A Modest Proposal

May 7th, 2008 by skippy

For those of you who are just reading for the first time check out this post from last week.

So I have been leaving comments in Amy Proctor’s site about this, and my feelings on the subject. I pointed out that nearly every argument that she made could be applied towards banning a religion from the post, provided that someone else objected to it.

She responded with:
“Right, Skippy, banning the sexualization of women for profit on posts and banning religion are one in the same. I don’t know why i didn’t see it sooner.”

Actually, it is the same thing.

It is the exact same thing.

It is allowing one group to look at another and say, “You can’t do that because I don’t like it”. It is saying “You shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions that I don’t agree with.”

And if religion gets a free ride, what then happens when someone makes a religion around porn? There is already one based around the Jedi Knights. So its more probable that you would think. I’m sure the argument would become “No, only real religions get protected status”. Call me on it if I’m wrong, Amy.

But the Army, for better or for worse, can and does limit religious expression on post. Rastafarian’s don’t smoke pot, Wiccans could barely practice and not have their sacred items confiscated, and I’m positive that no one will be sacrificing a POW to Tláloc to ensure a good rainy season and bountiful harvest anytime soon. Heck, I’m pretty sure that the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn’t be welcome on most bases.

Now, people have tried arguing with her on facts. The damage that she claims porn will cause has not materialized in societies where porn is accepted. Nor have these kinds of harm shown up in societies that have newly accepted porn.

But facts would not sway her.

And people tried logic. They pointed out that ink and paper can’t hurt someone. That magazines sealed in plastic don’t actually effect her simply by existing. The whole “they are harmful on post but safe if stored five minutes away” borders on superstition. That, or the belief that they are somehow radioactive. (Completely inappropriate side note: What superpowers would you get from a radioactive adult magazine? Defend your choices.)

Logic would not budge her.

And so I am left with my last, and perhaps strongest tool.

Farce.

A Modest Proposal…..For Military Bases

As Amy has pointed out, people who claim to support the military and our troops must also support the families of our soldiers. There are a growing number of soldiers who also have families. And our soldiers must be secure in the knowledge that their wives, and more importantly, their children, will receive adequate care and protection at all times. A soldier who is insecure about his family’s well-being is a soldier that cannot focus on his job. And when soldiers cannot focus on their jobs it can lead to unnecessary waste, accidents, and even death.

And so, I am forced to draw your attention to a growing danger facing our military families.

Catholicism.

“But Skippy”, you might say, “Catholicism is a religion. How can you accuse a religion of being dangerous to the military family?”

And so I will demonstrate the harm.

First of all, Catholics teach symbolic cannibalism. It’s right there during Mass, where everyone can see it. Now, if a consenting adult wishes to partake in such activities during their free time, that is their right. But it should certainly be limited to off-post, because non-Catholics shouldn’t have to have their children exposed to the idea that it is okay to eat people.

Secondly, Catholics drink wine as part of their religious services. Again, adults should be allowed to whatever they like, but there are children on Army bases now. And children shouldn’t be encouraged to drink. Because alcohol has been positively linked to alcoholism.

The current leader of the Catholic Church is a former Hitler Youth. An organization that teaches that Nazis are the infallible representatives of God’s will is on our Army bases? Goodness I should hope not.

And many people worry, justifiably I might add, that certain practices on base might harm our children. But who has time to worry about ink and glossy paper when there are children who have been irreparably harmed by Catholicism? By having turgid priest injected directly into their buttholes. Which the Church condoned by covering up. And then assigning the priests to go work with other children. I don’t think that child rapists, or their apologists, belong in the same places as our soldier’s families.

And this is just the modern, current era issues. Let’s not forget the Crusades, institutionalized torture, the Inquisition, witch trials, the selling of indulgences, religious suppression, the consumption of fish on Friday, and genocide. It’s like a laundry list of unacceptable behavior.

Now I’m not saying that soldiers shouldn’t be allowed to practice their faith as they see fit. After all, they are adults and their free time is theirs to do with as they please. I’m just pointing out that common sense dictates that the behavior of the Catholic Church is incompatible with military families.

And really, is it such a big deal to make all of the Catholics go off-post to spend their free time in the manner that they so choose? I would think that the well-being of the children should definitely come first, before the selfish desires of the Catholic Faithful.

Subscribe to Comments for Skippy's List

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 at 8:28 am and is filed under Army, Smackdown, Soapbox. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Melissa Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 9:01 am

HA!

I work for the Canadian Coast Guard, so I’m not from the US and I’m not actually military. We’re not allowed to have pornography, though I’m sure many do, especially on ship. I’m a firm believer that as long as consenting human adults are involved, people should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want.

As a woman, I don’t feel threatened or objectified by porn. The ratio of men to women here is about 6 to 1, and believe me, they don’t need any encouragement to think about sex. And the women are generally just as brazen about it; those who are easily offended generally don’t stick around long. I don’t look at porn much myself (never had much interest in it) but I have no problem with any guy that does, provided he’s not so obsessed that he’s jerking off in the bathroom rather than doing his job.

I’m also tempted to send the second half of this post to a friend of mine. I’m an agnostic. As I understand it, that means we’re never quite sure what’s going on god-wise. I have a couple friends who are Catholic, one who’s cool about it and acts like a normal person, and another that tries to convince me to join her at church every chance she gets. She’s wound down now, accepting that I’d rather spend my Sundays sleeping in rather than getting up early to go be lectured to for a couple hours.

I’m probably going to hell already, so what’s the use in worrying about it?

Sorry for the really long post. My train-of-thought stops at very few stations.

PFC Wilson Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 9:18 am

I’ve always been the good little boy, stayed away from the bad nekkid people pictures. I don’t currently indulge, nor will I indulge in the future.

That being said, I’m not about to try and stop my battle buddy from using it. It’s not like crack, he’s not going to be harmed too badly. I think he can live with a sore wrist and the occasional paper cut, and I really don’t see how it hurts his performance. If you’re going to ban porno mags, you might as well take away computers and TV. We don’t technically need them, and they certainly don’t harm anything, but someone might see something offensive.

Politically correct bastards.

Minty Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am

Just “discovered” your website a few days ago.

Love your modest proposal, though (given the sexual morality debate going on) I think you should have also added something along the lines of:

“Catholicism encourages sexual promiscuity in children, as evidenced by the high rates of STDs and unwed mothers in Catholic schools.”

I have no clever way to spin this as being bad for military families, so I leave that up to you.

JessEm Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am

As a child who has been irreparably damaged by Catholicism, I urge you all to take heed of Skippy’s warning. How many more children burdened with guilt complexes and a strange compulsion to daub water on their heads will it take before the world listens?

On a completely different comic, I think exposure to a radioactive porn mag would give me the power to cause orgasm at 100 meters. Through clothes.

tsukinofaerii Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am

Skippy, you rock amazingly much sometimes. This is one of those times. She’s been ignoring just about everything else that’s a sound argument. If she notices this, it could be interesting. :)

On Wicca: A collection of information about the Ft. Hood incident http://www.religioustolerance.org/boy_army.htm

Larson Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:32 am

As a soldier and a Catholic, I find this absolutely hilarious. I’ve been posting on Amy’s site as well under this name, and so far, as you’ve said, logic and facts won’t sway her.

Aside from that, I’ll work to get me and my catholic brethren off bases so we don’t harm the children.

Stickfodder Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

You shouldn’t bother trying to convince a religious nut to see sanity, just our senators. Or start your own petition stating that our soldiers should be allowed to have access to porn.

And as for the radioactive porn thing you would either be like spider-man only the web wouldn’t come from the wrists. Or like the Hulk only instead of anger being the catalyst for his transformation it would be arousal, and instead of becoming the hulk you would become a young Ron Jeremy and I’m sure you could guess what would get bigger.

TheShadowCat reply on May 7th, 2008 12:53 pm:

“I’m sure you could guess what would get bigger.”

Yes, but what color would it turn?

McNally reply on May 7th, 2008 1:34 pm:

The only acceptable color for anything involving the words “radioactive” OR “Hulk” is green.

Ix reply on May 9th, 2008 3:52 pm:

Except that “green” doesn’t suggest healthy genitalia. In fact, if it’s green, I’d be running away for fear that the poor lad either had gangrene or some horrible new STD.

So we need an alternate colour here.

Shuffle reply on May 12th, 2008 12:44 pm:

It’d turn neon green with blue and red pulsating veins. :P But it an appealing way, not an “OMFG!! Is that your member!?!!??!” way.

