I would send dirty magazines to Rupert myself if I could.
Ace of Spades is talking about a debate going on at The Corner about whether or not military PX’s should sell Playboy and Penthouse. It’s all about this article:
Concerned that the military is selling pornography in exchange stores in spite of a ban, one lawmaker has introduced a bill to clean up the matter.
“Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., unveiling his House bill April 16.
His Military Honor and Decency Act would amend a provision of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act that banned sales of “sexually explicit material” on military bases.
Broun said he wants to bring the Defense Department into compliance with the intent of the 1997 law “so that taxpayers will not be footing the costs of distributing pornography.”
Exchange officials noted that tax dollars are not used to procure magazines in the system’s largely self-funded operations.
But Broun’s spokesman John Kennedy contended that taxpayer dollars are involved — “used to pay military salaries, so taxpayer money is, in effect, being used to buy these materials,” he said.
That is the most idiotic thing I’ve heard all week. Sorry pal, but once you pay the soldier his salary that he earns for volunteering to do a job 99% of us won’t do, it’s HIS money. Taxpayers have nothing to do with what he does with it. It’s not a taxpayer handout or a sponsorship or any other bullshit like that, it’s his SALARY. So butt out.
I mean really. It’s like saying that the doctors who pay me to do medical transcription have some ultimate responsibility for what I do with that money and should be allowed to tell me what I can and can’t spend it on. Buh-huh-hulll shit.
Wanna know what I think, as a bona fide military girlfriend? I think they should have porn in the PX, especially if all we’re talking about is Playboy and Penthouse. Men need to see naked women, and these men happen to be spending months at a time in forced celibacy, and if they want to look at a pretty girl’s boobies and release some of that, uhhh, energy, more power to ‘em. I have absolutely no problem with it and like I said, I’d send those mags to my own boyfriend if I could, once he gets to Iraq.
I think people (especially women) take this stuff way too seriously. It’s pictures of naked bodies, that’s all. Those magazines don’t depict sex acts or anything truly nasty…just pictures of naked bodies. People really need to relax about it.
One day when I figure out how to articulate it, I’ll write a post about why women shouldn’t feel NEARLY as threatened by porn as many of them do. I think a big problem is that women think that men think like women, which they do not, and if women can just get their brains wrapped around those differences, they’d be a lot less punchy about this sort of thing.
So there.
Wait, wait, wait.
You’re telling me that women don’t sit around thinking about boobies and football all day long? That sure explains a lot.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:47 amDon’t ya love it when people try to force their morality on others? I’m glad we have people like that to look out for us.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:54 amI demand to know where Congressman Broun’s salary goes after it’s paid to him.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:58 amUm…I want you to write that post because I have MAJOR issues with porn. It really upsets me as a matter of fact.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:00 amIt occurs to me that, as a member of Congress, Rep. Paul Brown’s salary is also taxpayer money. Therefore, he shouldn’t be allowed to buy anything with it without getting the approval of the taxpayers.
I wonder if there’s a radical Imam out there we could pay to go on tv and demand that all members of Congress (Hell, government workers in general) be forbidden from buying pork. Why should Muslim tax payers be footing the cost of distributing “unclean” foods?
April 24th, 2008 at 10:02 amI can’t believe the military and AAFES are still having this discussion. When I was a commander 18 years ago AAFES made the decision to pull those magazines because of complaints by family groups. The magazines were already placed on the top racks so kids couldn’t get to them easily, but that wasn’t good enough for the nannies. They wanted them gone altogether.
Here’s the thing, though — I was buttonholed by at least one guy in the unit about “censorship.” Not that anyone’s said anything about that here, I think we all know this isn’t about censorship. AAFES doesn’t work for the government. Their over-arching concern is the bottom line.
But if the guys want tittie magazines, and AAFES doesn’t stock them, go buy them somewhere else. I was stationed in Germany when the first hoo-hah surfaced, so the magazines available on the economy were in German, but — well, hands up, everyone who thinks the guys buy those magazines to read the articles.
It’s stupid, I agree. There’s a way to stock those magazines so the kiddies can’t get their hands on them, although it does involve some vigilance on the part of the AAFES employees — which may be part of the problem, they don’t want to have to keep an eye on the magazine rack lest Junior pollute his precious brain cells with salacious imagery.
But it’s not like they can’t get the magazines elsewhere.
Unless they’re in Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iraq. There’s a thought — they have prostitution in those countries, do they have tittie magazines too? Might be a challenge finding them, though. Hmmm. AAFES really should make an exception for the overseas (i.e. “deployed” locations, where people are, you know, getting shot at). It’s not as if family members are roaming the aisles of the BX at Basra, for cryin’ out loud.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:05 amActually, Penthouse does show sex acts, or at least it did the last time I bought one. Maybe 1 or 2 in an issue, while the rest were just nude pictorials.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:08 amWell to be fair, the magazines that actually do depict sex acts could just as easily say the same thing.
“It’s just sex, that’s all. Our magazine doesn’t depict bestiality or anything truly nasty like that. Just pictures of people having sex. People really need to relax about it.”
I don’t think our soldiers should be prevented by law from buying or looking at porn, but I understand the principle behind Rep. Brown’s efforts to do so.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:13 amYeah. I’m sure that barely-twenty-something guys by the truckload just feel so sullied when they see naked women. They probably feel the need to take a shower immediately. With her. And maybe one or two of her friends…
April 24th, 2008 at 10:24 amIts their money to spend how they like. And no one forces these girls to pose in these magazines.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:27 amAfter serving two tours of duty in two different combat zones, I can tell you I am only here because of porn. It is a pick me up when you are secluded, lonely and scared half out of your mind. So my final thought on this is “MY COLD DEAD HAND”.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:38 amWhen I was in the navy we would get letters to our skipper about how he should protect our morality and make sure when we were all overseas that we didn’t drink or go carousing while in a foreign port.
