited from having pornography in those countries. They cannot carry it in, have it mailed to them and it is not sold there. This should be the standard for all military bases.
As I understand it, PXs and shoppettes sell goods generally at a reduced rate and the government pays the vendor the difference. That savings is passed along to the soldier or dependent (valid ID card holders can make purchases). The government absorbes part of the cost of the goods.
Alcohol is not permitted in the countries you mentioned and the military attempts to be respectful of the host country's culture and standard. Alcohol is not indecent or lewd.
It verges on the ridiculous to morally equate tabacco and calogne with NAKED WOMEN IN SEXUAL POSES for the purpose of provoking sexual arousal.
I stand by my statement linking porn to sexual crimes.
I'm sure the framers of the Army Code of Conduct meant soldiers should be fighting for pornography! "Our way of life" refers to freedom with responsibility.
"Or are soldiers who “need” porn too embarrassed to go off post to buy it?" If Amy Proctor and those like her had her way, then yes, soldiers would be too embarrassed to buy porn.
Listen to the demeaning language she uses. "I think that’s pretty pathetic. Any man who has to pay for it is… well, I’ll just leave it at that."
And notice that those demonizing porn (or, is it a demon already?) cannot just sell the point by arguing that porn degrades troops and families. Oh no! Boys looking at naked girls must be responsible for an increase in sexual violence, a degradation of honor, and proof positive of your own unmanliness.
Lust is destructive. But shame is worse- far worse. So if the army makes a small hat tip to men's vices, that's better in my book than taking a very common struggle and driving it completely underground.
If you've followed any of these comments there is absolutely no shame involved in their defense of porn. The opposite is true. Yes, soldiers should be embarrassed to buy pornography. It not only denegrates women but it denegrates MEN! It should be a humilitation to men!
What we've seen in this thread and others on the subject is not a struggle with a vice but the celebration of masturbation. I am completely sympathetic to those who struggle and try to resist temptation. All human beings are tempted, vulnerable, and have different weaknesses. This is one reason why we should support the common good.
Pornography is evil and should be driven completely underground. Male sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, but pornography is.
I started surfing this topic at the moderate risk blog, but came over here because some of the comments there were really disgusting. Hope it doesn't follow over.
One thing Amy Proctor mentioned over there was "The one theme totally absent here is how you "men" think this affects women." A good point, but that's not the point.
The bigger problem is that we live in a culture (like every other culture, I'm guessing) that says it's ok to put those scare quotes around "men". Ball-chopping tactics like that are emotional broadswords that no man can ever object to, because being hurt only gives proof to the accusation. Men hear this kind of language so much, and respond so unconsciously that I don't think we even understand its true gravity anymore. But believe me, even the most blustery man feels it, secretly.
Any woman (or man, for that matter) who wades into porn/lust debates swingin' the ball chopper is going to do more harm than good. That's why it's better to keep porn on bookstore shelves then to say, What's the matter with you? Aren't you ashamed? Don't you consider the effects of your sick, degrading, un-manly habits?
Porn abuse is rampant, and it's a big source of self-consciousness and shame. But it would be better for me to paper my walls with Hustler magazine than to allow someone to steer me by shame. Once anti-porn advocates stop taking the low road, and begin displaying some of that RESPECT and HONOR they keep talking about, maybe then we can talk about finding ways to give up destructive vices.
"There is no need for pornography on military bases. Period. . . . I cannot think of a single useful purpose for pornography. "
Perhaps you meant to say "I have no need . . .", or even "I see no need . . ." Either would have been much less offensive than your flat-out declaration of Received Truth.
People have bodies. For biological reasons, we seem to be sexually stimulated, visually and tactilely, by the bodies of members of the gender group with which we would like to have sexual relations. Assuming heterosexuality, men are sexually stimulated by attractive female anatomy, either live or in visual depiction. Women seem to be less responsive to purely visual stimuli than are men.