Alternatively, orange. Why you ask? Why not? :P

May Thor strike Amy with a lightening bolt.
-Norse Paganism is coming back. Join the bandwagon. ;)

TheShadowCat Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

A number of years ago a very dear uncle of mine passed away. For various reasons, I ended up being a few minutes late to the funeral and wound up in the last pew next to my cousin who was only there to pay respect to his late step-father. Now this was a very full church with over 300 people in it, most of them faithful followers of God and Jesus. My cousin and I are both pagan, but because we were there to pay our final respects to a man we both cared about, we endured the preaching about God and heaven and the Pearly Gates and I have to say I’m glad they didn’t feed me on the plane on the way down since I probably would have spewed after the 4th or 5th speaker. However, when it came time for the Eucharist, I couldn’t help myself and leaned over to my cousin and whispered, “Now for the ritual cannibalism.” He nearly fell out of his seat trying to not laugh out loud.

TheShadowCat Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

PS – I got a response from my congressman and for whatever reason, he thinks I’m supporting the ‘Military Honor and Decency Act’. I have sent him another letter clarifying that I’m against it.

McNally reply on May 7th, 2008 1:35 pm:

You totally need to post your original letter, his response, and your response to his response.

Unless it isn’t funny.

TheShadowCat reply on May 7th, 2008 9:48 pm:

It’s not funny. It’s all very properly worded and nicey-nice so there’s no humor to it.

skippy reply on May 7th, 2008 10:12 pm:

It might be worth making this information public anyways. This way people can call him on “form lettering” soldiers issues.

McNally Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Please tell me you send this to Amy Proctor.

skippy reply on May 7th, 2008 1:39 pm:

Posted a link on her site.

Sicarius Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm

I wonder how they’d take practicing Pastafarians on bases…

Ix reply on May 9th, 2008 3:54 pm:

Have *you* been touched by His Noodly Appendage? :D

For that matter, though, how would they take worshipers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Or, more seriously, Discordians?

Sicarius reply on May 9th, 2008 10:01 pm:

No idea, but being probably the only Pastafarian that takes the religion seriously, I’m curious as to how it’d work out if you had to explain that you honestly worship a giant flying spaghetti monster.

T'chung MayMay reply on May 20th, 2008 10:39 pm:

I’m in JROTC and I tried to explain it to my 1SGT. He looked at me like I was crazy and treated me like shit the rest of the year. It would surprise me if the real army was any different.

David B reply on March 10th, 2014 1:18 pm:

Wow! I never thought that I’d find one, let alone TWO other Pastafarians! Although, I am also a member of the Order of Ferroequinology. (Look it up)

Tony Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

well said, the catholic church is responsible for more and greater atrocities than almost any other organization that has ever existed.

Sicarius reply on May 7th, 2008 8:46 pm:

Scientology and Uwe Boll.

Tony reply on May 7th, 2008 9:12 pm:

give those guys 2,000 years and they MIGHT catch up. The catholic church has a very long tradition of evil.

ArchaicDome Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Two points:

1. I am a girl with a porn collection. not just a mag hidden under the mattress, but a COLLECTION. Donations are welcome.

2. During our deployment I hung out with the docs and medics and nurse anesthetists in the Forward Surgical Team a lot, and we DID form a religion around porn. We were the Church of Rocco. Anyone who’s ever seen a2m or Italian porn knows Rocco. So my collection is protected.

SKD Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

“What superpowers would you get from a radioactive adult magazine? Defend your choices.”

The ability to cause all persons in a vicinity of five miles to become sex obsessed freaks.

Defense: because thats what Amy Proctor says is happening already.

Hellcat Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 10:59 pm

First off, I find your post to be hilarious. But you cannot argue with people like this. Trust me, I have tried. They have their minds made up and nothing is going to change it. But I bet you anything that her next argument is going be “Sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind.” Eh… I have been called worse.

BTW, I am a woman. And I find nothing wrong with people (military service members included) having porn. Not my cup of tea, but neither are self righteous religious fanatics who are indignant that everyone doesn’t adhere to their way of thinking.

So, good job and good argument. And I find it hilarious that everyone here is arguing with her on her blog and she is having to defend herself from all of us which makes her original argument sound weaker and weaker.

SKD reply on May 9th, 2008 8:15 pm:

Sarcasm may be the recourse of a weak mind but Satire is recourse of a strong wit

JP Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Nice proposal Skippy,

I’ve written my congressman and let him know that I’m firmly against this “morality” act. When the motivation is religious, the justifications tend to hinge upon poorly thought out, badly researched, idealized and flawed logic. But because their “book” says it’s immoral, they continue to spread those lies and try to make everyone accept them.

They use the same stupid tactics when trying to promote intelligent design/ creationism. Who needs facts, proof, evidence or reason when you’ve got faith.

StormRIder Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 12:10 am

Right on Skippy! Amy’s a complete nut job.

Tony Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 1:57 am

i’m also of the opinion that the bible was translated so badly that you can make it support almost any argument. check this out

the bible says it’s ok to eat babies

Jeremiah 19:9–And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.

Michiel Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 3:34 am

I don’t know about you, but this whole conversation has made me want to see naked pictures of Amy?

Who’s with me? I can’t be the only one.

Tony reply on May 8th, 2008 9:49 am:

ooooh baby, wearing nothing but a nun hat and holding a ruler, that would be HOT!

Analee reply on May 10th, 2008 2:38 am:

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little…

drew reply on May 16th, 2008 7:07 pm:

I have actually seen that picture recently, but cannot remember where. If I run across it again i will send you the link.

DoesNotMatter Says:
May 9th, 2008 at 1:51 am

Hm, I haven’t read the law question -idocy tends to bore me- but does it talk somewhere about histoic predecent ?

If so bring up in your farce the tensions between Catholics and Protestants in US during, erm whenever the first mass wave of Irish immigrants arrived.
That should provide some very valuable arguments.

Analee Says:
May 9th, 2008 at 1:55 am

HILARIOUS!

Ix Says:
May 9th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

My idea for a porn-related superpower?

The ability to enlarge all genitalia around me to ridiculous proportions. No pair of breasts within 30 meters would be smaller than a C cup, and no man would be smaller than 6 inches.

My defense: there’s a social expectation for genitals of this size anyways (despite it being unrealistic), so why not find a way around those dangerous cosmetic surgeries?

Alternately, I’d make it so that it’d always feel like it was 30 degrees Celcius out, but that’s more of an “evil genius” idea than an awesome superpower, really.
My defense, in any case: no one would ever wear clothes again. Ever.

SKD reply on May 10th, 2008 1:46 am:

When it comes to an environment where no would wear clothes all I have to say is you obviously have not considered the ramifications. Have you ever been to a nude beach? Please go out and rent Eurotrip the Unrated edition. While there are people who we would all like to see without concealing clothing there are far more whose clothing is a blessing to our eyes. ;P

Ix reply on May 10th, 2008 12:28 pm:

Point. But it’d probably spur people to start living a more healthy life-style…

GunnyHighway Says:
May 9th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Well lets take a look from a different point of view.

I’ve not been to every px/nex/aafes out there but I’m pretty sure that books and magazines that promote racial intolerance IE KKK/Nazi readings are not sold.

Why is that? They don’t hurt anyone. Freedom of speech right? If you don’t want to read them don’t look at them right?

You see I can use almost all of the reason you use to support porn in the px to support racial BS. So if everything you are saying is a true agument then racial propoganda should be allowed in the PX too.

SKD reply on May 10th, 2008 1:41 am:

Counterpoint:

1) The market for magazines with pictures of naked women is much larger than the market for materials that actively promote hatred and racism. Therefore it is much more profitable to carry Playboy than KKK/Nazi reading material.

2) Materials that are used as a subject of sexual fantasy are hardly equivalent to materials that promote racism and hatred.

Logicaldoesn'tprevail reply on May 10th, 2008 2:08 am:

I’m gonna roll with a big fat “NO!” on this one. You are trying to compare to vastly different things noting that they are both “objectionable material” and thus should have equal rights. However, racially charged material promotes supremacy of one race or another. In particular, the organizations mentioned have a long history of horrific violence exemplifying the propaganda their materials promotes. To make it on the same playing field you would have to offer porn in which one person would maliciously harm another without the consent of said party. (Hey, some people are into that sort of thing…Skippy….)

I’ve been a Christian for as long as I can remember. I am devout in my faith and in my Lord. That being said, it is neither the will of our country (as noted in the Constitution) nor the will of God to create a government around Him.
Luke 17:20-21
(20) Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, (21) nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within[a] you.”

and

John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Next time you hear those fanatics preach about bringing God into our government or the like; feel free to spew these back at them.

