than worrying about whether Playboy and Penthouse are available on a military base ?
WASHINGTON — Ten years after Congress banned sales of sexually explicit material on military bases, the Pentagon is under fire for continuing to sell adult fare, such as Penthouse and Playmates In Bed, that it doesn’t consider explicit enough to pull from its stores.
Dozens of religious and anti-pornography groups have complained to Congress and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that a Pentagon board set up to review magazines and films is allowing sales of material that Congress intended to ban.
“They’re saying ‘we’re not selling stuff that’s sexually explicit’ … and we say it’s pornography,” says Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, a Christian anti-pornography group. A letter-writing campaign launched Friday by opponents of the policy aims to convince Congress to “get the Pentagon to obey the law,” he adds.
n an Aug. 15 letter to the groups, Leslye Arsht, a deputy undersecretary of Defense, said the Pentagon’s Resale Activities Board of Review uses appropriate guidelines to review material for sale.
This year, the board reviewed Penthouse and several Playboy publications and determined that “based solely on the totality of each magazine’s content, they were not sexually explicit,” Arsht wrote. However, the board did decide to bar the sale of several videos found by the anti-pornography groups at military stores, including Girls Night In and Wet.
These guys are putting their lives on the line in Iraq, and we’re telling them they can’t look at Miss October.
Yeah, makes sense to me.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Actually, you have it backwards. No one is telling soldiers they cannot look at Miss October. Citizen are just demanding that they their government not sell pornography. Just because “these guys are putting their lives on the line in Iraq,” we do not need our government to sell pornography. You could use the same argument justify government operated brothels and who knows what else.
Up to a point, the point you hurt someone else, you have a right to sin. You have no right to drag your fellow citizens into your indiscretions. Consider my latest (post).
November 5th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Tom,
Then I’m sure you’ll have no problem when the health nazis demand they stop selling cigarettes at the PX ? Or when the Mormons demand they stop selling alcohol ?
These guys signed up for a tour in the Army, not three years at a Baptist Church camp, why should what someone sitting in the comfort of their living room finds “offensive” be of any concern to the US Army ?
If this is the kind of stuff people spend their time lobbying Congress for, then we truly are wasting our time.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Actually, I do not drink or smoke. So from a personal perspective, I would not notice.
There is also an obvious question. Why would an organization that prides itself on order, discipline, and physical fitness promote the use of alcohol or tabacco? At one time, our military made alcohol and tabacco cheap and accessible for our troops. Both vices have caused more trouble than they are worth.
Our government operates things like the post exchange and a commissary so that merchants cannot exploit our troops in the field. We started this tradition so that our troops on the frontier would have necessary things like food and clothing without paying an absurd price. In time, the list of things available from these stores has grown. Such is the nature of government; it grows.
People will always worry and concern themselves about things that others find trivial. If you or someone close to you has suffered sexual abuse, you may find pornography particularly offensive. Alcohol abuse rips families apart. Smoking has caused more than one death. When there are bigger problems….
November 6th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Tom,
Well, considering that the US Army that rolled across Europe and the Navy that sailed across the Pacific in World War II was made up of a lot of guys who drank, smoked, and gambled in their off hours, I would say that it says a hell of a lot about them.
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I’m entitled to mine, I just don’t think that either one of us has the right to impose it on others using the power of the state.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Opinion? I don’t have opinions. I just have the facts.
To a large extent, the US military that won WW II won that war because it had less government than the foes it fought. Our WW II era soldiers did not have the attitude that the government gave them their rights. They also, incidentally, had little to do with porn.
It amazes me how people can look at the same thing and see exact opposites. I fear we are too afraid to concede anything to the other side.
When a government sponsored facility sells something, that implies the government’s endorsement of the product. If soldiers have the option of buying that same product elsewhere, then no such endorsement is required or desirable. If the government’s endorsement is not needed, what is the point of involving the public in a private matter?
So long as citizens are free to procure their vices in the private market, then in no conceivable way is someone else imposing their values on them. Military duties, however, constrain citizens. So what is at issue is whether and how soldiers can obtain reasonable access to the materials associated with their preferred vices.
Can soldiers obtain access to their vices in remote and overseas locations? Should they be able to?
To some extent, soldiers will have difficulty obtaining porn, alcohol, and tobacco in such locations, particularly combat zones. What is the severity of this problem? What is a reasonable compromise?