So, it's a fact of nature that looking at good-looking female bodies stimulates hetero male sexual response. Nothing moral or immoral about it.
If Playboy is sold on post, how are wives and daughters put at risk? If anything, by allowing for an easier outlet for sexual arousal and satisfaction for those men who feel a strong and regular need, the wives and daughters are safer. Were my daughter on such a base, I'd feel much better thinking "she's there with 10,000 men leading normal lives" than I would thinking "she's there with 10,000 men who are becoming sexually frustrated because they cannot buy materials that allow for quicker and more convenient sexual arousal than merely trying to remember what their wife/girlfriend/best friend's sister looks like."
Ms. Proctor, you've apparently made some strong core decisions about the place of sexuality in your life. Good for you. But it's an incredible stretch to try to enforce a personal belief that sex exists only for procreation by arguing that pictures of bodies cause some sort of threat to people who hold common gender with those bodies.
We don't masturbate for love - we do it for fleeting physical sensation and the concommitant relaxing effects. And that's okay.
Amy, you use so many logical fallacies in your arguments, I hardly know where to begin. But I guess I'll start with the fact that you're trying to impose the notion that the military and its bases are 100% composed of families, and that's just not true. I would argue that your statement that the military is top-heavy with families isn't inherently true for the entire military, it's just anecdotal to your experiences.
The Supreme Court has already stated that it is inherently unfair to impose the lowest level of societal censorship, it's up to parents to shield their children from what they deem harmful. To do anything less is to be a bad parent, I have no doubt that you'd agree.
Secondly, you may be an Army wife, but that doesn't mean that you have any conception of the other branches of the military, and how they function. Your opinions are just that, opinions, they are not facts in any way, stop conflating and confusing the two. You are presenting this moral judgement on what you deem to be acceptable, that is an opinion, not a fact.
Anything imposed by the Department of Defense upon the military isn't just imposed upon the Army, it's also imposed on the Navy, and the Marine Corps. Your assumption that every military post is attached to a town completely ignores the reality of one thing, the Aircraft Carrier, which is a military post that can sit in the middle of the ocean for months at a time. Sorry, I can't just take a stroll "off-base" down to the local 7-11 in the middle of the Indian Ocean to pick up the latest issue of whatever magazine I wish to purchase.
Your supposition that where do we draw the line, should we have topless bars is a straw man argument and does nothing to refute the original point. You also use this argument when you ask why censor websites in elementary schools for pornographic content? Why not allow XXX movies at the PX, too? Or anti-black magazines? Gay mags? Again, a straw man, easily knocked down which does nothing to address the original argument.
When you use words like repugnant, pathetic, or indecent, and phrases like a man who has to pay for it, or porn in a nutshell: self-absorbtion, you're imposing a moral judgement on an issue that should be discussed in less emotional, non-loaded terms. You're trying to use shame to get your point across, won't work with some people, most of all, me. It's an appeal to emotion, not logic, where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.
You say in your ROE that you won't tolerate demeaning language in posts, yet you violate this very rule in the language that you use to describe people with which you disagree. (e.g. "jerks who like porn") Their lifestyle choices are none of your business, just as your lifestyle choices are none of my business. The Army isn't just fighting for your right to express your opinion, it's also fighting for the right to express opinions that you disagree with. Does this sound familiar? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!" That was written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in a paraphrase of Voltaire.
Thirdly, Pamela Paul is also using fallacious reasoning in her book, she is simultaneously using the fallacy of slippery slope reasoning and that of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, correlation does not imply causation. Some murderers may have looked at porn, but that does not imply that the porn was the cause. In the case servicemen indicted in the rape of the Japanese girl you use the same argument, and you have no proof of that supposition. You yourself use the identical fallacy of slippery slope in the same post that once you begin, you won't be able to stop, which is not true, you even name it, as a downward spiral.