It just occurred to me why it’s so hard to argue with these people…. they have an endless knack for ‘Sucker punches to the brain’

GunnyHighway Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 6:04 am

Now you are juding the content of the material.

Freedom of Speech/of the press does not have a line item vito based on subject matter. It either exists or dosen’t.

If you don’t like the marterial or find it offensive, then you don’t have to read it. But why should your moral views prevent those that do not share those views from being able to purchase the materials they like to read?

BTW, to the guy who quoted his Bible, way to quote out of context. The passage in Luke was in referance to the return of Christ not Christians in Politics and/or government. Thats the problem with most Christians, a lack of knowledge of their own scriptures and then they try to fit scripture to real world situations. I also think the James quote is questionable in its context. It really has nothing to do with Christians in government or politics.

skippy reply on May 11th, 2008 1:09 am:

Several Points to make here:

1)”Freedom of Speech/of the press does not have a line item vito based on subject matter. It either exists or dosen’t.”

Incorrect. If that was true then it would be legal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Or for pharmaceutical companies to advertise that sugar pills can cure AIDS. There are acknowledged limits to free speech.

2)To my knowledge there aren’t any federal laws against the sale of racist materials int he PX. Those materials are not sold due to a combination of financial reasons, taste of the business owner, and military regulations.

3)The Federal government should not make laws regulating the sale of racist materials, as it would violate the constitutional ban on their ability to do so.
The military, however, has the ability to limit traditional rights if they determine that doing so is in the interest of national defense.
And the fact that the government doesn’t make something illegal to sell doesn’t mean the PX is going to carry it.

Lizifer Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

…women like porn too.

And with Catholics come more babies. God commands they make babies. 400 babies. No less, no more. In fact, the priests used to come knocking on your door to make sure you are expecting. He will come every week until another baby is on the way. He will continue this custom until the brood mare is too old, or dead. Is there really enough room for that many screaming children on post?

Larry Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

eh….purple?

Kestrel Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

dude, Skippy. You rock.

I’m not in the military, but my boyfriend is, and I’m considering joining myself, and this whole porn issue is driving me up a wall. Even us ladies like porn every now and again, and I’m a very, very strong believer in the idea that the things consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business, and their business alone.

I’m glad there are people like you out there who can snark eloquently about these things.

Here is a link to a relevant Livejournal entry:
http://community.livejournal.com/usmilitary/596090.html

This post includes the address of the congressman who started all of this nonsense. Please send some snark in his direction too.

GunnyHighway Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

From a certain point of view those examples legitamate, but I can’t really consider public safty laws and consumer rights as control over our freedom of speech and the press.

However Skippy there are military regulations that do ban pornography and the sale of pornography. It is illegal to transport porn into and out of Japan. You may purchase it there while on station/post whatever. You can even buy it out in town. But the military follows the national laws even though military instalations are considered soverign US soil.

Arab nations are far more strict than that, you cannot buy, sell or posses porn by law in most arab countries, but I can atest to the amazing tonnage of porn in places like Iraq.

You site religious nuts as forcing their ways or their morals on others by saying that porn shouldn’t be sold in the PX. Are you not doing the exact same thing by forcing your “lack” of morals on others by saying that porn should be sold in the PX? Why are your “rights” more important than their “rights”?

Keep in mind we have more than just agnostics and aithiests in the military. We have Christians, Muslims, Catholics (yes there is a huge difference between Catholocisim and Christianity) Budists even Amish folk, there are Wiccan and those that practice Witch Craft, and those are just the religions or practices that I’ve come across in my time in the Corps. Several of which have an adverse opinion of pornography.

Why is it that only the Atheists and Agonostics and those who don’t find anything wrong with porn are the only ones with opinoins that matter?

Kestrel, you’re right what is done behind closed doors is their business, but porn is not behind closed doors. It is out there for everyone to get their hands on and see. The whole point of porn is to take stuff that should be behind closed doors and bring it into public view.

If you are in the military you sould stand on a higher moral code. You should strive to be the perfect citizen of this great nation, to slum it like some civilian that has never and will never put their lives on the line for the betterment of somone else is a disgrace befitting a court martial in my opinion.

You don’t have to be a Christian or even religous to be moral.

SKD reply on May 13th, 2008 12:23 am:

Are you putting yourself forward as being the one to define the “higher moral code,” Gunny? Last I checked one of the things that makes Americas’ military great is the fact that it is made up of the volunteer Americans from all walks of life. Not everyone agrees with your views and they have that right. The difference between Racist propaganda material and pornography of the type that is sold on base is that Racist propaganda has been proven to have detrimental effects on the wellbeing of a group such as a mixed race squad, a black man can hardly trust a white squadmate who is always reading a KKK pamphlet just as a Jewish soldier is not likely to trust someone with Nazi beliefs. I have no problem with the military bases conforming to restrictions of home countries. It’s called a Status Of Forces Agreement, which means that in return for the privilege of establishing a base in the area we will respect local laws. Porn in the PX is not something that should be legislated by Congress. If the people don’t want it there they should go to their local PX and ask them to stop selling it.
As far as it being an issue of religious nuts forcing their morals on us by having the porn removed vs us forcing our “lack of morals”(BTW just because our morals differ from yours does not mean that we completely lack morals)on you by saying that it should be allowed, this is about the founding principle of our country “Freedom”. Just as we currently have the right to purchase something from a merchant, you and those who don’t wish to purchase it have the right not to. By making laws banning its sale Congress would be removing a right of both the merchant to sell something which is currently legal and the soldier-customers to purchase the item.

“You don’t have to be a Christian or even religous to be moral.” I agree but I come back to the fact that in this Free Country of ours we all have the right to determine our own morals so long as they do not infringe upon another’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness nor does a different moral code automatically equate to a lack of morals.

Kestrel reply on May 13th, 2008 6:29 am:

“Kestrel, you’re right what is done behind closed doors is their business, but porn is not behind closed doors. It is out there for everyone to get their hands on and see. The whole point of porn is to take stuff that should be behind closed doors and bring it into public view.”

Yes, but these magazines are covered up and normally placed out of the reach of children. Measures are already being taken to prevent exposure for those who don’t want it.

skippy reply on May 13th, 2008 7:09 am:

“From a certain point of view those examples legitamate, but I can’t really consider public safty laws and consumer rights as control over our freedom of speech and the press.”

-Once you define the word “limit” and the meaning of “free speech” this gets cleared right up. basically you are saying “You can’t limit free speech except for the things that I feel don’t count.”

“However Skippy there are military regulations that do ban pornography…..amazing tonnage of porn in places like Iraq. ”

– True but these are generally to make the post abide by local laws. No such laws exist in the states. Furthermore, those are military regulations, not federal laws by our elected officials.

“You site religious nuts as forcing their ways or their morals on others by saying that porn shouldn’t be sold in the PX. Are you not doing the exact same thing by forcing your “lack” of morals on others by saying that porn should be sold in the PX? Why are your “rights” more important than their “rights”?”

– This is not a fair comparison. A fair comparison is for me to demand that bibles not be sold because they are against my beliefs. Which would be unfair to the Christian soldiers. I’m not saying that my rights are more important. I am saying that my rights are the same as theirs. I’m not advocating that they be forced to buy porn. Only that they leave it alone for the soldiers that do want to buy it. That’s the difference between banning something and not banning it.

“Keep in mind we have more than just agnostics and aithiests in the military. ….Several of which have an adverse opinion of pornography.”

– You seem to be actually arguing for my side on this. Yes there are many different beliefs. This is why we should not ban things because on account of the opinions of some of those soldiers. We also shouldn’t ban bacon simply because the Jews and Muslims don’t like it.

“Why is it that only the Atheists and Agonostics and those who don’t find anything wrong with porn are the only ones with opinoins that matter?”

– Re-read the comments. It isn’t. I’ve also had religious people comment on this.

“Kestrel, you’re right what is done behind closed doors is their business, but porn is not behind closed doors…The whole point of porn is to take stuff that should be behind closed doors and bring it into public view.”

– I think that you miss the point of porn. Either that or the Marines has a problem with public “spanking”.

“If you are in the military you sould stand on a higher moral code.”

– I agree. i also happen to think that trying to force your religious beliefs on others is immoral. And I also find nothing immoral about Playboy or Penthouse.
I think the disconnect here is that you say Moral, assuming that everyone has the exact same morality as you.

