Old enough to kill, but not to read Penthouse
 

At the urging of the American Family Association, a bill has been introduced in the House by Cong. Paul Broun (R-GA) to close a loophole in a 1997 law that banned the sale of sexually explicit material on military bases.

Under the old law, mags like Playboy and Penthouse were not banned because they had enough advertising and stories to fall below the percentage threshold of being considered "sexually explicit" publications.

So now we get the Military Honor and Decency Act under which that nasty loophole would be closed.

"Allowing the 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," said Broun, a physician and former Marine reservist.

Military.com

Shouldnt Congress be focusing on a strategy that may actually work in Iraq, rather than imposing more moral standards on those who volunteer to serve?

One, two, three....what are they fighting for?

I thought the current Majority leader of congress wanted to retrea... I mean honorably redeploy the troops out of Iraq anyways?

Some people think porno is bad, I don't agree with them, but they are entitled their opinion.

Most of America wants to honorably redeploy....but that is not the issue here.

Do you want to see Congress spending any time on this bill as the Traditional Values Coalition would like...or focus on higher priorities?

Or maybe you think only members of Congress on the left pander to constituents.

wow. torn on this issue.

first view is 'way to go infringing on that freedom of choice', assholes.

second view is, it IS a federal installation after all. I can see maybe banning the sale ON base, possession would be another story entirely.

Ding, ding, we have a winner!

At least porn is about a moral, if mistaken in my opinion, notion.

This in compared to .....

Click here to email Congress to take Rush Limbaugh off Armed Forces Radio.

From what I gather, at least in the past, Rush is very popular among members of the armed services, but apparently he should be off the air. It seems the other side of the aisle wants to play politics over what the soldiers listen to. This is not the first time they have tried to get him off the armed forces radio either.

Well first off, if you're old enough to read Penthouse, you're too old to be reading Penthouse.

Still, Penthouse is better than a disease ridden hooker (or townie!). Sounds like people are still interested in forcing their puritanical morality on others, even "the troops".

Don't ask don't tell anyone about it though :thumbsup:

I dont recall any bills being introduced in Congress to take Limbaugh off Armed Forces radio.

There may have been a bill to offer more balance on AFR for the listening pleasure of the troops.

Why not the same balance for the reading pleasure...at least as it applies to Playboy and Penthouse.

BTW, it good thing the bill still allows cleavage and bathing suits:

The term `nudity' means human genitals, pubic area, anus, anal cleft, or any part of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola with less than an opaque covering but does not include the exposure of the cleavage of the female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, bathing suit, or other apparel.'.

or there goes the SI Swim Suit Issue.

Cosmo may have to go for the female readers among the troops....cant show that areola..graphic nudity!

What is balance in porn anyways? For every MF you show a FF and a MM?

SI Swim Suit Issue has sucked for ages.

It should be banned, their awful sex advice if put into practice by the female troops, would demoralize our forces faster than a Nancy Pelosi speech.

I know you're disappointed by it, but don't worry; all of the other issues have athletic men. :expressionless:

There was a useless resolution passed in the Senate when MoveOn.org has the audacity to refer to Petraeus as Gen Betray Us. I am ashamed of the Dems who caved into this travesity.

An amendment to condemn free speech...whats next?

Perhaps because you and I havent been 18 yrs old for ages.

I wouldnt know...I've never gone to Cosmo for sex advice.

So you can be ashamed of them! I knew it.

I reached my pander limit with that one.

Condemning someones speech is not condemning free speech, don't be overly melodramatic.

Come on...Ustwo

Even you must see the difference.

Repub base is upset with a comment by MoveOn about Petraeus and the Repub Senate (with some spineless Dems) passes a meaningless resolution.

Dem base is upset with a degrading comment by Limbaugh about troops who support a strategic redeployment and ask for Congress to act to shut him down...and the Dems say NO...we dont condemn or attempt to stifle speech just because we dont agree with it.

Back to porn:

And I still dont see the harm of an 18 yr old, away from home for the first time, under the stress of serving in Iraq, wanting to buy Playboy at the PX.

Its not like its a "gateway" magazine that will turn that youth into a sexual deviant as claimed by the American Family Association and the Traditional Values Coalition.

Unless you (or they) have medical evidence to the contrary.

Even me eh?

You said its condemning free speech, its doing NO such thing. You are attempting to make it something heroic to vote against when it was nothing but a show of support for a government employee under fire.

I suppose by your kind of logic stretching not voting for Obama will be tantamount to violating the 13th amendment.

I get it. If the left criticizes Limbaugh and suggests that Congress act to make AFR more balanced in its programming, its pandering, even though the Dem Congress did not act. If the right criticizes MoveOn and the Repub Senate passes a resolution, its a show of support. :thumbsup:

AND YET,

I would still like to see medical evidence that buying Playboy or Penthouse at the PX "will harm military men and women by escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes, feed a base addiction, erode the family as the primary building block of society and denigrate the moral standing of our troops." (Rep. Broun)

or a young recruit who reads Playboy will become "addicted to pornography, eventually acts out his sexual fantasies and ...have a devastating impact on his family, troop morale, and unit cohesion." (Rev. Louis Sheldon)

Dumb... that's all I have to say.