But here is the quote I like:
Next we will close down the enlisted club and stop selling beer at the commissary. After that we will require everyone to go to bible study too.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:41 amI despise Porn,but the guys over there should be able to buy some Playboy at the very least.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:42 amI mean,months and months of forced celibacy..they need a break. It’s not like they are buying “Naughty Co-eds edition 25″ or whatever. See that I would have a prob with*shrugs* my small loophole for guys lookin at skin mags is that they be in a war zone,if they’re normal joes with a girlfriend or wife..in a nice happy relationship..well they need to be kicked..hard. (my personal opinion there) but I’d love to read that post Rachel.
I understand the difference between Playboy and “the naughty co-eds or cheerleaders” one is given a slap up the head and the other a kick in the…ahem anyway thats all hypothetical for me(never had to address that situ,thankfully)
Speaking of a kick in the..lets say pants,this Broun guy seriously needs one,it’s their damn money they more than earned it(pfft unlike him)
That isn’t a reference to the act that is sometimes called “The Stranger,”(*) are you?
Anyway, tittie mags != porn, and I don’t like it when people dishonestly conflate the two for purposes of pushing an agenda (much like the way certain people deliberately conflate legal and illegal immigration). I’m not a consumer of either, and find porn (real porn) pretty distasteful, but dammit, these are soldiers we’re talking about, not altar boys. Let them buy nudie books, for Pete’s sake. God forbid this Broun turkey ever sees the nose of a WWII bomber.
(*) sitting on the hand until it falls asleep, so it feels like a different person
April 24th, 2008 at 10:57 amStupid nanny-staters, pissing me off incessantly. Let the troops have their girlie mags. And, in a similar vein, I think anyone serving in any branch of the military should be allowed to drink. You’re old enough to serve, you’re old enough to be served.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:04 amA few months ago on Dennis Prager’s radio program a mother of two teen boys phoned in and said she never understood the male psyche - until she had to take a testosterone treatment for some ailment. Then, she said, the light went on. She finally got it. Oh my, is that what guys are dealing with? oy!
April 24th, 2008 at 11:07 amPersonally, I don’t think porn is harmful. Yeah, when some nut goes nuts, you’re likely to find porn in his bedroom. BFD…you also likely find milk in his fridge. SFW?
The vast majority of heavy consumers of the stuff are not knife-wielding maniacs, but poor horny sods who can’t find a partner for whatever reason. Nobody’s forced to buy the stuff at gunpoint. And if I were a woman, I’d figure that if I couldn’t compete with a picture on a piece of paper, or an image on a screen, I needed to get my act together.
When I think of how many times I’ve heard women verbally drooling among themselves over some guy’s butt or bare chest, the hypocrisy I often hear from them on this subject really infuriates me. Same-same goes for women who get all huffy about porn while devouring what my best-beloved calls “trashy romances.” Same urge, but one’s more socially acceptable than the other.
A lot of “feminists” can’t really accept that they got about 90% of the real problems women had solved, so they constantly charge ahead, finding new worlds to try to conquer and assuaging their anger issues at the same time. And quite a few “Christians” get a subliminal charge out of the “We are the FUN POLICE” act, never realizing how much it alienates people who might, otherwise, be willing to listen to them when they have something worthwhile to say.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:19 amI’m w/ Morgan. I want to see an itemized sheet of exactly what it is he is doing w/ our money. I bet since Rachl just wrote a check for +$10K, she’d love to see that statement as well.
And, in agreement w/ dfwmtx, they do show sex acts. Not stating an moral argument, just that they do in fact have the “no pants dance” quite often in there.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:27 amAnd this is the crux of my disagreement. It’s NOT taxpayer money! The service member EARNED it. It’s THEIRS. NOT THE GOVERMENTS.
Let’s play reduxio ad absurdum. What if they wanted to buy something from La Perla? What if they wanted to get a Ford Mustang, and not a PC Prius? What if they wanted to buy some smokes? Or (gasp) a GUN? Should they be stopped then? Whether they buy these items on post or not, it’s the taxpayers money, is it not? According to Rep. Brown, it sure is. Why stop at the PX? The defense of the taxpayers money should know no bounds, right, RIGHT?
These bastards think they own us. Wrongo-bongo!
The good news is that reelection time for this idiot is coming up. The bill has zero chance of passing, it’s just red meat for his constituents.
And Cold Fury has more on this too.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:33 amAnyone want to take the bet that this dimwit is the next representative to get caught pulling a “Mark Foley” or a “Larry Craig”?
Not to mention the “Go defend my freedoms, but hand over that Playboy on your way to the plane.” angle.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:38 amJesus H. Christ in a chicken basket!
What a turd muffin (Broun). Isn’t it enough that these guys are putting their lives on the line?
Freakin self righteous little prick.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:38 amOkay, using the distinguished gentlemans argument, then any military member can’t have internet access, cable or satellite TV, or be able to shop at 7-11. God what a moron. Oh, and what about us retired military folks? My retirement pay is federal money, does that mean I can’t buy a playboy?? WTF
Due to Rachel’s brilliant insight yet again, I vote her for supreme ruler of the universe.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:38 amIt is more than just the PX not being able to sell, from what I understand. Apparently the troops aren’t allowed to bring it with them, nor is it allowed in care packages (though I don’t know how these packages are screened in transit).