GunnyHighway Says:
May 13th, 2008 at 4:30 am

Nope, the military defines its own moral code, I just think its a shame that its personell don’t strive to live up to it. Disgraceful is more the word. But that is just my opinion.

Just for clarification, I do not support the sale of racial proppaganda in the PXs around the world or anywhere for that matter. I was using that subject matter as an illustration point to show how ludicris the arguments for the sale of porn in the PX were.

Similarities between the Porn industry and Racial proppaganda, from my point of view, is that they are both offensive to some and not to others. The point that I am raising is, if there is concern about causing offence to someone and creating a difficult working atmosphere in an already hellish work environment, should we not also include pornography in that “Not Propper For Sale” list?

If it is offensive to someone saying, “Just don’t look at it.” is not the correct responce.

If it is offensive to someone saying, “It is my constitutional right.” is not justification for the sale of offensive material.

SKD reply on May 13th, 2008 5:36 am:

A) yes the military defines its own moral code. As I see it if the sales of these materials were against the moral code set forth by the military then they would not be purchasable on base.
B) if I gave the impression that I thought you were for the sale of racial propaganda then please forgive me as that was neither my assumption nor my intent.
C)Personally the difference in offensiveness between the porn industry and racial propaganda is that the porn industry, for the most part, is not intentionally setting out to offend anyone. Some people don’t like it, fine, that is their prerogative. And to my knowledge, having spent eight years in the service, pornography is disallowed in the workplaces(and the living quarters to an extent) so strongly that swimsuit calendars and and such can get servicemen in trouble.
D) There is no right in the Constitution or The Bill of Rights protecting anyone from being offended. So yes, “If it offends you then remove yourself from the offense” is the proper answer.
E) I signed several years of my life away to protect the freedom of all, not to protect the sensitivities of the few. It infringes upon no ones right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness for these magazines to be sold, so it is the constitutional right of the stores to sell it if they so wish and for the customers to purchase it if they so desire.

In conclusion, It is your constitutional right to be offended but not to be free from being offended. Isn’t this a great Country we live in?

skippy reply on May 13th, 2008 9:35 am:

“Nope, the military defines its own moral code, I just think its a shame that its personell don’t strive to live up to it. Disgraceful is more the word. But that is just my opinion.”

– It does. And it determined that Playboy and Penthouse did not violate that morality.

Given that the military defines it’s own morality, why does Congress need to step in and inflict another set upon it?

“The point that I am raising is, if there is concern about causing offence to someone and creating a difficult working atmosphere in an already hellish work environment, should we not also include pornography in that “Not Propper For Sale” list?”

-This is a valid point. No one has demonstrated that Playboy and Penthouse cause such problems however.

“If it is offensive to someone saying, “It is my constitutional right.” is not justification for the sale of offensive material.”

– You’re moving into dangerous territory here. I was openly Pagan during the whole Ft Hood Wiccan scare. Many people found my beliefs and desire to openly practice my religeon offensive. There was more recently an issue because some officers didn’t like atheist soldiers, and there’s currently a lawsuit over that.

I think “Some people find it offensive” is in fact, a horrible reason to ban something.

Kestrel Says:
May 13th, 2008 at 6:25 am

hah. Ok, so I responded to her post, her response was:

“And please DON’T join the military. We need good soldiers, not the type who like porn. It isn’t exactly conservative right wingers who do things like rape girls in foreign countries or commit the crimes of Abu Ghraib. It is liberal soldiers who see nothing wrong with sleeping around and looking at porn.”

How narrow minded do you get? I’ve responded again, and hopefully I haven’t been TOO snarky, but really, I have my theories as to why she has such a problem with the issue, and why she refuses to listen to reason from anyone. lol.

SKD reply on May 13th, 2008 8:53 am:

I read her response to your post and could not restrain myself from responding.

I could not believe the sheer gall of that woman to think, apparently, that her opinion is the be all and end all of who is qualified to be a good soldier.

Kestrel reply on May 13th, 2008 12:05 pm:

I saw your post there, and well said indeed. :)

When I saw her response to what I said, I couldn’t help but laugh. She thinks she knows everything and clearly she doesn’t, and she just seems to be flailing around trying to bully people because she knows she’s losing the argument.

skippy reply on May 13th, 2008 12:17 pm:

I liked how she keeps doing her “I know more about the military than people who have told me that they are veterans” routine.

It’s like she thinks she has military experience because her husband has it.

Amy has confused wisdom with herpes.

Tony reply on May 13th, 2008 8:00 pm:

can you imagine the mental breakdown she would have if she ever found out that her husband jerks off? or better yet if she caught him?

Ari Says:
May 13th, 2008 at 9:35 am

Well, I say that in the Bible, Adam and Eve were created without clothes and when did God get angry? When they put clothes on! So as a God-fearing Christian girl, I say power to Playboy! And that no porn thing is just ridiculous. These poor guys and girls in the military choose to be separated from their dates, spouses, sex kittens, etc. just to go help this country, so to pay them back, the least we can do is give them something to occupy their time.

eastpaw Says:
May 13th, 2008 at 10:03 am

Awesome post, Skippy. I rather doubt that Proctor woman is going to be swayed by this, but then changing her mind is likely not your prime intent. I’ve been following this debate and it seems clear that Amy Proctor is completely invulnerable to logic.

GunnyHighway Says:
May 13th, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Wow, a whole lot to respond to.

SKD, you gave no impression that made me think you thought that I was for the sale of racial materials, I just felt the need to clarify my stance before something got misunderstood. No harm no foul there.

Your letter A was responded to by your letter C. There is an obvious moral standard in the BEQ/BOQ and work spaces that says “No Porn”. If someone is not allowed to take porn into their barracks room or into their work spaces, where are they taking it once purchased at the PX?

Now here is a question for you, and again it is one that I do not know the answer to. Are racial materials printed to offend people or to support the views of those who agree with said views?

There is no Constitutional right or anything in the Bill of Rights protecting you or anyone from being offended, this is true. But if your right to persue happiness tramples my right to persue happiness, which of us is correct and which of us is wrong? If neither is right or wrong, would not commom curtosey suggest that the offense in question be removed for the common good? Is that not what a decent person would do.

Your letter E has pretty much the same response as above. If I am offended by porn or the sale of porn in the PX then is it not violating my right to persue happiness?

Remember you don’t have the right to be happy. You have the right to persue happiness, but not be happy. So I ask again, why is your persuet more important than someone elses?

Skippy, Again, the porn industry does violate some form of moral code in the military, other wise it would be allowed in all places within the military. The military is controlled by Congress. The military is a federal entity and like the FBI and CIA the DOD is subject to Congressional oversite. Therefore it is controlled by Congress. The UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) is the set of laws that governs all branches of the military. It was ratified by congress and signed into law by President Truman on May 5, 1950. All subsiquent changes and ammendments to that particular set of laws must still be approved by Congress.

So it is perfectly resonable for Congress to say what can and cannot be sold on military instalations.

“-This is a valid point. No one has demonstrated that Playboy and Penthouse cause such problems however.”

If someone is offended by Porn, and me being one of them, then am I not demonstraiting that Porn is causing such problems? And because Porn is not allowed in the BEQ/BOQ and the work place then it has already ben demonstrated that Porn does cause a difficult working atmosphere and living atmosphere.

““If it is offensive to someone saying, “It is my constitutional right.” is not justification for the sale of offensive material.”

Skippy, I’m not tracking you on this point, could you please go into more detail. Sorry. :(

“I think “Some people find it offensive” is in fact, a horrible reason to ban something.”

Isn’t that why certain material, like racial propiganda isn’t sold?

Ali… you might want to check up on that whole Orriginal Sin story again. You missed something big there. It wasn’t that they were wearing clothes that the God of Genisis was offended. It was why they were wearing clothes. They were wearing clothes because they felt shame, they felt shame because their eyes were opend to the fact that they were naked because they sinned. They sinned because they broke the one rule that they were given. Thus God was angry. God even made better clothing for them, so why if God didn’t want them clothed, would he make more clothing?

skippy reply on May 13th, 2008 11:50 pm:

In the late 90’s there was a huge deal when a Ft Hood Wiccan group got permission to meet and conduct religious services on post.

People were flipping out. It offended them. It was going to destroy the military. How could the Army allow this to happen? And so on and so forth.

And more recently there was a big stink in Iraq, where some military leaders started freaking out over an Atheist group. Do a Google search on “Atheist military Lawsuit” and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

Basically some people find both of our belief systems offensive. But I don’t think that they should be banned.

