They Can Handle War, But Not Magazines

“close loopholes in the prohibition on the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on military installations.”

Yep, that loophole is called the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Some schools of feminism would argue that pornography makes rape more likely. I suppose, most of them would argue that, at least, some forms of pornography do potentially increase the propensity to rape. And, it is no secret that rape is used as a weapon of war. I don’t know whether or not there is any real link between rape, the military, and porn, but it’s at least plausible. What if there were a link? Would it still be unacceptable, on principle, to ban porn from military installations? It does infringe on their freedom, but then there are issues of the military being their job/a government entity.

Some schools of feminism would argue that pornography makes rape more likely. I suppose, most of them would argue that, at least, some forms of pornography do potentially increase the propensity to rape. And, it is no secret that rape is used as a weapon of war. I don’t know whether or not there is any real link between rape, the military, and porn, but it’s at least plausible. What if there were a link? Would it still be unacceptable, on principle, to ban porn from military installations? It does infringe on their freedom, but then there are issues of the military being their job/a government entity.

Well, Josh, here’s how I see it: “Some schools of feminism would argue” doesn’t mean squat to me. Ideologues tend not to make much sense. Rape, as anyone knows who’s been paying attention, is occurring in Iraq–even among military personal, and while we don’t make it a policy of war (as far as I know), war brings out the worst in a people and corrupts everything it touches, and rape is just one of many evils this war has brought upon all involved.

What galls me is that we have no problem sending young, horny people to war, to risk life and limb, and have their psyches tortured for years, doing permanent damage to their families–ALL FOR NOTHING!!!–but we object to girlie magazines!

What moral idiots these Republicans be!

P.S. I have a suspicion that you’re one of those moralists that uses the rape argument as a smokescreen for your moralizing because you know that you have no real argument, only one based on an archaic moral code.

Semi-related: is anyone running against Monique Davis?

Josh Spinks said:

If it did make soldiers more likely to commit rape, then could it be banned, at least in war zones (I don’t think this is applicable to bases in the US)? Hemant seemed to me (I could be mistaken) to be suggesting that it would not acceptable under any circumstances to disallow porn in the military. I’m of the mind that there are conceivable scenarios where it would be appropriate.

If there are potentially conceivable scenarios where pornography might make soldiers more likely to commit rape, shouldn’t we also ban printed and video media containing content related to peace and peaceful activity, especially in war zones, since it’s conceivable that peace-related media might make soldiers less likely to fight hard when called upon to do so?

Similarly, perhaps there are situations in which humorous media should be kept from military personnel, again in war zones, as lighthearted content runs the risk of making soldiers more likely not to take their duties very seriously. I would think a film such as Stripes would be particularly suspect in this case.

Evidently Congressman Roskam doesn’t trust the military, whose members must, by law, have reached their majority by the time of enlistment, to behave as though they are individuals who have reached their majority. There’s a related question I have heard posed: why are soldiers at eighteen, nineteen, and twenty years of age old enough to vote, and old enough to die for their country, but not old enough to buy a beer? If Congressman Roskam doesn’t trust our soldiers to make correct moral decisions about rape, and fear that, by extension, our soldiers aren’t to be trusted to make correct moral decisions based on the media to which they have access, then why does he trust them to serve in a military capacity to begin with?

A few posts previously, Hemant noted the advertisement in support of the hijab, and how the text of the message suggests that men simply can’t control themselves: they’re doomed to be all over women not wearing head scarves, so cover up, ladies, just like Allah wants you to! It’s sort of the same thing, isn’t it, this legislation proposal? I was planning on seeing the movie Hellboy: The Golden Army next week, but perhaps they better not show the movie to our men and women serving in the military, especially in combat zones. I understand that there’s a character in the film with the power of pyrokinesis, and if they’re not careful, as Congressman Roskam suggests, they might try to perform the same supernatural feat, perhaps with disastrous consequences. Come to think of it, better scratch Iron Man off the list, too. Wouldn’t want our soldiers to run the risk of thinking there’s a suit of armor out there that grants the power of flight.

No kings,

Robert

I’m not suggesting something be banned because it’s conceivable that it could cause a problem; I’m saying it is conceivable, and if it were true, would it still be unacceptable to ban it in the military? I would say that even if porn made people more inclined to rape (I’m not saying this is the case; I don’t have any data on it), it would still not be acceptable to ban it in society in general. But, being on military duty carries special responsibilities – you can’t do everything you would do if you were not on duty – would it be unacceptable to ban porn on principal? I’m talking about hypotheticals, not this specific case, which is just a jumping off point.

Josh Spinks,

By your own admission this is a discussion of the hypothetical, and in the realm of the hypothetical, I submitted two counter examples of conditions that, as you indicate, are “conceivable and if [they] were true.” Would saidr examples also warrant protecting soldiers from themselves: comedy and it’s potential to undermine morale, and media conveying or including messages of peace, and the subsequent same potential?

You suggest that the special condition of being on duty merits consideration in the possible justification of the legislation proposed. I submit that such stipulations already exist, and are enforced by military command. Soldiers on duty, for example, are expected not to drink alcohol, though alcohol itself may be available at base when they are off duty. Since it is conceivable, and if it were true, that soldiers with access to alcohol on base might, while on duty, drink, would that necessitate a discussion of legislation banning alcohol on military bases?

Or would it be sufficient that the UCMJ, already in place, makes provisions for command to monitor its soldiers and regulate, within the confines of the statutes in place, the conduct of those soldiers? A soldier drinking on duty may be processed and punished according to the extant UCMJ; similarly, a soldier who commits rape. So why the need for legislation?

Incidentally, according to the definition of prohibited materials in Roskam’s proposal, items depicting, for example, da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man would be verboten for viewing by soldiers. I would guess—granted, only the purest speculation—but I would guess that there are a fair number of soldiers bearing tattoos depicting some form of human nudity prohibited by Roskam’s proposal. If it’s “conceivable and if it is true,” as you indicate, that exposure to such an image on his own forearm might induce a soldier to commit sexual violence upon a woman, shouldn’t the legislation extend to mandatory laser tattoo removal for those soldiers bearing body art images of, for example, large breasted mermaids? Perhaps with a provision that, once no longer on duty, they may have the tattoo reinstated, only to be removed by laser once more upon resumption of duties? Furthermore, since such would need to take place in official capacity as sanctioned military conduct, the cost of such removals would fall to the United States taxpayer, correct?

No kings,

Robert

Our solders should be relieving their daily stress (or boredom) by wanking off to pictures of our sweet Lord Jesus Christ. What better form of worship could there be? Or perhaps for a little variety, a picture of the Pope or the Virgin Mary. Perhaps Christendom could come up with a list of appropriate Christian visual materials for this purpose. All Christendom wants is complete control in your life to help guide you to everlasting life. I’m surprised they haven’t developed a policy on this yet.

Saying porn increases the likelihood of rape is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve heard on the subject. Porn is a substitute and offers relief for many young Marines on deployment. So it would be more likely to prevent rapes than not. The fact that this is even a debate shows how prudish and mixed up our government and many of our people are, much like the debate over gay rights. I actually talked to a woman once and she said she was “scared” of what Obama might do for gay rights if he was elected… WTF?

Oh and by the way, I’m in Iraq and the internet in my “can” that I pay for blocks any website with nudity or more – not just the internet cafes and such that are free.

Sigh… luckily, I have a small collection to last my time here.