Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Right Wing Extremists Target Porn On Military Bases

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 4:00 PM on November 5, 2007.


Steve Benen: Those who wear the uniform and put their lives on the line for their country should be able to read whatever they want.
wildmon
Wildmon

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

It's been a while since we've last heard from the American Family Association's the Rev. Donald E. Wildmon. Every once in a while, Wildmon and the AFA will draw headlines for attacking a group or company for being insufficiently "pro-family," though most of their complaints come across as bizarre rants from extremists.

The targets from recent years include, but are by no means limited to, Wal-Mart (for selling Brokeback Mountain DVDs), Target (for not having Salvation Army bell-ringers during the Christmas season), Ford Motor Company (for purchasing ads in gay-oriented publications), and the movie "Shark Tale" (which the AFA believed was intended to "brainwash children" into accepting gay rights).

Now, Wildmon and the AFA have a new concern: U.S. troops' a access to adult materials.

Ten years after Congress banned sales of sexually explicit material on military bases, the Pentagon is under fire for continuing to sell adult fare, such as Penthouse and Playmates In Bed, that it doesn't consider explicit enough to pull from its stores.

Dozens of religious and anti-pornography groups have complained to Congress and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that a Pentagon board set up to review magazines and films is allowing sales of material that Congress intended to ban.

"They're saying 'we're not selling stuff that's sexually explicit' ... and we say it's pornography," says Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, a Christian anti-pornography group. A letter-writing campaign launched Friday by opponents of the policy aims to convince Congress to "get the Pentagon to obey the law," he adds.

Let me get this straight. U.S. troops are fighting two wars, neither of which are going well, and the American Family Association's biggest concern is what kind of magazines the troops can purchase on base? Here's a radical idea: maybe those who wear the uniform and put their lives on the line for their country should be able to read whatever they want.

I find it rather amazing this is even a controversy.

Defense officials "don't want to take porn away from soldiers," says Patrick Trueman, a former federal prosecutor who now works with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group. "They say, 'well, 40% of this magazine is sexually explicit pictures, but 60% is writing or advertising, so the totality is not sexually explicit.' That's ridiculous."

Actually, what's ridiculous is that Congress wasted its time on this a decade ago, and the AFA is wasting its time on this now.

As the ACLU's Nadine Strossen put it. "We're asking these people to risk their lives to defend our Constitution's principles ... and they're being denied their own First Amendment rights to choose what they read."

Digg!

Tagged as: religious right, pornography, us military, wildmon

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Oh No! The Dictionary Has a Liberal Bias!
Is nothing sacred?
Post by Roy Edroso. July 5, 2009.
Amid 2012 Hopefuls' Career Implosions, Future Looks Bleak for GOP
Where are they going from here?
Post by Booman. July 5, 2009.
Yes Men Say No to Jerusalem Film Festival
The famous political pranksters withdraw latest flick in support of divestment movement.
Post by Staff. July 4, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
All Dreams Would Be RIGHT if I Was
Posted by: Turiye on Nov 5, 2007 5:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only In AMERICA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» no longer 'and army of one' Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Funny
Posted by: Q30 on Nov 5, 2007 5:07 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recall a number of articles on Alternet which claimed that violence & warfare exists precisely BECAUSE OF pornography.

Not that anyone takes the anti-porn feminists here very seriously, of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Funny Posted by: beedogs
» Here ya go Posted by: Tombo
» RE: Funny Posted by: Urgelt
Amazing. DOD also has banned troops from using prostitutes.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 5, 2007 6:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14644
So troops get to stay overseas in warzones for excessive amounts of time. Rotations have changed. People are re-deployed contrary to original contracts and practices. So they are away from their partner, or from normal activities, for months. And you cannot use prostitutes, even in countries where prostitution is legal. And now cannot even use porn? Gee, wonder why troops might be having hair-triggers and shooting at non-combantants? I'm not saying it is 'right' and I will get flamed, probably, but sex and emotional relationships are natural urges for people (men&women). Not being allowed any form of 'sexual release', companionship, or emotional involvement with others (sans almost being killed by an ied or being in a foxhole under fire) is bound to led to mental problems......a ridiculous rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» a band of brothers Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Does war-porn count?
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 5, 2007 6:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a whole lot of boomer born-agains worried about wage slave consumers of sex-porn, but there's not much furor over producers and hosts of websites with snuff-esque videos of people getting killed and things getting blown up.

Is freedom of consumption more, or less, sacred than freedom of expression?

What about soccer-mom assassination teams?

Burger King® says in its new TV commercial ("Hitmoms out to whack The King") that it's okay for soccer/security moms to hire hitmen to torture and kill their mascot.

Torture it... Kill it... As long as it sells more burgers.