“Isn’t that why certain material, like racial propiganda isn’t sold?”

I don’t think that this is about offense as much as it is about the effect that the end user has on their unit. Racist soldiers are a liability. Only racist soldiers are likely to buy racist propaganda. Kind of like why a military post won’t sell a water-pipe. Because the only soldiers who are likely to buy it are soldiers who want to do drugs.

Some people make the argument that soldiers that like Playboy and Penthouse are less than the soldiers that don’t, but no one has adequately demonstrated that to my satisfaction. Or to the military for that matter.

“And because Porn is not allowed in the BEQ/BOQ and the work place then it has already ben demonstrated that Porn does cause a difficult working atmosphere and living atmosphere.”

– Also not allowed to have video games at work, nor hold religious services during the workday, read comics during duty hours. You’re stretching here. Not appropriate activity for on duty personnel, or at work, doesn’t mean incompatible with military service. You’re also saying the fact that someone wanted to restrict it proves that it is justified to restrict it.

And to my knowledge their is not currently any rules against soldiers having porn in the barracks.

“So it is perfectly resonable for Congress to say what can and cannot be sold on military instalations.”

You have confused “can get away with” with “reasonable to”.

“Remember you don’t have the right to be happy. You have the right to persue happiness, but not be happy. So I ask again, why is your persuet more important than someone elses?”

– I could repeat your argument verbatim to support my side. “I can’t pursue happiness if you are doing something I don’t like” is a dangerous precedent. Just try applying that logic to other areas. I’m not particularly fond of the Catholic Church. With the very large Evangelical movement in this country I could probably find many people that agreed with me on that point. So why should their right to pursue happiness by having the ability to practice their faith take priority over my pursuit of happiness which is incompatible with their beliefs?

The people that don’t like porn have the same right to pursue happiness as me. The just don’t have the right to take away mine in their pursuit of it.

GunnyHighway Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 12:38 am

Well I can’t talk about your barraks experiance, but posted on the inside of the front door of all the barraks rooms I’ve ever lived in there was a set of orders that pertained specifically to the barraks. Part of that set of orders was that there was to be no pornography in the BEQ. Now that could have been a specific set of orders specifically for the instalations I was on, I do not know. But I do know that in some parts of the military on certain instalations there are orders against porn.

Your argument about comics and video games is not viable here because those are not regulated because of their content but more because of their ability to distract and prevent personell from completing their duties. Granted you can say that porn is just a destraction too, but then you’d be ignoring the sexual harrasment part of it. You can read while on duty, even books of a non-military nature like such on the Commadants Reading List. But you still can’t read porn.

““So it is perfectly resonable for Congress to say what can and cannot be sold on military instalations.”

You have confused “can get away with” with “reasonable to”.”

I disagree. Congress has the power and until there is a case brought before the Courts then that is the way it is. There is no confusion. Congress is in charge of the DOD, end of story. If Congress makes a ruling about the military then that is their ruling until someone gets them to change it.

“Some people make the argument that soldiers that like Playboy and Penthouse are less than the soldiers that don’t, but no one has adequately demonstrated that to my satisfaction. Or to the military for that matter.”

Did you leave out a word there? Less than what?

I don’t believe porn makes you any less effective, though professional, thats another matter.

Does Porn have a negative impact in the work place? Yes. Thats why it isn’t allowed in most of civilian work places and all of military work spaces. And that is my argument about professionalism. A professinal would not have something in the work environment that would be seen as offensive to others.

“I don’t think that this is about offense as much as it is about the effect that the end user has on their unit. Racist soldiers are a liability. Only racist soldiers are likely to buy racist propaganda. Kind of like why a military post won’t sell a water-pipe. Because the only soldiers who are likely to buy it are soldiers who want to do drugs.”

The military does not screen for racists, or at least I don’t remember if my recuriter asked if I was a racist. So if they are such a liability why are they not screened out? Granted if you have certain tattoos you’re not allowed in, but you don’t have to have a tattoo to be racist.

Skippy all of our argments can be flipped backwards and forwards. In truth there is no good argument for porn being sold in the PX outside of a capitalistic argument. Sex sells. The only real argument against Porn being sold in the PX is that it offends some of the patrons of the PX. The thing about the PX is, is that in some areas people don’t have a choice but to shop at the PX so in reality it can get away with offending some of its patrons.

Wal*Mart doesn’t sell porn… okay lets clarify what I mean, I’m talking adult magazines, not movies with nudity. Why is that? Because if people are offended, they can go elsewhere, Wal*Mart doesn’t want that. The PX doesn’t have to worry about that because lots of times you can’t just go somewhere else.

End all, Congress does have the right and the power to determine what is sold on military instalations because it controls those instalations. Will it always enforce that right and that power? No. But just because it doesn’t enforce those rights and powers doesn’t mean that it wont.

Because all U.S. Citizens have the right to try to chagne the country and its laws then what the lady in the article is doing is perfectly fine. It does not matter what her motivations are, be they religious or not. Seperation between Church and State does not mean that only Agnostics and Athiests can lobby for laws and changes.

The only thing that anyone can do is contact their senators and representatives and ask them to stand against her and her supporting senators and representatives. Attacking her character, her religion, and her motives is nothing but childish behavior.

skippy reply on May 14th, 2008 1:11 am:

“The military does not screen for racists, or at least I don’t remember if my recuriter asked if I was a racist. ”
– They used to. No they don’t ask you if you are racist, but if they catch you with racist propoganda, or tattoo you may be counseled or removed. Not so much any more.

“Because all U.S. Citizens have the right to try to chagne the country and its laws then what the lady in the article is doing is perfectly fine. It does not matter what her motivations are, be they religious or not. Seperation between Church and State does not mean that only Agnostics and Athiests can lobby for laws and changes.”

– True she does have that right. And I have the right to try to stop her. And express my opinions about what her free expressions demonstrates about her character, and how flawed I think her arguments, (And yours for that matter) are.

“End all, Congress does have the right and the power to determine what is sold on military instalations because it controls those instalations.”
– True to an extent. Congress does not have limitless powers. I think this issue is pushing the boundaries of what they *should* be doing.
Do you honestly think the biggest problems facing our military right now is Playboy in the PX?

“The PX doesn’t have to worry about that because lots of times you can’t just go somewhere else. ”
– Again, same argument reversed applies to not restricting the sale of porn. If soldiers can’t shop elsewere why should their shopping options be limited by what other people are offended by.

“Did you leave out a word there? Less than what?”
– Less than the soldiers that don’t. I didn’t leave any words out. But your next line pretty much demonstrated my point. You think it porn makes soldiers less professional, because it could offend someone. I think soldiers having porn is irrelevant to their professionalism, unless they are reading while on duty.

“Seperation between Church and State does not mean that only Agnostics and Athiests can lobby for laws and changes.”
– True. But it does mean that if a religeous person wants to congress to change a law, they should probably have a better argument that “It’s against my religion.” Because Congress is specifically prohibited from passing laws for that reason.

“Skippy all of our argments can be flipped backwards and forwards. In truth there is no good argument for porn being sold in the PX outside of a capitalistic argument.”
-I disagree. I think that our government shouldn’t be in the business of restricting soldiers privileges without a very good reason. To date no one has presented a particularly good argument, (IMHO) that restricting the sale of such materials is actually helpful. And since no one can demonstrate why banning them is good, then the default, again, my opinion, is it should be allowed.

Banning things without a good reason, is in my opinion, harmful to us as a society.

Allowing things to be banned creates a precedent that is very dangerous to people with minority beliefs.

“Attacking her character, her religion, and her motives is nothing but childish behavior.”

– Yeah? Well she started it. :P
Plus, you’ve been attacking the character of the people you disagree with more or less non-stop in these comments.

Plus its funny.

GunnyHighway Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 2:39 am

GunnyHighway Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 2:41 am

Well crap! My copy paste didn’t work and I didn’t save what I wrote in notepad… stand by and I’ll get you a real responce. My apologies.

GunnyHighway Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 3:18 am

““End all, Congress does have the right and the power to determine what is sold on military instalations because it controls those instalations.”
– True to an extent. Congress does not have limitless powers. I think this issue is pushing the boundaries of what they *should* be doing.
Do you honestly think the biggest problems facing our military right now is Playboy in the PX?”