Porn is a personal choice. I understand that there may be legitimate concerns about too much masturbating, if it distracts troops from other duties or interferes with sanitation procedures or something. But that should be punished on its own I think.
The old common theme used to be that they’d use the local prostitutes. Back in the day at least, the Navy had “short arm inspection” for everyone coming back from shore leave to check for STDs. Given that concern, masturbation (even if aided by porn) would seem preferable to command. Weird issue. The main thing is this is a troop effectiveness problem (if a problem at all) and should therefore be resolved by command.
Let the bill that prevents a PX from spending taxpayer funds to acquire the porn, that is then sold to the troops, stand as it is, and leave the moralizing out of it. This coming from a Christian with fairly specific philosophy against the use and creation of porn (but as with all of my religious beliefs, they constrain me, they don’t give me the right to constrain others).
April 24th, 2008 at 11:49 amRude1 Says:
Good point. I’m a reservist, so what does that mean for me? Do I have to keep some sore of bizarre record of what money I use to buy my porn? I’m OK so long as I prove that I used the money from my civilian employer to buy my porn?
April 24th, 2008 at 11:50 amOh, pish posh. Broun is blatantly pandering.
I hate porn and (probably because I’m a woman) I don’t understand it, but as long as it’s behind the counter where kids can’t get at it, it should be available.
It’s called freedom. Apparently the irony that our soldiers are fighting to bring the very liberties that Broun opposes to the middle east is lost on him.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:52 amReally? Does this taxpayer salary funded dipshit really want to carry this argument to its logical conclusion? If so, I’ve got loads of problems with how Broun spends his money. Asshole.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:05 pmI read those two magazines for the articles anyway so what’s the big deal..
April 24th, 2008 at 12:09 pmI think the soldiers should be able to get any porn I can get. That is, any porn that is legal. Why? Because otherwise you’re letting hippie liberals get porn that you’re denying the soldiers…
That said, Penthouse is fairly funky. Like dfwmtx said, they show sex acts. And the last issue I saw? They had a woman peein’. Which, just, no, at least for me. But hell, if a soldier wants it? His call, not mine, not Representative Dickface’s either.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:09 pmI’m with the folks who see it as no worse than selling beer or tobacco: it’s not illegal; it’s their money; there’s a demand; so just shelve it in a manner that keeps it out of the kiddies’ way. Otherwise, what’s next — trans-fats?
Second!
April 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pmI’m sure that his next re-election slogan will be “When there’s a war going on, I’ll sacrifice anything to protect the soldiers from titties.”
April 24th, 2008 at 12:14 pmthis guy’s a Republican? Doesn’t he know it’s the damned fascists that’re supposed to be the ones decided what we can or can’t do?
April 24th, 2008 at 12:19 pmWhat a jackass!
BTW, Rachl …. some of us do (did) get Penthouse for the articles more than the pictures … well, actually the letters rather than the articles … since I see better pictures on the back of my eyelids when reading the letters, than the pictures in the mag. LOL.
If we all get to decide what is suitable reading material … I demand that all feminazis be restricted from reading those Harlequin romances — they’re obviously to blame for the dismal lives those critters liveSince my tax dollars fund them, I demand that all boots being used in government schools be sanitized of any mention of two mommies, or two daddies, or any mention of any situation outside a nuclear family as I consider that kiddie porn!
The Navy actually operated the brothels in Honolulu back in the day… now there’s your tax dollars at work!
April 24th, 2008 at 12:20 pmMy hubby said his first deployment over in Iraq the CO went to the loo and found a girlie magazine. He totally became unglued raging at the staff officers to find out who had that kind of filth on his base. Funny thing is, about 18 months later he was demoted and forced out because of an affair with a junior officer. Funny how that works, huh? Karma’s a bitch, you know. So short version…better to have my husband “release his energy” by himself than with someone else.
P.S. If you want to know how to send contraband over (magazines, liquor..) let me know. After three deployments it’s all good.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:20 pmPretty regularly, I send pr0n to a friend serving his third tour in Afghanistan… although it’s car pr0n.
He did really appreciate the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated — especially the body paint layouts.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:20 pmThis is really sad. The soldiers should be able to get whatever magazines they want. If they want porn, they should be able to get it. I can understand that the base exchange stores might not want to sell hardcore stuff, but they could at least stock Playboy. I wonder if they sell the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue? That’s basically the same thing.
While I’m not an anti-porn crusader, though, there are legitimate problems with porn. Consumption of pornography doesn’t cause people to go off and commit rape or sexual assault. But it can cause men to pay less attention to their wives/girlfriends. But for soldiers who are stationed in a war zone, that’s not really an issue…
April 24th, 2008 at 12:22 pmI, too, eagerly await the Rachel collum on why porn makes some women go batshit crazy.
Lamont
April 24th, 2008 at 12:23 pm“Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., unveiling his House bill April 16.
Now, beyond what other people have already said about it being the troops’ money, not taxpayers’, does anyone else notice something stupid here?
The troops are the ones asking for and buying Playboy and Penthouse. It’s not like there’s some giant Hugh Hefner Conspiracy forcing pure-minded American soldiers to purchase vile smut they’d never think of acquiring on their own.
Are they sullying their own honor?
(And how? What’s the dishonor in a damned Playboy, anyway? It’s barely R-rated.)
Is Representative Broun intentionally infantilizing the soldiers he claims to champion, or is he just too dim to realize he’s doing it?
Has he ever even met an American soldier?
(Seriously, you’d think at least a Republican could manage that.
I say, send our troops Hustler if they want it, and any law saying they can’t have it should be stricken.)