I doubt a compromise is need. Those willing to pay will find willing purveyors. Consider the history. Prostitutes have always followed armies into the field. If all we are talking about is porn, there is no problem. In this era, the transport of porn is a snap. Because it is destructive to good order and discipline, commanders have always regulated alcohol. The problem is keeping alcohol away from the troops. Tobacco, a relatively recent innovation, was at first regarded benevolent. Because its health effects are now better understood, the military now discourages it use. Still, if soldiers insist on having it, they should be able to get it. Unfortunately, the transport of tobacco poses little difficulty. That is one reason why American colonists often used it as currency.
So if government sponsored facilities are purveying vices to our soldiers, perhaps we should question why. We, of course, already know the answer, influence peddling. Powerful interest groups have bought the votes necessary to make it happen.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
So then I suppose you object to the government getting involved in the sale of alcohol to the general public, as it does here in Virginia ?
November 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Yes.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Then let’s put Virginia ABC out of business and let private businesses sell hard liquor !
Or are you talking about prohibition ? Cause, you know, that worked really well the last time.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I don’t recall bringing up anything about prohibition. In a free society, why does the government have to sell pornography, alcohol, or tobacco?
November 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Tom,
I didn’t say that you did, I just wasn’t sure where we were heading with this discussion.
I understand your distinction about the government not selling certain products you object to — personally, I don’t think the government should be selling anything but then I’m a nutty libertarian radical
November 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Generally, I see eye to eye with nutty libertarian radicals, but the “radical” part scares me off. I value a free and open society. However, we constrain the freedom of people for reasons, sometimes very good reasons and sometimes not. Sometimes I don’t think the Libertarian Party examines those reasons with sufficient care.
Hmmm. It might be interesting to do a post or two suppose I ought to do a post or two on the Libertarian’s Party’s website. Thanks for the idea.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
[...] I find the topic interesting, sometimes it is more fun to write on other peoples blogs. Here is the post. The topic is how certain government sponsor facilities sell products we associate with our [...]
December 28th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Why do we as Americans and Wives allow this? Why do they let strippers go where our guys are fighting for our country. Knowing full well that they have families at home desperatly waiting to know that their loved one is ok and will come home alive, and we allow women (in flesh and in pictures) to fill them and sabotage their lives with stuggles internally and physically when they get home. What kind of thanks is that? Thanks for serving your country, too bad we messed up the rest of your life by ruining your family with our never ending exposure of flesh and porn. All that has NO place with our guys on deployment ANYWHERE! This stimulates adultery and rape. Innocent women AND CHILDREN! Our guys are fighting for us. ANY and I mean
ANY pornography (YES, PLAYBOY IS PORNOGRAPHY. ANY VISUAL PICTURE OF A WOMAN SHOWING HER BARE NAKEDNESS IS ONLY THERE TO STIMULATE YOU SEXUALLY. IF YOUR WIFE IS NOT STIMULATING YOU, YOU HAVE NO NO NO BUSINESS LOOKING ANYWHERE ELSE!!!!!), NOTHING skin realted should be allowed with our troops. It is not tollerated in the common workplace, is DEFINATELY should not be tolerated where it means the most and can do the worst damage.
We are sick to DEATH of the EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN!! All the women out there that are doing it should be ashamed of yourselves! Your ruining lives!!!! All those girls care about is finding acceptance (by the perverts out there, “at least SOMEBODY pays attention to poor stupid pitiful me as long as I take my clothes off”) and money. Meanwhile innocent women are losing there husbands and boyfriends because they can’t keep their eyes off the stupid stuff.
HELLO!!! Families are falling apart here!!!! Women are commiting suicide because they can’t compete with all your virtual bimbos! Women and children are being raped. How would you like it if some pervert stole your child, sexually abused them and buried them alive? Just because he’s so addicted and fueled by the porn and strippers and such that he experienced in his troop in IRAQ or where ever? You like that? You want to keep contributing to that? You want that blood on your hands? Wake up! Quit being so selfish! Is it worth runing quality of life. Are you that stuck on what YOU want? Grow up! Why can’t we make this a law? What’s the problem?
I am VERY supportive of my military and that they fight for us.
I’m ASHAMED of you America!!!! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!