Of course not! However how long should we wait for problems to be solved? Should we wait until the little problems become big? There are a lot of congressmen/women they form commities, the commities study the problem be it big or small then there is a vote, or at least thats how I understand it. It really isn’t that complex. (in theory)

““The PX doesn’t have to worry about that because lots of times you can’t just go somewhere else. ”
– Again, same argument reversed applies to not restricting the sale of porn. If soldiers can’t shop elsewere why should their shopping options be limited by what other people are offended by.”

Because thats the way corporate America works. People may be disapointed that a multi-department store (think wal*mart or the PX) doesn’t sell what they want, but they arn’t offended by it. The store “should” want to avoid offending all patrons. But the PX just doesn’t work that way for some reason.

““Did you leave out a word there? Less than what?”
– Less than the soldiers that don’t. I didn’t leave any words out. But your next line pretty much demonstrated my point. You think it porn makes soldiers less professional, because it could offend someone. I think soldiers having porn is irrelevant to their professionalism, unless they are reading while on duty.”

I agree with you here. If they are looking at porn while on duty they lack professionalism. However I think that personell that disobey legal orders are unprofessional. Am I wrong in that line of thought? So if the BEQ/BOQ orders (and I have been in BEQ that has such orders) say no porn, then are the personell that are disobeying those orders not being professional?

““Skippy all of our argments can be flipped backwards and forwards. In truth there is no good argument for porn being sold in the PX outside of a capitalistic argument.”
-I disagree. I think that our government shouldn’t be in the business of restricting soldiers privileges without a very good reason. To date no one has presented a particularly good argument, (IMHO) that restricting the sale of such materials is actually helpful. And since no one can demonstrate why banning them is good, then the default, again, my opinion, is it should be allowed.”

And on the same note, nobody can demonstrate why the sale of porn in the px is good then the default, again, my opinion, is that is should not be allowed. Face it you can jerk off without porn. What else is it really good for? The stories even suck!

Though lets be honest when has the military ever restriced privileges for very good reasons? I can fight and die for my country but its a violation of the UCMJ if I drink under the age of 21.

“Allowing things to be banned creates a precedent that is very dangerous to people with minority beliefs.”

Porn and beliefs are two very different things. I wonder if we have the right to buy porn. The right to print/tape (whatever) porn is established by the freedom of the press. But do consumers have the right to purchase whatever they want? Sorry got on a tangent there. (that happens when I have to rewrite things)

Don’t racists have minority beliefs? Should those beliefs not be protected as well?

““Attacking her character, her religion, and her motives is nothing but childish behavior.”

– Yeah? Well she started it.
Plus, you’ve been attacking the character of the people you disagree with more or less non-stop in these comments.

Plus its funny.”

Well I wouldn’t say that I’ve attacked anyone’s character, morality yes, character, not so much. But you’re right it can be fun.

Minty reply on May 14th, 2008 2:59 pm:

Just sticking my two cents in here…
S: “True to an extent. Congress does not have limitless powers. I think this issue is pushing the boundaries of what they *should* be doing.
Do you honestly think the biggest problems facing our military right now is Playboy in the PX?”
GH: “Of course not! However how long should we wait for problems to be solved? Should we wait until the little problems become big?”
Me: I think the thrust of what Skippy’s saying here is that energy is being wasted on this one issue when it could be used more effectively on more immediate problems that are demonstrably harmful to the military. Thus far, there is no authentic scientific evidence that proves whether or not pornography is harmful to society. There is, however, authentic scientific evidence proving that PTSD destroys lives, and many military personnel and their families are suing because they claim they are not getting help for that. That, in the mind of a tax-paying civilian like myself, deserves more attention from Congress than pornography at this time.
S: “Again, same argument reversed applies to not restricting the sale of porn. If soldiers can’t shop elsewere why should their shopping options be limited by what other people are offended by.”
GH: “Because thats the way corporate America works. People may be disapointed that a multi-department store (think wal*mart or the PX) doesn’t sell what they want, but they arn’t offended by it. The store “should” want to avoid offending all patrons. But the PX just doesn’t work that way for some reason.”
Me: What you’re touching on is a demographics issue. Stores like wal*mart, and 7-11 (the example raised so often in Ms. Porter’s comments section) spend lots and lots of money on researching their consumer base, and then they make decisions on what products to carry based on that. Thus, you have wal*mart not carrying pornography because the overwhelming majority of its customers either a) don’t want to buy it, or b) would boycott the store. In 7-11, the opposite may be true; certainly there will be 7-11 customers who will boycott it over the sale of pornography, but there are MORE customers who won’t because they WANT to buy it, so 7-11 doesn’t lose money. By this token, the PX probably works much in the same way—it carries those products which the majority of its customers are interested in spending money on. If the PX makes enough money off sales of Playboy, it’s not going to be that concerned about the complaints of a small subgroup of customers.
Furthermore, unlike wal*mart and 7-11, who further narrow down their demographics by region (meaning there may well be some wal*marts that sell pornography, because their customers won’t be offended by it) the proposed ban would affect all PXs, something that Ms. Porter seems to forget. The families that may or may not be offended by pornography (her main interest group) aren’t always present in overseas bases—notably Afghanistan and Iraq (I’m just a civilian, so if there aren’t PXs there, please tell me so). Therefore, (in my mind) servicemen and servicewomen who are being shot at every day are being told they can’t have a source of stress relief because a small group of people thousands of miles away are offended.
GH: “If they are looking at porn while on duty they lack professionalism. However I think that personell that disobey legal orders are unprofessional. Am I wrong in that line of thought? So if the BEQ/BOQ orders (and I have been in BEQ that has such orders) say no porn, then are the personell that are disobeying those orders not being professional?”
This is true of every employment venue, because it distracts people from their work. In general, it’s not a moral judgement, and applies to more than just pornography. Where I work, not only can I not look at porn during office hours, but I can’t shop on eBay, read webcomics, and play online Mah Jong. Furthermore, I have worked at offices where this sort of behavior is overlooked, simply because it a) doesn’t affect work performance; and b) is handled discretely enough that no one claims to be offended.
As for not allowing pornography in BEQ/BOQ, personally, I think that’s just silly. I can understand banning it from common spaces, but not private rooms. Keeping pornography in private rooms should be fine, so long as it’s discrete. Certainly it is unprofessional to disobey legal orders, but by the same token, there is such a thing as protesting orders that you don’t agree with.
GH: “Face it you can jerk off without porn. What else is it really good for? The stories even suck!”
Me: Just because you have a really good imagination doesn’t mean the handicapped should be penalized.
GH: “Though lets be honest when has the military ever restriced privileges for very good reasons? I can fight and die for my country but its a violation of the UCMJ if I drink under the age of 21.”
Me: I also think that’s silly, if it makes you feel better. No one should face death without having had a drink at some point (if they want it).
GH: “The right to print/tape (whatever) porn is established by the freedom of the press. But do consumers have the right to purchase whatever they want? Sorry got on a tangent there.”
Me: This right is constantly being challenged by local and state laws all the time, and it’s resulted in “Banned Book Week.” Some of the books that have been banned over time are just plain ridiculous—for example, Black Beauty and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
GH: “Don’t racists have minority beliefs? Should those beliefs not be protected as well?”
They are. It is illegal to forbid groups like the KKK from marching or protesting in public if they do so peacefully.
GH: “Attacking her character, her religion, and her motives is nothing but childish behavior.”
People have been “attacking” her for several reasons. 1) She goes nuts when commenters present their side of the argument in reasonable language (i.e. “I look at porn, and I’ve never raped anyone.” 2) By her argument, forcing personnel to buy pornography off-base will magically prevent them from undressing her with their eyes. 3) After pressed for evidence supporting her argument over and over and over again, she offers up thinly-veiled propaganda. 4) As noted several times above, she acts as if being married to a serviceman makes her an authority on how the military should operate. 5) By that token, she seems to think that the military exists solely to provide a fantasy realm of unicorns and animated bluebirds for her to dwell in. The fact that the military allows families to live on-base as a courtesy that they can revoke at any time would never occur to her.

Kestrel Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 7:54 am

Confusing wisdom with herpes…that sounds like it should be the title of an album, or something. lol.

SKD reply on May 14th, 2008 9:10 am:

But which band would it best be an album title for is the question?

Kestrel reply on May 14th, 2008 12:24 pm:

I dunno, I guess Skippy would get to pick that, lol, he came up with the phrase.

GunnyHighway Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Minty, thank you for your reply.