Witness the dark heart of the corporate American dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Okay, so some boomers are funny Posted by: eddie torres
Say wha?
Posted by: Zenobia on Nov 5, 2007 7:43 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I were one of the 90% of female soldiers being subjected to sexual harassment and/or sexual assault by my own unit, which the military is not taking seriously at all, and for which the women themselves are being blamed and punished in some cases...

If I were one of these women and I found the my co-worker soldiers' damn objectifying, indoctrinating CRAP, I can think of several ways I'd express MYself by doing some creative masochistic stunts to them WITH the actual materials in their sleep.

How are you supposed to look at SOME women as chunks of ground round, but not others? How are you supposed use just SOME women as sexual servants/sex objects, but then take your co-workers in close, tense quarters as your EQUALS? GET REAL!!!!!!!

But it is always about the guys' "rights" and the guys' so-called "freedoms." Our rights to EXIST as human beings, not THINGS, our right to be FREE of harassment and lecherous gazes, our right to be taken seriously with dignity---these FREEDOMS and rights never enter the debate.

If you read workplace sexual harassment laws stateside, they INCLUDE protections against sexist IMAGERY. When you are in the military, when do you cease to be on work premises?

Hustler is not liberalism. Hustler is following the Bible quite well, as far as I can see---all those passages that say women are to be subject to men. THAT is a conservative position. The Christian right should be the ones embracing the porn, as it does a very good job of keeping women in their "place," as servants of men, JUST LIKE THE ‘GOOD BOOK’ SAYS. Oh wait--where does all that money made from porn go again? Whose pockets does it line? I gave those links in another post. It ain't Greenpeace.

And why are so many Alternet readers so quick to denounce commercialism and greed EXCEPT when it is women's bodies that are the product? What a double standard.

For extensive research on how exposure to sexist magazine ads, music videos and pornography featuring women as sex objects produces a stronger acceptance of sex role stereotyping and rape myths among male undergraduates, in controlled studies, see the American Psychological Association's 2007 report entitled:

"Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls."
It is 72 pages long, and available online at
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexualization.html
These specific studies are to be found on approximately pages 30-38. The researchers include experts from San Francisco State and UC Santa Cruz, not exactly Bringham Young-type places.

And may all those men who do have the empathy and cognitive voltage to understand what it means to treat women with respect and equality---get all the dates in the world, or one true love if they prefer. A-wo-men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Say wha? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Say wha? Posted by: El Hombre Malo
» what the hell. Posted by: Deathfrogg
» RE: Say wha? Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: Say wha? Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
Over/under
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Nov 5, 2007 9:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
on the # of skeletons in Mr. Wildmon's closet is set at 14.

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jouissance
Posted by: talkville on Nov 6, 2007 2:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The soldiers are merely 'grist for the mill', the 'fodder' and the means; they need to pay attention to the tasks of conquest and occupation. The Masters of War are more than sufficiently ecstatic and orgasmic with the porn already available on the battle-fields.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wow, i wish we fought this hard for other things
Posted by: easter on Nov 6, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how about lets not use so much energy to defend something that most psychologists agree is harmful to the population
here is one article from the apa: http://www.apa.org/releases/sexualization.html
and forget about the claim that , just like a man who "chooses" selling drugs a woman who actually made a choice to be in porn probably didn't have a whole hell of a lot of choices(and we know that many of them do NOT choose this but are forced, this is what I study, it is undeniable). also, think about how hard the progressives fight against war, poverty, racism, pollution-but why does it stop at sexism? why is it womens groups are relegated to sewing bees circles and reproductive rights issues? why is it that the feminists seems so RADICAL compared to the rest of this radical talk we all know is necessary? you may want to consider that half of the population is not seen as human like as the rest, why do you suppose they are seen as objects and not taken seriously? forget the scientists though, only when they suit your agenda, your just like the corporations, go find the scientists that agree with porn and ignore the vast amount of data from others. Think about it, we disdain what is vulnerable, what is feminine this includes caring about poverty, war, pollution,torture. Those who choose objectification (as if choosing it makes it right) choose to be for that which doesn't care , that which is very masculine, it doesnt matter if its men or women. By why listen to the scientists, no one ever does.
and masturbating while reading Kant? are you sure that he is covering up a porno with a book sleeve? You are aware Kant died a virgin and would probably be utterly confused and offended at your remark?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stormy7
Posted by: STORMY78 on Nov 6, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there have been over 1.500 reported sexual assaults on female soldiers in iraq. not one single conviction!
why the hell is porn allowed in a co-ed military, the majority being men, who are aroused by the depiction of women who are degraded and objectified by men in general?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: stormy7 Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: stormy7 Posted by: amberthyst
» because to Mr. AM VET, Posted by: goatini