I can employ the same fallacy, watch. I knew plenty of Marines & Sailors when I was in the Corps who would go to the PX or the Commissary to buy hard liquor and beer. Those guys and girls would proceed to get drunk, and some of them would drive. Some of them would get DUIs. So by your logic since alcohol is readily available on base and some people choose to drive when drunk, we should ban all alcohol sales from PXs and Commissaries because of my opinion that it would be in the greater good.
Anyway you slice it, you're trying to dictate morality through faulty logic and fallacious arguments. Post Exchanges are private entities subcontracted by the government to sell goods and services to the military.
my take on this. first of all it appears that everyone in here accepts the idea that nudity is pornography. that is not true. if it was, the statue of David is a pornagraphic depiction of a man. it isn't. nudity can and is seen in terms of an art form also. and there are many pieces of art that depict nudity in some form or another, whether it be partial or total nudity.
the argument seems to be centered on how the person looks upon it but it does not take into consideration the feelings of the model. does she feel that she is being sexually exploited, paid, yes but exploited for sexual purposes? to say she is being exploited willingly is to put her in the same class as a prostitute.
then there is the photographer. what are his feelings on it? to say that he is exploiting her for sexual purposes is to place him or her in the same class as we place pimps.
photography is accepted as valid medium of art. now, if we accept nudity as art in one form then we must also accept nudity as art when photography is the means to capture art. and it would be hard to convince me that if the girls captured on camera were to be painted in oils there would be as much controversy as it has created.
now, i say this in light of the fact that i acknowlege the existence of pornography and i acknowlege that women have been exploited for sexual purposes also. but we must also look upon the issue with a critical mind also. the body of a woman may be seen as nothing but a sexual object by some, i don't think anyone in here would disagree with that. but we must also accept that it is also an object of beauty.
this may be one of those issues that is a contradiction of terms in and of itself and yet would not be a truth without it. two persons could look at a picture of a nude and while one would be sexually aroused the other would simply be awed at the beauty he sees in the picture. are we to deny a person a scene of beauty just because another thinks in sexual terms? if we do that we are justifying the islamic viewpoint of how a woman should be seen.
Rc, interesting comments. I think you’ve missed the point, however. If shame were a part of this dialogue the defenders of pornography wouldn’t be justifying it as they are in this thread, which I find absolutely appalling. The solution of keeping on the shelves to promote shame defeats the purpose because the more pornography is mainstreamed, sold and displayed, the less reason there is to be ashamed. I cannot accept that it is “anti-porn advocates” who aren’t displaying respect and honor here.
Bobby:
Interesting. I was under the impression it was because men were so naturally prone to stimulation that they masturbate. Sounds like they don’t actually need porn since it is a biological phenomenon.
Again, the bait and switch going on in this thread is disingenuous. What men do on their own is completely out of my control. This issue affects my daily life, and the daily lives of my children. Soldiers can easily go off post to purchase pornography. It doesn’t need to be sanctioned by the military and sold on military bases. As I said, porn isn’t sold on overseas military bases for obvious reasons.
Stentor, I never said military bases are composed 100% of military families. Visit any base, however, and you can’t help but noticed the sprawling sets of family housing units that inundate every base. The military has changed in the last 40 years and most soldiers now are married.
I’m not representing all soldiers, I’m representing myself, but don’t deceive yourself in thinking I’m the only one that holds these views. Otherwise the legislation proposed in 1997 wouldn’t have been enacted in the first place, and the current proposal by Congressman Broun wouldn’t have been represented. It is when concerned military families contract their representatives that this sort of action takes place.
How many of you are military? Do any of you know what sort of discipline goes into soldiering or what the effects of porn in the military? In my parish alone we had hundreds of signatures from family members and soldiers who want porn banned from military bases. Most if not all of you are on the outside looking presuming the military is like any other organization. Soldiers give up certain freedoms for the good of their service.
This isn’t about the freedom of expression, it’s about stating the obvious about pornography, that it is destructive and completely counter to the Army Family Covenant. That really goes without saying.
