Countless men and women volunteer their service to the United States, for some that means giving up their life. So why is one Senator, and retired Marine, adament about ensuring that service members are stripped of all beautiful images?
Whether deployed overseas or stationed stateside, United States Armed Forces members voluntarily serve their country, selflessly putting their life on the line for the rights and freedoms of others.
It is true, they are provided certain benefits like tax free shopping and lower prices on items such as gasoline and groceries but in exchange for the risks taken, that is but a small token for their hard work and dedication as a whole. Now, one Georgia Senator, Paul Broun, has seem to make it his life's determination to ensure these men and women are reduced to playground rules.
Last year, the Department of Defense (DoD) ruled that soft pornography such as
Playboy and
Penthouse were not in violation of the definition of sexually explicit:
The instruction defines sexually explicit material as "material, the dominant theme of which is the depiction or description of nudity, including sexual or excretory activities or organs in a lascivious way."
Other materials such as
Bootylicious and
Juggs were found to violate this definition and therefore,
banned from sales.
Now, in an effort that runs a high risk in the reduction of moral,
Broun is at it again with the introduction of new legislation that cites the language in the soft porn to be a violation of the
Military Honor and Decency Act.
Broun, a 61-year-old retired Marine began his legal escapade after a female constituent “watched” her own children witness a military officer purchase a “nudie” mag at base exchange store.
"The military teaches to respect officers, and her little kids were seeing this military officer … there in uniform, buying pornography at the PX," Broun told NEWSWEEK.
Since then, he has used unsubstantiated claims that these magazines support sexual assault behaviours.
"Allowing the sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by: escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes; feeding a base addiction; eroding the family as the primary building block of society; and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad," Broun says on his Web site.
His new legislation has many American service members upset, quoting violations of free speech, taking away morale, lumping them all into an elementary aged category and for some, like a symbolic knife to the chest.
Men and women of all ages read the publications for the pictures, the stories, upcoming technology, gadgets and comics. Several quotes from soldiers deployed to different locations, all expressed a common link of disbelief over the potential banning of the softer stuff:
"It's bad enough we are down there to begin with. Taking that away would be like a knife in the chest. I'm not saying I'm depending on Maxim to keep me alive over there, but it helps.
"We're all adults here, and if it's something we want to do, we should feel free to choose as we please."
"I believe it's a breach of freedom of speech,"
"men's magazines build morale"
"There are times we just read 'em for the technological parts like the new gadgets that come out. They have good stories sometimes too."
Many others said they would comply if the DoD made it mandatory. Supporters of the ban feel that military members should uphold a higher standard of living than the average American such as a healthy lifestyle.
Broun's attempt to bypass the DoD board review of "sexually explicit" terminology by implementing new definitions of the term into the law, defining nudity as displaying:
"human genitals, pubic area, anus, anal cleft, or any part of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola."
So, the ultra-right moral policeman from Georgia and his re-election agenda may get the votes of some religious fanatics but the response from those who serve and protect his judgemental hiney are not feeling the love.
Studies show no correlation between
Playboy or
Penthouse and sexual assault numbers, which Broun claims to be part of his reason for the ban. Furthermore, could that same woman and her children have gone into the friendly neighbourhood convenience store just outside of the base and witnessed the same military officer purchasing
Cheri or
Bad Attitude (look that one up if you don't know)? Absolutely.
What then, a military police action to cordon off 30-mile parameter of the base to prevent the sale of any materials that contain nudity or sexual language, especially when many states already seal these magazines in plastic.
To serve and protect our country, voluntarily only to be prevented access to anything but Veggie Tales and pre-approved religious materials? Future indoctrination of the Armed Forces may be around the corner.