April 24th, 2008 at 12:29 pmThis sentence sounds very dirty to me for some reason. : )
April 24th, 2008 at 12:32 pmSigivald:
Agree. Additionally, aren’t Republicans supposed to be in favor of a free market economy? What’s wrong with profit?
April 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pmAs long as it’s legal, these guys should be able to buy anything they want with their money. This includes just boobies, sex acts or even bestiality.
It’s their money; it’s their choice.
And if there’s consequences in terms of personal relationships, it’s theirs to deal with–not the government’s.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:36 pm[rant]
I’m in the military, and apart from taxes, I’ll be darned if they’re going to tell me what I can do with my money. I could give some to my church, I could give some to Larry Flynt, I could give some to the Cub Scouts, or I could give some to Joe Francis. (For those of you keeping score, yes on 1 and 3, no on 2 and 4.) I should be able to buy Bibles, booze, bricks, or barbecue with it, and no bureaucrat should tell me differently. It’s my pay, not a gift from the taxpayers.
This is the idiocy of the entire thought process that says “if the money comes from the government, the government must control the recipient.” We’ve seen that with organizations that have actually refused money to avoid going along with the strings attached. Countless lawsuits have been filed against schools allowing Bible clubs to meet in their classrooms, because that’s “government endorsing religion.” HOGWASH! It’s public use that happens to be religious in nature. I came to know Christ as my Savior in a public school classroom, in a high school that our church has completely rented out, where we were having Neighborhood Bible Time (like VBS, only amped up). Of course, that was 1977 - probably couldn’t do that today.
Some of you above are right - where does it end? Isn’t a Congressman’s salary paid with taxpayer money? Mayors, police, firefighters are paid with tax money as well, though probably a small percentage, if any, is Federal. We all drive on government built-and-maintained roads - does that mean that we can only drive where the government tells us? Some places have government-provided water service - since water is essential to life, doesn’t that mean that we all owe our lives to the government? Poppycock!
[/rant]
Maybe I’m just grumpy from my 13-1/2 hour day yesterday, followed by a night of wrestling with my CPAP machine. If I were thinking clearly, I would have put this rant on my blog to drive traffic up… heh…
But it’s still my money.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:41 pmI can tell you how it’s screened at the central MCA (Mail Control Activity) - that’s where I deployed in 2006. Basically, the biggest problem we ran into was alcohol shipped in bottles - yes, no matter how much you pad them, they’re bound to break. Then we get a soggy box to “repack”, but first we have to figure out what’s making it soggy. If we open it, we have to take out anything on the prohibited list (alcohol and girlie mags, tame or otherwise). Also, some packages are screened using X-ray and bomb-detecting equipment. I can’t speak to the screening at the actual forward base, but if you’re smart about it, it’ll probably slip through the cracks.
The reason people make such a big deal about it is that the agreements the US has with the host nations specifically state that they won’t knowingly import those sorts of things. If the leadership didn’t rail against it, the host nation could revoke it’s approval on letting us have our own importing system. The US is in positive control of the mail from here to there, through USPS stateside and MPSA overseas. Security is the main objective, but it is also cheaper and much faster than relying on other nations’ postal systems.
Disclaimer - this post should not be construed as to be endorsing or condoning shipping of prohibited goods to a combat zone…
April 24th, 2008 at 12:54 pmActually I think distribution of bestiality-porn may be illegal under US law.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:56 pmI should clarify that I don’t have an issue with them selling the mags in the PX or whatever. The soldiers deserve just about anything when over there fighting. I’m all for contraband.
I was in line with an AF wife sending a bottle of … well … not water. She had been doing it for years and never gotten in trouble (nor had her hubby).
I do have a problem with Porn. Especially for married or committed men/women (who aren’t separated for war!). It creates unrealistic expectations and desensitizes people. Not to mention it just pisses me off to think of my hubby looking at another naked woman. Hello? I’m right here!
And I am one of those who thinks that porn degrades women. Not just the viewing of them, but their treatment in the industry itself.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:59 pmI would guess it makes women crazy because it’s threatening. Most women aren’t porn-star hot.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pmCastocreations said “…And I am one of those who thinks that porn degrades women. Not just the viewing of them, but their treatment in the industry itself.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:59 pm ”
I hear that a lot. I don’t necessarily disagree, but it degrades men too. One can argue that it degrades men more, in that in the bulk of the porn industry women are the stars (and in popular genres, men aren’t even allowed), get paid more, and have power (if they are smartish about it). If the industry is degrading, it is degrading to PEOPLE, not just women.
That said, as much as I disagree with the choices of these “actors” it is their choice to make. They are choosing to make money off of a skill they have, why should we assume they are too stupid to assess the risks they face in the industry. Where is it our business to tell them it is degrading vice empowering? I’m philosophically curious with this, I’m not advocating anything.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pmHoly shit! Men and women think differently?
April 24th, 2008 at 1:33 pmMy money was on Leslie Bennetts to win, Nora Ephron to place and then those Dear Abby writers grouped to show. Looks like I’ll have to work on my handicapping system some more…
April 24th, 2008 at 1:34 pmThe right to publish, purchase, and read whatever the hell you want is EXACTLY what those soldiers are fighting to defend. Anyone who tries to prevent them from exercising that right should be punched in the face. (If the self-righteous bluenose in question is male, a kick in the crotch would also be appropriate.)
April 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pmWe just tucked girly mags into a cheerios box and reglued it, then sent it to a friend in Iraq.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:56 pmSo I guess, now that they’ve gone after the American soldiers who like to purchase Playboy with “government dollars”, they’re going to crack down on all the alcoholics on public assistance who are buying booze with their government checks? And then paying for their liver transplants with government dollars? Riiiiiiiight.