Griper, nudity in and of itself is certainly not pornography, but there is no way anyone can argue virtue in the intent of Playboy nudity. The sole intent is to make money from men who want to lust at a woman willing to take her clothes off and pose in a sexual manner. This is about sex selling and selling sex, nothing else.
If Playboy and Penthouse were art, the PX wouldn’t put it on a shelve with a black ribbon over the appropriate body parts, would it? Obviously it is indecent.
Bottom Line once again: there is no need to sell porn on military bases. It is available off post. If a man is man enough to spend money to look at naked women, he’s man enough to take a 2 minute drive off post and buy it in open society like everyone else.
As a post script, this wasn't intended to be a dialogue about masturbation, whether men have the ability or not to control themselves or whether soldiers should have pornography, but rather whether pornography should be sold on military posts.
Amy P,
no one in here is arguing virtues not even you. and playboy is not selling virtue. that is not the intent of any business. profit is. and the only rules of that is whether or not that profit was gained in an ethical manner or not.
you say the focus of sales are men who lust. i say the focus is simply men. if the focus was on those who lust i'd say that the poses would be far more explicit about the sexual element of poses. and if that were the case it would turn off those men who saw beauty in certain poses. and that goes back to what i said in previous comment of two views of same thing. and lastly, all you need to do is surf the web and find enough nude pictures so as to be able to catagorize them into the two catagories of lust or beauty.
and if you mean what you said about the fact that nudity is not inherently porno then you would be able to do same thing. the fact that some of these pictures can be found in a format that is in the business of profit does not automatically declare the pictures as porn. it still is the mind set of the one gazing upon it that does.
I’m a Catholic. Jesus says in the gospels that anyone looking on a woman with lust commits adultery. Fornication if your not married. Either is a sin. I can only hope there are no Christians here justifying pornography.
I'm not interested in discussing futher the "artistic nature" of Playboy. I haven't heard anyone in this thread say like Playboy for the art. It's about the sexualization of women. It's about using women for their own sexual purposes. It's virtual prostitution on a smaller scale.
How many of you are military? Do any of you know what sort of discipline goes into soldiering or what the effects of porn in the military?
I am. 10 years Active duty in the US Army. Discharged in 2001.
I've bought Playboy. And my wife sent me Playboy while I was stationed in Bahrain. Which is in the middle east. Via the APO.
And I've never raped anyone either.
Heh.
It's about the sexualization of women. It's about using women for their own sexual purposes. It's virtual prostitution on a smaller scale.
You know for years, I have heard people say "Lets make laws for this" and "Make laws for that"
Instead of punishing the soldiers going in to harms way, why don't you strike at the source Amy?
Attack the women who voluntarily pose for Playboy, for a check for a substabtial sum of money?
The women in Playboy aren't lured. You don't get a free pass on your moral compass because your female and the world is an all male big bad wolf out to chomp you down (I'm sure there are plenty of female O-5's and up who would love to hear that analogy.).
Those woman make a choice freely
And I have yet to see anything you have offered in retrospect that justifies the stance you have taken.
Point A: You have an opinion. It is an entitled opinion.
Point B: Because you think its wrong you wish to exert that opinion on every male and female soldier in the United States of America.
I'm sure the E-4's and below will be off food stamps in no time thanks to your dedication and willingness to remove even more of their personal freedoms than what they already sacrifice by the mere act of enlisting.
Either way, I thank you for being polite in this debate, as so many debates online tend to turn in flame wars. My hat off to you for that.
I'm off for my own website which is in dire need of attention.
