The Relentless Blogger

First, the article from military.com:

GRAFENWOHR, Germany -- Legislation that would restrict the sale of certain men's magazines on U.S. military bases around the world would be bad for morale, according to soldiers at Grafenwöhr.

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., has introduced legislation that would close a loophole in the current law that allows the sale of some sexually explicit material on military bases by lowering the threshold required to deem material "sexually explicit."

A Department of Defense committee that reviews materials sold on bases ruled last year that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse are not pornographic. But Broun's Military Honor and Decency Act includes language that could make those magazines eligible for the ban.

The prospect of missing out on men's magazines was not welcomed by soldiers at Grafenwöhr.

"We all read 'em," said Pfc. Paul Rubio, 31, of Bakersfield, Calif. "There are times we just read 'em for the technological parts like the new gadgets that come out. They have good stories sometimes too."

Sgt. Simon Brown, 34, of Daytona Beach, Fla., said men's magazines build morale. "It's not all about the pictures, although 80 percent of it is," he said.

Pfc. Greg Smith, 21, of Northboro, Mass., a regular Playboy reader, said soldiers should be allowed to buy nudie magazines at the exchange.

"Playboy is good entertainment while you are on the can. They have jokes and good stories," he said.

Broun, a Marine veteran, told Newsweek recently that the magazines sold in military exchanges are partly responsible for a rise in sexual assaults in the military and other problems.

"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," Broun says on his Web site.

The legislation would require the DOD to annually review material that is not currently deemed sexually explicit to determine if it should be prohibited, according to the Web site.

Some soldiers say magazines that could be banned are particularly important downrange.

Brown deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005 and is preparing to go to Iraq with the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade this summer. When he was in Afghanistan he was one of the first to pick up a new copy of Maxim or FHM when it came out, he said.

"It would suck if they ban it," he said. "It's bad enough we are down there to begin with. Taking that away would be like a knife in the chest. I'm not saying I'm depending on Maxim to keep me alive over there, but it helps."

Publications such as Maxim and FHM are not named by Broun, but lowering the threshold of the sexually explicit definition might mean such magazines would be targeted for a ban.

Some troops in the Pacific region said the proposed legislation would impinge upon their personal freedoms.

"They're making it a point of undermining soldiers to almost make them feel like we're back in elementary school," Pfc. Nickolas Sears said Friday at Camp Red Cloud, South Korea. "We're all adults here, and if it's something we want to do, we should feel free to choose as we please."

Other than on base, there's no place in South Korea to buy magazines like Playboy, he said.

"I believe it's a breach of freedom of speech," said Senior Airman Garrett Deese, 25, of Elk Grove, Calif., who just completed a tour with the 8th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Kunsan Air Base, South Korea.

He said he wonders whether such a ban would lead to barring other types of magazines lawmakers chose to challenge. He also questioned whether Broun's link between magazines and sexual assaults within the military would stand close scrutiny.

At Yokota Air Base, Japan, military spouse Roberta Woolley said she understands the need for balance between rules and individual rights, but said the military has tougher standards than the rest of American society.

"It's a good idea," she said of the proposed ban. "I think there's better literature out there.... In the military, we sell cigarettes and alcohol legally. But it's also questionable whether they promote a healthy lifestyle.

"I've seen all these magazines, and they don't make men or women intelligent or beautiful. And even though they're hidden, there is still exposure to children as well. It's the parents' responsibility to give ideas about body awareness to their children. I don't think Mr. Hefner presents a positive image of men or women in his magazine."

A female soldier at Grafenwöhr -- Sgt. Pou McCall, 23, of Riverside, Calif. -- said men's magazines don't bother her a lot, but she'd support a ban.

"What if it was their (soldiers') sisters (in the magazines)? It doesn't take a magazine for sexual harassment to happen but it increases it," she said.

Army and Air Force Exchange service public relations manager Judd Anstey said AAFES sold $231,000 worth of Penthouse, Playboy and Playgirl magazines in Europe last year.