You’re right there are larger issues for congress to tackle, I totally agree with that. But in the same breath all of congress does not tackle each and every individual issue. PTSD and its ilk are already being covered by congressmen/women and senators. The way Congress works is tht it divides itself up into commities and divies out certain issues. Those issues are studied and the findings are brought before the whole and it is voted on. There are far less important things being discussed in congress right now other than Porn.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of shoppers in the PX want to buy porn. In fact the majority of shoppers are families. The majority of overseas bases have families. Iraq and Afganistan don’t have families but they also don’t sell porn because it is against the Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) because porn is illegal in those countries. Sorry your idea of what goes on in Iraq and Afganistan isn’t quite right. However, there is a ton of porn in those countries, it just isn’t sold. :)

The PX only has to worry about its host countries laws. Its patron base in the states is boosted by Vets who still enjoy the tax free sales of the PX. So even if people went off base to shop in boycott they’d still get their sales from all the penny pinchers. Besides there is scientific evidence of the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco but those are still sold. I’d be willing to bet Skippy’s paycheck that even if there was scientific evidence that porn was bad for you they’d still sell it.

The reason why porn is not allowed in the work place is not because its a distraction. I’m at work right now, the internet is a distraction in its own right. (BTW dispite our lack of agreement on some topics, Skippy I love your site man) In the Corps you are allowed to read books, take corispondence courses (MCIs), and do various other things while on duty. All of which can be a distraction and sometimes are. So why is porn not allowed if other destractions are? The answer is because Pornography is offensive. It also is a liability. Sexual Harrassment anyone?

Why it isn’t allowed in the BEQ/BOQ, I don’t know. I’m not saying I agree with the order or disagree with it. I’m not against the obtaining of Porn, I just don’t agree with it being sold in the PX.

YOu can protest a legal order, but you do not protest a legal order by disobeying it. You can however disobey an illegal order but not having porn in the barraks is not an illegal order.

Not having an imagination isn’t a handicap, and I think that it is a really weak argument to suggest that.

SKD reply on May 15th, 2008 12:47 am:

“Not having an imagination isn’t a handicap, and I think that it is a really weak argument to suggest that.”

I think minty was being facetious.

“I’m not against the obtaining of Porn, I just don’t agree with it being sold in the PX.”

But the argument comes back around to if there is no demonstrable harm in the sale of said material then there is no demonstrable reason for legislating a ban on it.

“So why is porn not allowed if other destractions are? The answer is because Pornography is offensive. It also is a liability. Sexual Harrassment anyone?”

Actually your last question answers exaclty why it is not allowed in the workspace. In a workspace you my have to work with someone who finds it offensive and since they have both a right and a duty to be there it is perfectly reasonable to ban it there.

“Besides there is scientific evidence of the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco but those are still sold.”

And both alcohol and tobacco are regulated in the same way that porn is. You must meet a minimum age requirement(99% of servicemembers meet the age requirements for tobacco and porn) and if you don’t you can not purchase it(legally anyway). Therefore the government has already decided that these items are fine for use and purchase by responsible adults(by legal definition).

“I find it hard to believe that the majority of shoppers in the PX want to buy porn.”

I am not about to say that the majority of shoppers want to buy porn, but it is apparent that the return on investment is high enough for the PX to continue selling Playboy and Penthouse.

“There are far less important things being discussed in congress right now other than Porn.”

Such as? I am sorry but I find it hard to believe that porn in the PX is such a substantive topic that it must be examined and legislated by Congress.

One final point. Every freedom that is taken away is one more step down a slippery slope away from the principles that made this country great. No matter if you disagree with someone elses tastes, as long as they do not remove another’s freedom to do as they will with their life there is no good reason to deny them the ability to go about there lives as they will. Pornography, as distasteful as it is to some, does not IMHO impinge upon anyone’s ability to go on about their lives freely. There are already laws that prevent and punish those who would force unwilling participation in pornography. So since the legal porn is completely consensual on all fronts there is no good reason that has been presented to me yet for the banning and censorship of the end product.

Minty reply on May 15th, 2008 2:01 am:

GH: “The way Congress works is tht it divides itself up into commities and divies out certain issues. Those issues are studied and the findings are brought before the whole and it is voted on. There are far less important things being discussed in congress right now other than Porn.”

Me: I understand the committee process of Congress; I’m just disagreeing with what they choose to focus their energy on. Nor am I quibbling that some those committees are focusing on issues more trivial than porn. Rather, I’m saying that there are more important problems that Congress needs to address overall, and not just in the military. The way I see it, it’s like a hospital emergency room filled with people dying who are told they have to wait for the MDs to take care of the guy who sprained his ankle and the kid with a funny-looking rash. Those things certainly need to be addressed, but the gunshot wounds and drug overdoses come first.

GH: “I find it hard to believe that the majority of shoppers in the PX want to buy porn. In fact the majority of shoppers are families.”

Me: Then that’s something that needs to be explored. If it can be fairly proven that the majority of PX shoppers do not want to buy porn, then by all means, stop carrying it and make the minority go elsewhere. However, if the opposite is true—if, in fact, the majority do want to buy porn, then allowing a minority to dictate policy is unfair. And yes, I acknowledge that this does happen every day in our society, but that doesn’t make me happy about it.

GH: “Sorry your idea of what goes on in Iraq and Afganistan isn’t quite right. However, there is a ton of porn in those countries, it just isn’t sold.”

Me: What else do you expect from a civilian except half-baked ideas and baseless ranting? And as for illicit porn being available in Iraq and Afghanistan, well, no surprise there. We’re talking about a culture that excuses the existence of The Perfumed Garden as a “medical text.”

GH: “there is scientific evidence of the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco but those are still sold. I’d be willing to bet Skippy’s paycheck that even if there was scientific evidence that porn was bad for you they’d still sell it.”

Me: This is probably true, and maybe people should advocate the banning of alcohol and tobacco as well. And before everyone jumps all over me, I smoke and drink, and yet I’m perfectly comfortable not doing so in a manner that may cause harm to other people. Who knows? Maybe if they made tobacco illegal, I’d finally manage to quit.

GH: “In the Corps you are allowed to read books, take corispondence courses (MCIs), and do various other things while on duty. All of which can be a distraction and sometimes are.”

Me: And there are many who would argue that being able to read books and do correspondence courses while on duty (which I’m reading as “actually sitting at my desk/standing guard, etc. btw. Again, tell me if I’m wrong) is a misuse of government time and funds. Further, I wouldn’t be surprised that there are some superiors in the Marines who overlook this behavior, and others that come down on “offenders” like a ton of bricks.

GH: “…Pornography is offensive. It also is a liability. Sexual Harrassment anyone?”

Me: Unfortunately, this is one of those gray area issues that will never be resolved. Some people legitimately feel sexually harassed by others looking at pictures of naked people, and others don’t. It would be nice if everyone could agree on a middle ground, but humans are too varied for that to happen.
GH: “You can protest a legal order, but you do not protest a legal order by disobeying it. You can however disobey an illegal order but not having porn in the barraks is not an illegal order.”

Me: I didn’t think it was an illegal order, just a silly one. Also, I’m not advocating that anyone flagrantly disobeying that order. Rather, I would encourage dissenters to formally protest the order. Just because an order is legal doesn’t automatically make it sensible or fair (if you want to laugh at some REALLY silly laws, check out this website: http://www.dumblaws.com/ . My personal favorite at the moment is Pennsylvania’s ban against sleeping on a refrigerator outside. I love our country :D ).

GH: “Not having an imagination isn’t a handicap, and I think that it is a really weak argument to suggest that.”

Me: That was a joke. I was teasing you. You know, when you poke fun at someone in a lighthearted and friendly manner that’s not supposed to be taken as offensive.

GunnyHighway reply on May 15th, 2008 5:14 am:

I really need to not take all day to write a responce, I’m sorry that I can’t combine the two.

As was I. I’m sorry, try spending your childhood in England and see if you don’t get some of their dry sense of humor.

“GH: “…Pornography is offensive. It also is a liability. Sexual Harrassment anyone?”

Well let me ask you what the middle ground is?

“GH: “In the Corps you are allowed to read books, take corispondence courses (MCIs), and do various other things while on duty. All of which can be a distraction and sometimes are.”

I need to clarify what an MCI is. MCI stands for Marine Corps Institute. They are corispondence courses by Marines for Marines and they are requirements for promotions. Yes the “dumbest branch” of our great military requires college level courses be taken to be promoted. Makes you think twice about those other branches!

Also certain books are even suggested for reading while on duty these books, at least in the Corps, are part of the Commadant’s Reading List (Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps Official Reading List).