Side note: anyone else read F. Paul Wilson’s “Lipidleggin’” ? First they outlawed butter and replaced it with margarine, then they forced farmers to feed their chickens a supplement that took the cholesterol (and flavor) out of egg yolks… It’s actually a great story; check it out if you get a chance.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pmTo piggyback on what Daniel said, a guy I worked with was deployed and our unit decided to send him a care package every month he was gone. One guy thought it would be funny to send granny porn. He promised he wouldn’t put it in the main box but did anyway.
The deployed guy’s wife called her friend at the unit pissed because her husband had called her pissed that he got it. It wasn’t that he was against porn (or jokes involving it), it was that he could have been charged under the UCMJ for receiving that stuff, even if he didn’t solicit it. He actually knew somebody who got caught with porn and was charged.
I definitely don’t condone porn, but given the fact that there are many people who want to take my violent video games away I’m not one to push my personal moral code on others.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pmSounds like a plan!
Sure you’re right there. But are you naked? If not, then there’s your solution. : )
April 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pmOf course, you can’t send Rupert some Playboy magazines, becaue it might “offend” the people who are, you know, our enemies. Pfft. Like I give a crap what they think. And like I give a crap what all the bluenosed bureaucrats think, either.
While I’m not in the military, I have standing to comment on this issue because I’m a Playboy subscriber. I was encouraged to take them up on one of their subscription offers by a friend–a female friend. She even offered to take the old issues off my hands if I didn’t want to keep them around. So, as one of her birthday presents, I got her her own subscription to Playboy. She was tickled pink. (But she still wants me to send her the February issue, the one with that model dressed as Wonder Woman on the cover.)
April 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pmRachel has a boyfriend. Dang! I’m really diggin’ that picture with the helmet.
Really they should be reading those magazines for their health. Latest studies show that guys who “take matters into their own hands” more often have healthier prostates!
Think of all the votes the Dems could get if they started handing out free porn as part of their healthcare plan.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pmFollowed much later by:
Let’s really take the suggestion to its logical conclusion: Everyone receiving Federal tax dollars should be included (it’s the only true way to interpret the way Kennedy worded it), including Every. Single. Federal. Government. Employee (or elected official), as well as Everyone on any kind of Federal Assistance.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:02 pmThe porn industry degrades women. It does cause them a lot of psychological problems, especially as they age. And let’s not forget the STD epidemic within the industry. I don’t like porn, obviously.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pmHowever, I don’t think it should illegal. Certainly I don’t think that pictures, paintings, or sculptures of naked people should be contraband. That would destroy what, 3/4 of art in the world? The human body is a beautiful thing and it should be enjoyed as such.
And if it ain’t illegal, then the troops should be allowed to have it. Including alcohol. I think it should be allowed anywhere and everywhere there are troops, and even 18-20 year-olds should be permitted to drink. Denying these things to people in incredibly stressful situations–seeing things that no civilized man or woman should have to witness–is just plain wrong.
One of the things I learned from my grandfathers and their friends (who were all military), is that the veneer of civilization tends to get stripped away during combat. They talked about how violent and horrible the conditions during the conflicts they’d been a part of were. But when they came home, they became civilized again. That’s just the way it goes. So, let them be “uncivilized men” over there, looking at porn and chain-smoking and drinking heavily when not on duty. They can pull it back together when they get home. They did it before, they can do it again.
Excellent idea, WayneB. Let’s throw them gangbangers in for life if we ever catch them with a split beaver mag.And what about the people who get tax deductions for kids? Make ‘em pay! Aren’t they getting money that would otherwise be the gooferment’s? (I am kissing Rachlbutt today)
Let’s get everyone covered by this, then wait for the revolution. I want to show up at the Boston T(itty) Party.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:15 pmThat can be a solution during deployments too, if the deployed member has private computer access. Hellooooo webcam!
April 24th, 2008 at 3:23 pmAs they said during World War II, those pictures represent
“What we are fighting for”
Of course, that was another time, another place, another America. And, it ain’t comin’ back. Porno? No, it shouldn’t be sold in the PX/BX. And, I’m sure girlie nudies or part nudie pics are no longer allowed in a man’s military locker.
I’m glad I’m way too old to be in the military. In my youth, I NEEDED the pic or two so I could have a sweet reminder of what I was fighting for.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pmThis idiot is just the sort that the Dems will hold up as the prototypical Republican to recruit relatively sane young voters to their party. As for his spokes-hole, I wonder how much of that bs he actually believes and how much he says just to keep his job.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:28 pmDo they stipulate what you can and can’t buy with an EBT card? Isn’t that taxplayer money too? Can you buy porn with an EBT card?
April 24th, 2008 at 6:46 pmUm, Jeffrey Quick, sorry if I’m obtuse, but you did understand that I was trying to point out the absurdity of the proposal, right? Because I couldn’t figure out if you were doing the same thing, or actually took me seriously. Again, sorry I’m confused, but I often have a real problem reading other people’s meaning when it’s in text form.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:23 pmJust as I was about to finish reading the quote, the first thing I said to my laptop was “what an idiot” (referring to the politician). I’ve never had trouble with the idea that soldiers want to look at nekkid women or to have brew. This nonsense is exactly that: horseship. We need to lighten up around here. I say we need to send them as much as we can get away with, starting now. Be crafty and clever!