The last serious study I saw found that indulgence in porn tends to reduce incidence of sexual deviance and violence.

With all the problems in Iraq this is what we're worried about? I'll be one of the major LA porn producers would be more then happy to support the troop. I say call Larry Flint and have him send them all the porn they want.

First of all, this guy is a total douchebag. I imagine I'll go look at his service record, but I bet $100 that he's not infantry, and can guarantee you he never deployed to a forward area.

CENTCOM General Order #1, which has been in effect since 2002 (IIRC), strictly and specifically forbids military personnel deployed in the Iraq/Kuwait or Afghanistan AOR from sexual contact of any kind with anyone, and posession or use of alcohol or porn (among other things).

If we threw everyone in jail who is currently violating that porn ban while deployed, there would be, like, fifteen US military guys left in Iraq or The 'Stan. The rule is only there because of cultural issues, but good porn is so hard to come by, it's not like we're SHARING it with the locals! Fuck THAT.

No, see, Congressman Broun is missing the point: it's not a matter of moral decay so much as it is MORALE decay for troops deployed or crews of ships underway.

I'd really like him (and the AFA/TVC) to back it up with numbers. MILITARY numbers, i.e. prove to us that active-duty military personnel who read porn are more prone to rape or sexually assault someone. I'd imagine our numbers are the same at worst, and probably less per capita than the population around our bases.

But wait! This Whole Harebrained Scheme, Mark I, Mod II, is centered on the issue of selling porn mags on base, in garrison. A ha! Well, sir, that's a different horse of colored fish!

Now, I do completely understand that when Lance Corporal Smucatelli or Lieutenant Babyface are perusing - or even just selecting and buying - their nekkid books, Little Johnny and the family of six standing in line behind them might have no way to avoid seing the pretty, half-nekkid woman on the cover of the plastic-wrapped magazine.

But what re--- hey, wait. IGNORE that US Weekly and SHAPE magazine on the rack. I'm making a point here.

So yeah, I can understand that families might want to push this. Not that they are, it's actually being done for them by another right-wingnut group getting all crazy imposing their values and getting a couple of Members of Congress to buy in. If I slung my cock around like those groups do their agendas, I'd be in jail for a long time. With two black eyes. And no friends.

Anyway, I digress.

Let me tell you what's going to happen: those wacky Family Values folks and Congress, backed by some very miniscule, token support from military families and officers, will pass this fucker, while the single males (and, well, females too, I reckon) will be completely ignored and unheard from because - oh, wait a minute!: they're too busy deployed worldwide conducting the Global War on Terrorism to catch more than an hour or two of C-SPAN every day, and they haven't seen the bill mentioned yet, since only a dozen members of each house show up to sit on their ass each day. So through ignorance of the issue, they'll get no say in this, and their fuck books will be yanked off base without them even knowing it. AAFES, NEX, and MCX don't make any money on sales of periodicals, so you know they don't care.

Which personally - and this comes from a guy who enjoys his porn, and is FIERCELY dedicated to making sure his guys are taken care of - doesn't bother me much at all. Since '97 all they sell on base is goddamn Playboy and Penthouse, which sucks nowadays, anyway - no penetration or even "flying squirrel" shots anymore.

There's a cleverly-hidden store about one mile from the main gate that sells anything US-legal you might ever want as far as porn mags go. I honestly don't think this will make a damn bit of difference in their profits, either - except maybe the week before units deploy.

Wow.... having been in all I can say is out at sea for a monh with no female contact a nudie mag was welcome to sore eyes.

Take that away.... who knows. It's just wrong in so many ways. You don't want to sell it on base... ok, but don't penalize the men who wear the uniforms defending our rights with their lives for having it.

We've come a long way since Vietnam..... and in a very bad way I may add.

Jesus Christ, these men are fucking putting their lives on the line to protect our rights and we deny them their right to possess a nudie mag??????

FUCKING VOTE OUT ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THIS.

This may have to do more with the fact they are in a Muslim country where porn is illegal among the citizenry.

As for sexual contact, i.e. hookers etc.... this I believe has been common to not allow it. It does put our men in harms way. Now, if you have bases where you can have nurses and USO ladies and such and clubs it's different, but picking someone off the streets is extremely dangerous not only to the man/woman doing so but to possibly the whole company and even the base.

For example..... you go out, get a girlfriend and go back to her place... instead of hootchie the cootchie you get 5 guys tying you up demanding to know things harmful to our position.

If you're on a base, however, that is much much much less likely to happen.

Nah, it means you can't bang any military personnel, contractors, third country nationals, locals, or pretty much anyone at all while you're deployed.

Until about 2006, it even included married personnel who were deployed to the same location; that's since been changed and is the only exception.