But I still don't agree with you. :)
Wow, ok, here I go. What in the world is going on? Are we so worried about little magazines when there are videos, real life strip clubs, and other means of porn let alone the internet. I am a former soldier, and I am a religous person as well. The part that I have a problem with is that Congress has many too many issues to be worried about to be concerned with a law that affects no one. What is next? Take the alcohol off of the base because it promotes alcoholism and puts people in the hospital because their liver has quit, take cigarettes off of post because it is an ugly habit and it causes cancer. What about taking women out of the military because there are too many attempts of sexual assault on the women in the military. What about taking the food that makes people FAT out of the commissary. There are so many things that should be taken off of the post because it is wrong or addictive.
I think that woman that complained about the officer buying the magazine has a husband that is addicted to porn and needs to have a release.
There has to be some limit to how we as tax payers pay these congressional people. The bill introduces nothing but allow the government to micro-manage their constituents.
Is there nothing better this congressman could be doing? What about finding an end to the war? What about finding money for the programs that help keep the soldiers occupied during their off hours? How ridiculous!!!
I've scanned the comments and not seen this point made. Once you ban Playboy from sale on the military bases, yet allow its purchase off base, how far away are we when it is confiscated on base and perhaps the serviceman reprimanded for possession?
Stormwarning, pornography is not illegal. Troops can buy it if they want without "fear" of having it confiscated. That's a non-issue. This is about the appropriateness of selling pornography on military bases that are inundated with military families, children and wives. Its' a basic courtesy to the military family. And if the will of the people be known, the will of military and their dependents, it wouldn't be sold on post. It is sold for a minority and it offends the majority.
Steve, it isn't up to the Congressman, or any congressman, to "find an end to the war". Leave that to the generals and the commander in chief. The military is different than the civilian population in many ways and with all the hardships we suffer because of the sacrifice our families make, pornography is a thumb in the eye to all military families.
Are we so worried about little magazines when there are videos, real life strip clubs, and other means of porn let alone the internet.
Those items you mentioned aren't sold on post for obvious reasons, there are no strip clubs on post, and internet porn prohibited in the workplace. What the soldier does in his spare time is up to him. If those other items are restricted, why shouldn't Playboy and Penthouse be?
You say you're a religious person and I don't know if you are a Christian, but if you, you can never justify pornography. I could recite a plethora of scriptures to prove my point but let me point to the words of Christ:
"Any man that looks on a woman with lust in his heart commits adultery with her."
If you say you're religious, you cannot dismiss Christ's words.
Bloodspite, Playboy isn't lured? By whose account? Why then is it placed on the shelf behind a black wrapper? If PLayboy is so innoculous why not bare the cover? BECAUSE IT'S INDECENT and it doesn't belong on a military post in front of children and women.
Maybe the fact that I'm a woman means nothing to you, and I thank God I'm not your wife, girlfriend or daughter, but how about the fact that I am a military wife with 2 daughters and 2 sons living on post? Why should we be subjected to it just because a bunch of civlians think it's fine?
To say the least, it has nothing to do with you being female, but rather the ethics and morality of the law.
For one thing I have a hard time with the entire Christianity arguement, because the entire focus of the us military in one form or another is to commit a sin. Killing the enemy. Thusly most soldiers present themselves with a moral vacuum, the ability to say "These people are evil and there for its ok"
But thats neither here nor there.Morality involves the values that govern society's attitude toward right and wrong. Thus a person who lives by certain social values is said to be moral, one who does not is immoral, and one who doesn't care is amoral.
Ethics, in contrast, attempts to develop the means for determining what those values should be. Ethics also tries to create rules in keeping with those values.
Thusly just because something is immoral does not neccessarily equate it to being illegal. Nor because something is unethical does it make it illegal.
The arguement you are attempting to make is that the sale of Playboy is immoral one and therefor should be equated as illegal on a military installation.
However as mentioned above there are many things that can be construed as immoral with this frame of arguement.
Alcohol is the leading cause of deaths in America, DUI's the number one traffic fatality. Alcoholism destroys homes, families, and lives. Yet it is sold on Military posts.
Cigarettes cause cancer, second hand smoke, cost money, and are addictive. They too can harm families and can be seen as immoral. In fact in some religions, Islam among them, causing damage to your own body is considered what we would equate to a sin.