"Sales of these three titles account for 2.7 percent of total European magazine sales ($8.5 million) at AAFES facilities," he said.

The sales accounted for 0.5 percent of worldwide AAFES magazine sales of $46.4 million, he said.

Stars and Stripes' reporters Vince Little, Franklin Fisher and Erik Slavin contributed to this report.

How do you feel about this issue?
Let your public officials know how you feel.

Ya know, we really need to get over this idea that viewing a picture of a naked woman makes men commit sex crimes and instinctively start demeaning women. If this were true, wouldn't Europe lead the world in sex crimes? They are "forced" to deal with nudity on television at every turn. How are they not all slavvering sex fiends?

Oh yeah ... because nudity is only a bad thing to a vocal minority of folks who are still clinging to those bizarre Victorian era ideals. In terms of sexuality, the Victorian era was the worst thing that ever happened to America. Read up on it; it's amazing how far up our own butts we managed to twist ourselves in a very short time.

(Likewise, the "Flapper" generation was by far the greatest thing to ever happen to our nation in terms of sexuality. Hippies and "free love" were nothing compared to what these rebellious upstarts pulled off. Go you, Grandma! Yep. I'm proud to say my own grandma was a Flapper ... and a school teacher.)

Sexual predators commit sex crimes, and they'll do it with or without a visual trigger.

I'm thinking the day you become a soldier, you have most definitely put on your big boy (or girl) pants, and you are old enough to decide for yourself what does and does not offend or entertain you. If you don't want to look at "nekkid pichers" of women, don't. To attempt to extend that personal value to all people is to attempt to legislate morality - which not only cannot be done; but also flies in the face of respecting every other individual's right to their own values.

My son is a soldier, and as far as I'm concerned, if he's over there fighting for human rights, freedom and democracy; give him a Playboy if he wants one! It is the VERY LEAST we can do to bring him some comfort, entertainment, and perhaps (dramatic pause) even some sexual release. I know my son, and I know damn well looking at pictures of a beautiful and naked woman are not going to warp his mind and distort his values. I mean, PLEASE!

Remember back in the (... I think it was the late 80s? Early 90s?) when the "religious right" started picketing 7-Eleven stores to get them to stop selling magazines THEY deemed inappropriate? They didn't ask for the "offending material" to be covered, or kept behind the counter where a kid couldn't just walk by and pick one up (not that any kid over 10 years old hasn't already scoured the house for this particular type of educational literature). No, the stores were already doing that. The picketers wanted to be the Holy Authority on what the Southland Corporation can and cannot sell in their own stores. The nerve!!

When I saw this, the first thing I did was go inside and buy a copy of Playboy. The next thing I did was subscribe to Playboy. Turned out I really enjoyed it. Yeah, I was jealous of the beautiful bodies since mine had stopped looking like that two kids prior. They really are beautiful pictures, though, and even a jealous woman can appreciate beauty when she sees it. Yep, I admit it: I didn't just read the articles.

Last time I checked, I'm still your average middle-class wife, mother and corporate droid. Reading (okay, looking at) Playboy didn't change anything about me. I didn't start starving myself and vomiting to look like the girls in the pictures. I didn't become a pervert. I didn't start committing sex crimes. (I am REALLY choking back the obvious one-liners here).

It's just a friggin' magazine. It doesn't MAKE anyone do anything. It's entertainment - and precious little at that in comparison to what our soldiers in action deserve. Show me ANY valid study - conducted and reported scientifically - that proves "soft porn" of the Playboy ilk has ANY affect on the number of sex crimes committed, and I will show you 99% of the male population of the United States committing sex crimes.

The only way to make a reader of magazines like Playboy into a criminal is to criminalize the magazines themselves. If we're going to do that, we'd better re-think how many of those little "house arrest" ankle bracelets we have in stock, because most men and a lot of women are going to be wearing them.

Don't we have anything more to worry about where the well-being of our troops are concerned than whether or not they are looking at pictures of naked women?