Some of them are really good books too, check it out for yourself.

http://home.comcast.net/~antaylor1/usmccommandant.html

Now, standing guard is differnt for each part of the guard. I used to work in an Armory. Part of my job was the security of the weapons held within. I wasn’t on a roaming patrol or even standing at a gate checking identification. I was inside my cage with a loaded pistol. I could read and do MCIs and other such things, I pretty much just had to be with the weapons. Of course there was more to it than that, but lets keep it simple.

I’m just demonstrating that there are different aspects to standing guard/duty.

Andrew reply on March 27th, 2009 8:00 am:

sorry to butt in but…. i got nothing better to do so i been readin all the only threads…

“As was I. I’m sorry, try spending your childhood in England and see if you don’t get some of their dry sense of humor.”

i find that offensive

GunnyHighway Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 4:33 am

I’m not saying that Porn in the PX is a substansive topic, I’m just sure that there are more trivial things out there. But then again that is based on my opinoin of what is important and what is trivial, your opinion might differ.

“One final point. Every freedom that is taken away is one more step down a slippery slope away from the principles that made this country great. No matter if you disagree with someone elses tastes, as long as they do not remove another’s freedom to do as they will with their life there is no good reason to deny them the ability to go about there lives as they will. Pornography, as distasteful as it is to some, does not IMHO impinge upon anyone’s ability to go on about their lives freely. There are already laws that prevent and punish those who would force unwilling participation in pornography. So since the legal porn is completely consensual on all fronts there is no good reason that has been presented to me yet for the banning and censorship of the end product.”

There is a flaw in your final point…

Nobody is loosing a liberty or a freedom. A specific store or chain of stores removing certain objects from their shelves is not a loss of liberty or freedom. In this case it is something (a chain of stores) that is controlled by congress therefore the decision must come from congress. There is no garunteed freedom that remotly suggests that you have the “Right” or “Freedom” to buy specifically Pornography. The First Amendment, the amendment that allows for “Freedom of the Press” does not provide for the sale of items.

It does however allow for congressional control over the provision of pornograpy to minors.

In fact in the case of Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. v. U.S., 30 F. Supp. 2d 702, 716 (D. Del. 1998)

This was said in respect to denying minor’s access to sexually explicit material: “We recognize that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence does not require empirical evidence. Only some minimal amount of evidence is required when sexually explicit programming and children are involved.” …

It was also said that… “Congress does not need the testimony of psyciatrists and social scientists in order to take note of the coarsening of impressionable minds that can result from a presisten exposure to sexually explicit material…”

I’ll provide the link to the above. Its a PDF file (so be warned) pg 40/131.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/2006supplement.pdf

The point of all this, is that there is precidence for Congress to control at the very least the distribution of sexually explicit material. However in the attempt to remain fair, and because if I don’t say it someone else will… there included with the two quotes I used was a rebuttle…

“[t]here is not one iota of evidence in the record… to support the claim that exposure to indencency is harmful – indeed, the nature of the alleged ‘harm’ is never explained.”

That is an opinoin about a specific case and what was said within that case, and dispite that opinion the FCC beat Playboy.

drew Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Perhaps the “Porn” should be located in the Class 6 store only. But then so should the Cigarettes so as not to influence young impressionable children. Better yet lets make a seperate facility on each base that only sells Porn, Booze and Smokes, perhaps they can use the Chapel for this purpose. After all its main purpose is to provide sunday worship services, if you add the Booze, Smokes and Porn, the building will get used 7 days a week instead of 1 or 2, thus justifying the maintenance and up keep of the facility. The chaplains staff can handle the sales and the profits from the sales can be used to fund the chapel and the services it provides. And if anyone can buy Smokes, booze and Porn from a member of the Clergy or better yet a Nun in full habit, then they deserve to be able to buy as much as they like.

GunnyHighway Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Hehe and they say men can’t multitask! The chapple is used for a lot more than sunday services. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had to go to the chapple for some sort of extra duty, funerals (Which I don’t mind doing, honoring our fallen is important.), classes and other cerimonies and its ilk. Chapples double as a meeting place when places like the Platoon Class Room just arnt big enough.

BTW whats a “class 6” store?

Tony reply on May 16th, 2008 5:10 am:

i think class 6 is just an army/air force exchange thing as i have been in both branches and seen them there but not on naval bases, i’ve never been on a marine base but i think you just answered that question for me.

basically it’s the on base liquor store, separate from the px

Tony Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 6:32 am

actually that might be a really good idea that could make everyone happy. what if they just moved the porn to the class 6?

GunnyHighway Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 7:03 am

Tony, thanks for the clarification.

To be honest I’ve never seen porn in the PX. I’m talking the wal*mart type PX. I’ve seen it in the 7 day (aka Class 6), and those are more like the 7-11’s. I don’t really have an issue with that. Call me hypocritical but those are like two different stores all together (IMHO). Wal*Mart =/= 7-11

A “family” store like wal*mart doesn’t need porn, neither does the PX.

To make sure that I’m clear, I’m not against porn sold on base, or being on base, just against it sold in the family rich environment of the PX.

SKD reply on May 16th, 2008 9:05 pm:

Ah, so now we have a content middleground that satisfies the ned to keep the evil mindwarping pornography out of the hands of our innocent tenderminded children and yet have avoided passing a law that enforces a limited censorship. And, in my experience, it seems to already be done on most bases as I myself have never seen these magazines in one of the Wal-Mart style PXs.

Tony reply on May 16th, 2008 9:28 pm:

10:1 if you presented this argument to amy she’d still try to shoot it down.

SKD reply on May 16th, 2008 9:55 pm:

Thus reinforcing her absolute intolerance on the subject yet again.

drew Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

When i was overseas, the Stars and Stripes shop sold all the magazines and books, that is where you could buy your Adult oriented magazines, perhaps if the bases brought that concept to the stateside installations, this whole argument would be moot. The BX/PX could still sell the kiddie books and religious books and the Stars and Stripes could sell the more “adventurous” reading material. Most larger installations have a Mall like BX/PX complex, just place the Stars and Stripes bookstore outside the main store. Since most seem to have empty spaces waiting for vendors,this should not be a problem.

Tony Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 11:25 am

lmao!!! amy closed the comments on that post. guess she got tired of being the only one arguing FOR the bill.

Chris Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 11:06 pm

This post would be hilarious, except that Amy and people like her are no laughing matter….. As someone said, her mind can’t be changed, no matter what facts, arguments and logic dictate. The bottom line is, she, like some other women, are threatened by porn and also other women. My friend’s wife not only won’t let him go to titty bars or have Playboys, she even won’t let him have MAXIM MAGAZINES!!!!! It all plays into HER insecurity. She doesn’t want him looking at pretty women, even in magazines.

After my wife lost some weight, her friends started being stand-offish towards her at parties. Same thing; they were insecure being potentially compared to someone skinnier than they were…..

I believe this is the bottom line:
Amy and her kind don’t want their husbands looking and lusting after other women, even if they are on the pages of magazines. They have found a “moral high ground” to allow them to appear selfless and caring, while at the same time they are not open to any arguments because the arguments question a FAKE reason for their crusade, and even if they didn’t, they no more will change their stand than their view on abortion.

Also, it probably won’t be the end. After banning the sale of the magazines, they will try to ban possession as well.

StoneWolf Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

I’ve read Swifts Proposal and yours, and I approve of both. I think we need to eat the little Irish kids, ban porno and ban religion. Maybe we can also ban freedom while were at it. As we all know, freedom is a threat to national security. Just ask the Nazis or Stalin. As soon as I’m done writting this I will burn all my porn, delete my hardrive and book a ticket home so I can eat a fellow Irishman’s kid.

Snyarhedir Says:
February 9th, 2011 at 11:30 pm

What that idiot fails to realize/consider is that men are also depicted/sexualized in pornography. (I have no experience with pornography, but I know at least that much to be true.)

Jonathan Ginsburg Says:
May 21st, 2013 at 11:38 pm

I would love to meet whoever came up with this whole “Porn is demeaning and bad for women” crap, my fiance owns more porn than I will ever have, and she is just fine. Now, we have brave men and women fighting for our rights and our freedom overseas, I believe that they should have not only the same freedoms as we do, but they should have more, if they want to buy porn they should be allowed, why should they be punished just for being heroes?

David B Says:
March 10th, 2014 at 1:19 pm

Any updates on how this moronic proposal is going?

A Modest Proposal

96 Responses to “A Modest Proposal”

Leave a Reply