April 24th, 2008 at 10:56 pmUnfortunately, the Republicans have become the “Jesus is my running mate” party, and the Democrats are in bed, so to speak, with the sort of militant feminists who give the whole concept of feminism a bad name.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:38 amI’ve got two stories for you. When I was an active duty single female captain, one of the other female captains was incensed that the Stars and Stripes Bookstore was going to discontinue Playgirl because it wasn’t selling. She totally riled us up with the fact that there were 10 or 11 porn magazines for the guys and we were about to lose our only one. So all of us promised to buy Playgirl the next month. When I timidly went to pull mine out of the rack - standing next to a young PFC perusing Jugs! Jugs! Jugs!- I turned around and ran into my deputy commander. (Well, on the upside, I dispensed with any ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ problems)
My husband is in the British Army. Their porn is unbelievable - dogs, donkeys, a real free-for-all. (I’m not sure if it was all British, some looked Romanian, eastern Europe.) Whenever he did room inspections, he’s take the worst ones and toss them. Maybe we should send some of those to the good Senator so he can see how tame Playboy really is!
April 25th, 2008 at 3:44 amI wonder if the Hon. Congressman Dickface is aware — with his faux feminazi rationale for censorship — that the CEO of Playboy is a woman, (Christie Hefner)?
M
April 25th, 2008 at 9:50 amYou’re really getting the insta-love lately, Rachel. Cool!
April 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pmThe comments at The Corner are really stupid as well - chaplains chiming in to say how horrible it all is. Not that they approve of anything that the soldiers are doing in their time off - they agree more with Saudi imams than with America.
1) Men are visual - so something to look at helps alot, and is more important than it is for a woman going about the same process.
2) Men have higher drives (on average)- it’s the testosterone silly
3) Young men have ridiculously high drives… you can look at a stupendous amount of stuff and still want to be with your wife/gf. If you’re lucky you might be having fun 2 or 3 times a day with your gf, but can still have more energy. If you’re married and hardly get any…
4) Soldiers need porn and alcohol on deployment, for the sole purpose of pissing off the barbarian salafists. Screw them and the goat they married.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:33 pmBack in the Civil War, the Union Army licensed prostitutes, collected registration fees from them even, made a profit from it, and did so to help the troops.
You see, before antibiotics, STDs were so dangerous that men just being men could result in an entire military unit too sick to fight.
(not that today’s STDs like HIV/AIDS aren’t dangerous - they kill you, after all - but diseases that today can be cured with a few doses of drugs would often cripple a man quickly, whereas a person could catch HIV/AIDS and not show symptoms for years)
So, to help the North win the war, they gave soliders better access to hookers.
My, how things have changed.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:38 pmI guarantee that if a private charity collected donations where civilians could donate money for troops to get Playboy mags, the charity would receive a LOT of donations…..
April 25th, 2008 at 3:41 pmActually, we Marines had a born-again Commandant not too very long ago who tried to do exactly the same thing. I was at a wives’ luncheon with his wife and, during the question and answer period, one of the born-again wives stood up to ask why the Commandant didn’t put pressure on the businesses OUTSIDE THE GATE (!?!?!?!) to get rid o’ that shit, since we were all Soldiers of the Lord.
I walked out.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pm“I’ll write a post about why women shouldn’t feel NEARLY as threatened by porn as many of them do. ”
Perhaps women should learn about the creeping introduction of Islamic Law in the West. Unlike Payboy Mag, that actually IS a threat to feminists…
April 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pmThe troops I know request their porn be sent over the internet and be in a form that can be loaded and viewed on cell-phones. Thankfully, Rep Broun has not caught on to the new media.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm“A lot of “feminists” can’t really accept that they got about 90% of the real problems women had solved, so they constantly charge ahead, finding new worlds to try to conquer and assuaging their anger issues at the same time.”
Yet, they are unwilling to confront the one thing that actually IS a threat to women’s rights, and sanctions brutal violence against women : Islam, which is rapidly spreading in the West.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pmOh, and Rachel…
It’s time for another DOING IT FOR THE TROOPS post.
Here’s one to start:
What we are fighting for.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pmThis proposed renewal of the ill-thought-out ban on girlie magazines in the exchanges will only apply to bases in the US, aboard ships, and in other non-combat zones.
Mere possession of pornography in Iraq and Afghanistan is unlawful for all military and civilians under contract to Multinational Forces. This is so we don’t offend the sensibilities of our muslim host nations.
Of course, these host nations’ men love porn as much as any male does, they just have to hide it. But they don’t bother hiding it any better than any teenaged American boy does. And nor does any Marine.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:49 pm“I, too, eagerly await the Rachel collum on why porn makes some women go batshit crazy.”
I’ll tell you : The ugly femin-orcs are jealous of the Playboy hotties. They claim ‘exploitation’ but are jealous of how a women can get $100k for photos of herself, while the femin-orcs can’t even get a date.
Nothing more..
April 25th, 2008 at 3:55 pmSomebody needs to publish a nice conservative Playboy type of mag and so we can get rid of Playboy and Penthouse.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pmI just finished a deterrent patrol here, and I’ll say there would be a mutiny almost as bad as running out of coffee if they didn’t allow porn on the boat.
Hell, we put up the slightly more tasteful (read Kim du Toit’s site, if not lower) pictures from some of those mags in the final twenty four days of patrol!
April 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pmDid this statement take anyone else to a scary mental place? Afghan tittie magazines?
Shudder.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:24 pmPeople have tried this sh*t before. In court cases, some have had the temerity to argue that if a public employee spends their salary on a church, that this means the state is funding religion.
Its pretty horrifying when you think about it. it could strip every civil servant (and soldier, for that matter) of basic constitutional rights.