Items manufactured in China help fund religious oppression, human rights violations, child slavery and other humaitarian violations. They too could be construed as immoral.
As I have already said, and others in this post have said, the black label is there for YOUR protection to help keep you from seeing the "lewd" photography that offends you. It is their attempt to meet you half way.
It is not up to the Generals to decide a time to end the war. it hasn't been up to the generals in some time. Our last 3 conflicts, Gulf War 1, Korea and Vietnam all were ended by political, not military means, thus your argument that the military thereby commandds all is to say the least, historically inaccurate.
I can also quote scripture, granted it may be "for the devils own use".
Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1).
Who are you to dictate your morality, your values and your taste to anyone? To restrict the liberties of those who fight for your liberties is, frankly, offensive, and you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting something so asinine as this bill.
1) All laws are legislated morality.
2) I have a constitutional right to voice my opinions as much as any porn king who wants to push indecency where I live.
3) No one is restricting liberties of the U.S. soldiers and nowhere can you find me saying that porn should be illegal. I said it shouldn't be sold on military bases, as XXX movies aren't, because they are indecent and incompatible with the newly christened Army Family Covenant.
4) I'm extremely proud to support this bill and proud of the hundreds if not thousands of soldiers and their families here on Ft. Leavenworth who signed petitions opposing the sale of porn on post.
Come on, people, this isn't rocket science!
1) No... all laws are not legislated morality. Driving the speed limit is not a moral issue, but a safety issue.
2) And every soldier has the same right to access porn or anything else as any other American, and often times, due to where a soldier is stationed, the only place to purchase those things is on base.
3) Who cares if the laws are compatible with the Army Family Covenant or not? Not all soldiers have families, and even if they do, it is up to them to decide what they buy or do not. The Army is one branch of the military, and does not dictate what the military as a whole should or should not do. Why should it not be sold on a military base? By limiting access, you are effectively limiting the freedom to choose whether to purchase pornography or not. As I said above, some soldiers are stationed in locations where they can not leave the base to purchase these items.
4) I'm proud to oppose this bill and am proud of every soldier, whether they signed your petitions or purchase pornography.
You are right on one count, this is not rocket science. You are trying to impose your morality on others... and that is wrong.
1) All law is legislated morality. Civil law has a moral criteria. Safety is about protecting and responsibility, which is a moral issue. This is just the nature of law.
2) Soldiers forfeit some of their personal privileages to serve their country. Right, soldiers on base in the UNITED STATES cannot go off post and buy pornography, it MUST be sold on post. Why are strip joints right outside most military posts? Hmmm....
And we're not talking about restricting anyone's ability to obtain porn. It isn't being made illegal. It is being restricted from sale on military posts.
You people obviously don't understand the military life. Porn is not sold on post in foreign countries. There's a reason for that. Soldiers are forbidden porn and alcohol when deployed. They sign up for this. Guys also give up their families for long periods of time. Why not criminalize that? Why not just do away witht the military altogether to make you civilians have warm fuzzies about buying your porn? If you cared about troops you'd care about their families, and military families are overwhelmingly opposed to selling porn on post.
3) Right, who cares if Army values are consistent with its' COVENANT to military families! I guess soldiers shouldn't be loyal to the Army and obey orders, either, since vows, covenants and oaths are obsolete.
4) Oppose it. It's your right.
Imposing morality is wrong? Let's do away with drug laws, indecency laws, speed limits, litering laws, stalking laws, age limits on drinking, and America will be the best country on earth!
Storm rider, drinking and pictures of naked women where there are children and wives is INNAPPROPRIATE. Why is this such a hard concept for you men to understand? Maybe because you're not thinking with your brains and are only thinking of yourselves.
". Why is this such a hard concept for you men to understand? Maybe because you're not thinking with your brains but are only thinking of yourselves."
