Violet Blue ponders the new war on porn, aimed right at the US Military
Thursday, November 22, 2007
I didn’t ask to become a military porn fugitive. And yes, maybe I've watched "Blowjob Impossible" a few too many times to be truly objective.
A while back, my longtime friend Tara (not her real name) was dating a guy who was set for his second deployment to Iraq. She was getting ready to go visit him at a base before he left; he was in charge of a group that was about to see some very heavy duty action. Before she left, she asked if I had any porn she could smuggle onto the base for the guys. She told me, “They really need it, and it would make them so happy."
Eager to support our troops, I happily obliged. I hit up all my local connections at porn stores and gathered a pile of donation magazines; the kind with real porn in them, like Leg Show, Black Tail, Juggs and Taboo. I met her at Muddy Waters on Valencia Street to make the exchange; she was late as she’d been caught up on BART trains delayed, ironically, by an anti-war protest taking place downtown. I asked her if that was weird, and she replied smiling, “No! I might protest a bit myself before heading home."
I knew Tara wasn’t kidding. She followed up with me a few weeks later, telling me how much the guys appreciated the porn – they whooped and cheered as it was distributed, and were even more exuberant when they found out it was handpicked by a girl.
I had no idea I’d participated in the breaking of any laws. But I had. And I’d do it again in a red-hot, Barely Legal second.
Porn -- the oft-ridiculous caricature of human sexuality, and most basic sex toy that there is -- is considered by officials as dangerous to our service people as drugs. The Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 prohibits stores on military bases from selling "sexually explicit material." It defines that as film or printed matter "the dominant theme of which depicts or describes nudity" or sexual activities "in a lascivious way." Challenged as a First Amendment violation, the law was upheld by a U.S. appeals court in 2002.
In Iraq, service people are subject toGeneral Order Number 1a (GO-1a) put into effect December 19, 2000:The regulations prohibit conduct “prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline of all forces."GO-1a prohibits a lot of things, such as "controlled substances and drug paraphernalia", gambling, selling or defacing artifacts and national treasures, entry into a Mosque without permission and much more. Including porn. GO-1a expressly prohibits our soldiers from -- or "protects" them from, "Introduction, possession, transfer, sale, creation or display of any pornographic or sexually explicitphotograph, video tapes, movie, drawing, book, magazine, or similar representations." Sure -- go sweat your life into your fatigues guarding a checkpoint that might deliver you a suicide bomber, but get caught with a DVD of "Shaving Ryan's Privates" and you're in trouble. And not the kind that involves shaving anyone's privates, not for fun anyway.
The laws are nearly ten years old, so what's the fuss, Miss Evil Porn Crusader? Well, according to USA Today,the US Military is currently "under fire" for not banning every conceivable kind of porn out there. According to the piece,
“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."
What, exactly, are their anti-porn panties in a collective bunch about if hardcore porn is already banned? Specifically, "Playboy", "Penthouse" and all kinds of other "all-American" adult entertainment. The sponsor of 1996's Decency ActRep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Mdadds cryptically in the USA Today piece"the military is skirting Congress' intent" and notes "the material also could contribute to a hostile environment for female military personnel."
I wonder, what exactly is he suggesting about our servicemen? I'll agree that porn can most certainly be used to create a hostile environment for all genders and orientations, but that's a matter of soldiers' (and officers') conduct; not the porn itself. Porn can't "make" anyone do anything they didn't already want to, and people who rape — and act abusively — will do so, no matter the catalyst or tools they use. "Saturday Night Beaver" is not a gateway drug, nor is it bad for morale. Connecting with explicit human sexuality, as lame (or as delicious) as porn can be, is what keeps us from being machines, killing, defending, or otherwise. Not to mention that enjoying it should be one of the rights they're dying for.
And do these guys think that our servicewomen don’t want porn? It's a pretty entertaining notion to think that our servicemen might be at risk for a hostile environment if military women could only get their hands on a DVD copy of "Rambone".
It's interesting to note that the loudest protests againstGO-1a have come from The Humane Society and other animal companion organizations.GO-1a(.pdf via militarymascots.org) also prohibits soldiers from keeping animals. In fact,in 2005 soldiers confirmed that the US government hired contractors to shoot dogs and cats to carry out this grim set of "good order and discipline" laws. And I'll make the same argument for porn that the Humane Society has made for allowing soldiers to have companions, "But Americans, be they in Baghdad, Beaufort, Billings, or Boston, all know the same truth. The bond between humans and animals does not compromise character or morale. It enhances them."
So while the bond between a serviceperson andSummer Cummings' massive mammaries -- orRocco Siffredi's lethal weapon -- may be fleeting, it's no less valid for morale. Soldiers need to take care of themselves, and wanking is an important part of that. The Pentagon may have stood by Playboy this round, but they dumped 67% of the titles available to service people. I don’t think it's a question of "why does the Pentagon hate the military" but instead, why do conservative groups get to ban our soldiers from the little taste of stateside sex they can get their hands on?
True, I may have seen "Top Buns" too many times. But I know this: masturbation to porn is a healthy form of self-pleasure. And denying it is not. Our soldiers are risking everything for a variety of very confusing and conflicting values. Not everyone is going to agree with their urge to fap to "Clear and Present Dildo", but as Americans, isn’t it their right?
Violet Blue is author and editor of nearly two dozen sexual health books and erotica collections. She is a professional sex educator, lecturer, podcaster, blogger, vlogger, porn/erotica reviewer and machine artist. She has written for outlets ranging from Forbes.com to O, The Oprah Magazine.
Violet is also a fetish model, a member of Survival Research Labs, an author at Metblogs San Francisco; girl friday contributor at Fleshbot.com, a San Francisco native and a Forbes Web Celeb. Her tech site is Techyum; her audio and e-books are at Digita Publications.
For more information and links to Web sites discussed in Open Source Sex, go to Violet Blue's Web site, tinynibbles.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/11/22/violetblue.DTL
No comments:
Post a Comment