Or take, for instance, the voucher thing. People say “but it will go to religious schools!” So what? The person deciding it is a private citizen, so buzz off.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:34 pmI got more comments on this subject on my blog than anything else I’ve ever covered:
http://www.moderaterisk.net/2008/04/harmful_addictive_masturbation.php
And I got a lot of real prudes, too. But I also got Greyhawk, Boston Maggie, and Froggy on my side.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:40 pmAt the end of the day, 35-40% of the US GDP is the ‘public sector’. This is federal, state, and local governments, and the military. This includes school teachers, firemen, etc. All these people draw salaries, and probably consume goods and services much like the rest of the population.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:41 pmMy Fellow Americans:
The Congressman that proposed this legislation is one of the stupidest, out of touch people in government today. This little moralizer is also the reason people that trend toward the Republican Party come away with a bad taste in their mouth.
Republicans ought to stand for lower taxes, stiff criminal punishments for violent crimes, tight budgets and a solid military–and butt out of people’s private lives.
But people like this guy have ruined the Party. Get a clue congressman: our national budget is a permenant deficit; the dollar in tanking; our roads need fixing; social security needs money, and the cost of jellybeans is up–and the best you can do is primly object the Playboy being sold to fighting men?
Does Congress plan to ban Playboy from the Pentagon? From drugstores in federal buildings? What’s next: no smoking in war zones?
Decades ago the women’s Christian temperance Union sought to ban beer from being sold to soldiers at PX’s. They failed and this boob should fail too. Dictating to fighting men and women what they can read is asinine. Besides, our soldiers are there fighting for America and damn it, they ought to be able to see as much of it as they can!
So felons in prison have a right to buy Playboy but fighting soldiers don’t?
Is he TRYING to undermine troop morale?
I say our soldiers ought to be able to see as much of American women as they can (and vice versa). God speed everyone!
April 25th, 2008 at 5:03 pmI don’t think the congressman ever read Hef’s “Playboy Philosophy.” Playmates have never been ‘objects’; they represent the Girl Next Door, writ large. They’re interested in things, do stuff, and want to go places and do things with their guy (one place, in particular). That’s not pornography; that’s American womanhood, oorah.
Our boys look at pictures just to remind themselves of the American women they love, and respect with the highest respect a man has to offer–his personal manhood. The military’s complaint ought to be that most magazine girls aren’t pretty enough or smart enough to do justice to the actual sweethearts of actual heroes. Frank Frazetta is still painting, and if there’s any red blood left in this country, his federally-commissioned portrait of Rachel can’t be far off. With a dagger, and a polar bear on a leash. Nekkid.
Petition your congressmen.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:08 pmIf it’s not one thing, it’s another. Ever heard of nose art? Often, pilots named their planes in past wars. Sometimes, there was art. Cartoons, bombs, etc. Sometimes girls. Sometimes, not wearing much, or anything.
I’ve heard that sometimes a base commander would get in a snit and force them to paint clothes on the girls. In one case, it was because the commander’s wife had visited….
April 25th, 2008 at 5:10 pmThat’s what audio CD-R’s, with audio CD labels, and one encrypted digital section are for.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:18 pmFunny, I sent some magazines to my son, who is in the Army and stationed in Europe (but deployed), and the clerk at the Post Office wanted assurances that they weren’t “racy.” So when I talked to the kid, he said they do sell skin mags in the PX in Europe, but they frown on sending them to Afghanistan, lest they fall into the hands of the Afghans.
A mildly amusing instance of military puritanism: At my son’s base, the Army used to send “courtesy patrols” consisting of an officer, a noncom, and a driver to make the round of the bars before closing time to check on drunken soldiers and encourage them not to pick fights with the locals and, if things looked iffy, to call in the MPs. They stopped this when the wives of some of the courtesy-patrol guys complained about their husbands being sent to strip clubs.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:19 pmActually, having the thing on your desk is considered a form of sexual harrassment and I can go complain to a superior if you don’t get rid of it when I ask you to/make my displeasure known. Hell, nowadays, many female service members seem totake advantage of ‘empowerment’, going STRAIGHT to the superior, vice handling things themselves. (And I think we’re diminished and poorer for it.)
April 25th, 2008 at 5:32 pmBut when Tree Hugging Sister was a staff sergeant, the men were happy enough when she simply walked in the room.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:47 pmJust another form of Republican Socialism.
We have two Socialist Parties in America. One wants to Socialize our money. The other wants to Socialize our private lives.
If we are very lucky and the Republican Socialists abandon McCain and he wins we will get a realignment. The left wing socialists and the right wing socialist can do what they have been aching to do for ages. Join together. And those of us in the Middle will know who our real enemies are.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:20 pmGirly mags? This is the 21st century! We need to get those soldiers serious bandwidth and subscriptions to some good online pr0n sites immediately! Really, there should be some place to make donations for this sort of thing.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:31 pmStrange. The url says “red_corvette” but I can’t seem to find a corvette anywhere…
April 25th, 2008 at 6:35 pm“Actually, having the thing on your desk is considered a form of sexual harrassment and I can go complain to a superior if you don’t get rid of it when I ask you to/make my displeasure known. Hell, nowadays, many female service members seem totake advantage of ‘empowerment’, going STRAIGHT to the superior, vice handling things themselves. (And I think we’re diminished and poorer for it.)”
I know the same is true in private sector buildings since I left office in the 80’s, but only in the offices: you’re still free to buy it and stores to sell it. And with a couple of daughters, I think offices ought not to be festooned with playboys/hustlers etc. But few people are as morally imperialistic is this prudish congressman: to ban the sale?