- We're not just thinking of ourselves. I have been out of the military for six years now. But I think that the people serving shouldn't have to tolerate having someone else's religion forced upon them. You keep stating that porn doesn't belong on post with women and children. Why not? First of all I find it funny that you presume to speak for all women on the subject. Many have no problem with porn. Children can't buy it, so I see no problem there.
Soldiers already have to give up so many things, decent wages, time with the people they care about, freedoms that most Americans take for granted. I think that we should never take anything away from our soldiers without having a darned good reason. You haven't listed one yet.
You started making a big deal about the COVENENT the army leaders entered into with military families. It doesn't mention anything about limiting sales of materials that some people don't like.
"Leave the Amry to the soldiers gentlemen"
I agree wholeheartedly. But as a gentleman I must insist, ladies first.
"Maybe because you're not thinking with your brains and are only thinking of yourselves."
Right. When I enlisted in the US Marines, I DIDN'T swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I DIDN'T know that I would be putting myself into HARMS WAY to fulfill that oath. Sounds like I was ONLY thinking about myself.
What the MEN AND WOMEN do in the privacy of their barracks or base housing is THEIR business, NOT yours. Your comment of "drinking and pictures of naked women where there are children and wives is INNAPPROPRIATE" shows why I am OPPOSED to YOUR MORALITY being imposed on US Service Members- you don't want to JUST restrict sales of porn on base, you want to ELIMINATE it entirely, along with alcohol, and anything else your morals deems "INNAPPROPRIATE".
Perhaps we should eliminate base housing instead.
The bottom line here is that you don't think that soldiers should be allowed to buy certain magazines on-post. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.
But trying to force others to live by *your* morals is, frankly, something you should be ashamed of. Put the magazines on the top shelves and put that black plastic thingy in front of it so you don't have to see the cover. So it offends you. Big deal. You offend me, and I'm not trying to legislate you away.
Amy:
"Off Post? In Egypt?
In Afghanistan?
In Iraq?
U.S. soldiers are prohibited from having pornography in those countries. They cannot carry it in, have it mailed to them and it is not sold there. This should be the standard for all military bases."
So, you argue that since it is sold off base, it should not be available in the PX, yet you make the above statement? How, may I ask, are they supposed to get it on to the base is they can't carry it or have it mailed to them?
You also say this:
"Pornography is evil and should be driven completely underground."
Yet you also say that the soldiers should be allowed to posses it if they obtain it off-base. Pick an argument and stick to it. I don't agree with you, but if you had at least presented a coherent, logical argument, I would have at least respected your point of view. In the future, please don't resort to broad generalizations.
P.S.
You also mention that an over-whelming number of people in your parish support this bill. Surprise, members of a church are opposed to porn.
You also state that if somebody is religious, then they should abide by the words of Christ. That is one of the most narrow-minded, bigoted statements I have heard in a very long time. What about Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, and followers of the myriad other religions in the world? Should they all convert because you see Christianity as the "right" religion? Because I thought that this country allowed freedom of religion, no matter the choice.
I was not going to post, as I realise its futile to stand up against narrow minded people such as you, then I thought, hang it, if I don't then others may not, so lets do it, and if your reading and are in two minds, go for it.
Amy, I'm ex army, Not American but British, but I have worked on US bases, and shopped in PX's in Germany and Iraq.
What I'm basically and fuddinly trying to say is, mind your own business. Let people decide what they weant to read and if they want, what they want to masturbate to. What gives you the right to be the moral guardian to others with your narrow minded views and your big scarey invisible friend.
Use your voice and midn for something constructive instead of trying to enforce your petty minded views on others. There are far worse things in this world than mild porn mags in soldiers hands. Do something useful and let people have a wank if thy want to.
Oh, and by the way, grow up, there is no such thing as a god. Apollo, Thor, allah, or whatever else you want to call them. Realise that your problems are yours alone and dont blame the boogeyman..