So welfare recipients, prisoners, 14 year old boys, old geezers communist party members and George McGovern can buy them–but not US soldiers? He’s an idiot. He’ll probably be busted in an airport bathroom stall before long.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:09 pmHi folks. Just a quick note from somewhere in the 21st century.
Please don’t worry about sending porn to GIs in Iraq. They will continue to “make do” with whatever meager amounts they could load onto a 1 TB external hard drive prior to deploying. (And, once downrange, swapping with their friends.)
Yes, some might only have a few gig on much smaller thumb drives, and suffer the size-related taunts of their fellow soldiers, but such is always good natured (everyone is, after all, armed.)
By the way, somewhere up there someone mentions sending alcohol over there. All kidding aside, don’t do it. The best that can happen: reduction in rank, massive fines, and additional duty (in Iraq - no free ride home.) The worst: Death, for themselves or the folks who thought they were counting on someone sober. (That’s why the “legal” punsihments are severe.)
April 25th, 2008 at 7:20 pmSo would they prefer we go with the traditional 72 virgins thing? Jeez.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:38 pmThis, no shit, is the most insightful thing I have read in the blogosphere all week. Thanks, Rachel.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:15 pmMorgan K Freeberg has it exactly right. By Mr. Broun’s logic, he can’t give to his church. He’s paid by taxpayers, so contributing to a religious organization is a violation of the separation of church and state.
If he has contibuted to his church since he took office, then he has violated his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and he should be removed from office.
Oh, yeah…and his bill should be withdrawn
April 25th, 2008 at 8:31 pmI just hope everybody here will help support, as I do, Gina Elise at www.pinupsforvets.com ’cause her calendars seem to be acceptable to the deployed troops and the VA and Military Hospitals to which she sends/delivers them. And she’s cute as a bug’s ear and a real sweetie, besides.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:55 pmI just wish there’d been somebody like her supporting troops and veterans when I was in. Then again, I guess Ann Margaret is not somebody to sneeze at. ;^)
Rob J
Of course you’d send Rupert some pics of hot girls if you could, ’cause you’re not a dope.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:04 pmYou’re telling me that women don’t sit around thinking about boobies and football all day long? That sure explains a lot.
I dunno, football, probably not — but judging by the covers of womens magazines, they apparently spend an awful lot of time thinking about boobies. The covers of men’s magazines may have cars, boats, quarterbacks, golfers, snowboards, gadgets, guns, etc, etc instead of boobies, but womens magazine covers seem to be pretty much all cleavage all the time.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:11 amI haven’t read all of the responses. I couldn’t have.
But I’m an old man. Playboy and Penthouse haven’t interested me in decades.
Still, there isn’t anything wrong about them (at least, there wasn’t a couple of decades ago.)
And, slightly earlier this evening, I was listening to tracks selected from “Kiss Me, Kate.” The song “I Hate Men” ought to be required reading for people opposing porn. Now, I’m listening to Ella Fitzgerald, in “Hawaiian War Chant.” Another thing people should listen to.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:43 pmBravo Zulu Rachel!
April 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pmA follow-up from Chris Muir.
My kinda guy. (No no, not THAT kind, Mongo straight!)
Digital makes life too easy for these whippersnappers! Why, in my day we had to haul erotic marble statues around in our duffels….
I had to skip over some of my MP3 songs the other day when the kids were in the car. They’re not quite old enough for some of my favorite Bessie Smith tunes….or maybe it’s just a little too embarrassing for Dad to watch the adolescents getting the giggles in the back seat.
And hey, I’m linking to the G-rated version. What’s on my MP3, isn’t.
April 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pmRachel
Tax payer weirdness aside (and i agree with you it IS their money, spend it as they please)
There is a big big big difference between Playboy which is mostly airbrushed, transvestite type women with false titties (and would make me worry my boyfriend was gay) and mainstream porn.
Your basic porn has morphed into a load of old woman hating crap. Most of it is about as erotic as watching someone get raped. Since when did men need to see a vagina so graphically to get off? Wasn’t always thus but we somehow survived. And makes you wonder why more men aren’t gaenocologists (sp).
Now if you can argue that porn is something women should casually dismiss as just ’something boys do’ and something modern women should be happy to go along with alongside throwing them a cold can of beer every now and again, you will have to look at the content and factor in how it is that they like that, um, ‘graphicness’ all of a sudden. Which will be interesting. And how it is teenagers filming rapes and putting them on youtube and marketing it as ‘porn’ is now de rigeur (google it).
I have no issues with the fact that men need sex, like looking at naked pretty women and sadly need to watch fake orgasms to get ‘em going. Hell, I like a fine male torso on a sports pitch to peruse. But the fellas ’stuff’ can stay up there on the internet or top shelf and frankly get shown the finger (fernar). Women don’t need to justify it’s frikkin existence. It’s only really to turn the fellas on and not vice versa after all - as apparently women don’t have visual sexual needs and never have, eh. The Egyptians had a better idea. They invented porn and back in those days the women actually enjoyed it.
Jeez - It’s bad enough that some female chauvinist pigs like to sit up there and tell us Girls Gone Wild is “empowering”. Bullshit!
April 28th, 2008 at 6:55 amAlso i missed the post title.
Rachel seriously!
I would never send my fella pictures of other naked women. Where is the fun for you in that?! Get yourself over to Agent Provocateur asap woman
April 28th, 2008 at 7:20 amChris_RC said
Not that it could ever be a legitimate concern of anyone else’s besides the practitioner, and that mostly due to the abrasive materials so prevalent in the battlefield environment, but I’d say that most peeps in the sandbox would have a hard time crossing that threshold, whatever it is.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:36 pm