A congressman cracks down on soft porn at the PX

Taken from Newsweek.com on 8 May 2008:

You know something's wrong when the word areola appears in a bill circulating on Capitol Hill. Republican Congressman Paul Broun, the representative from Georgia's 10th District, wants to stop the sale of Playboy and Penthouse at military bases around the world, invoking an argument that at the very least is scientifically questionable: that consuming even soft pornography makes men more prone to committing sex crimes. A doctor by profession, Broun says he began drafting the bill after a constituent described her distress at having watched, along with her young children, an officer buy a nudie magazine at a military 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.

Congress already has a law from 1996 banning the sale of "sexually explicit" material on military bases. But deciding what qualifies as sexually explicit was left to a Department of Defense review board, which gathers periodically to examine a range of magazines and DVDs. In its review two years ago the board banned such titles as Bootylicious and Juggs but decided that Penthouse has enough nonsexual content to be acceptable (Playboy had already been allowed). Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, a Pentagon spokesman, said the board members are kept anonymous in order not to expose them to outside pressure but have included active, reserve and retired members of the military, military spouses, members of dual-military couples and DoD civilians. "The board is very disciplined in adhering to the definitions described in the Instruction [from Congress], and has access to legal counsel to assist members in interpreting the law and the Instruction," Melnyk said in an
e-mail.

Broun, who is 61, wants to take away the board's discretion by inserting into the old law some new language delineating terms like "sexually explicit." His bill gets (readers be warned) blush-inducingly specific. It defines nudity, for instance, as the display of "human genitals, pubic area, anus, anal cleft, or any part of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola."

Even for people who support the congressman from Georgia (he has attracted 16 co-sponsors since introducing the bill April 16), it must be hard not to conclude that he's fighting yesterday's war. Judd Anstey, the public relations manager for the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), says the combined sales of Playboy and Penthouse at bases around the world last year amounted to less than 3 percent of AAFES's total magazine sales. (Magazines generally make up only a small part of sales by AAFES stores, which stock everything from candy bars to plasma TVs.) For Broun's generation the pictures in Playboy and Penthouse were probably the dirtiest things around. In the Internet age GIs with laptops are never more than a couple of clicks away from much raunchier porn. Broun says the point is pornography shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers. And he insists nudie magazines have taken a toll on the armed services. "Sexual assault is going up within the military, and I certainly think there's a very high likelihood the pornography being sold in military PXs is contributing to that," he says. Both points are off the mark

Bill: Stop selling Playboy, Penthouse on base

Taken from Army Times (5 May 2008):

By Karen Jowers - Staff writer, Posted : Thursday Apr 24, 2008 8:21:42
EDT

Concerned that the military is selling pornography in exchange stores in spite of a ban, one lawmaker has introduced a bill to clean up the matter.

“Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., unveiling his House bill April 16.

His Military Honor and Decency Act would amend a provision of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act that banned sales of “sexually explicit material” on military bases.

The new language would “close existing loopholes” in regulations to bring the military “into compliance with the intent of the 1997 law,” Broun said.

“Allowing 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 said. Broun said he wants to bring the Defense Department into compliance with the intent of the 1997 law “so that taxpayers will not be footing the costs of distributing pornography.”

Exchange officials noted that tax dollars are not used to procure magazines in the system’s largely self-funded operations.

But Broun’s spokesman John Kennedy contended that taxpayer dollars are involved — “used to pay military salaries, so taxpayer money is, in effect, being used to buy these materials,” he said.

Broun’s bill, which has 15 co-sponsors and has been referred to the House Armed Services Committee for consideration, would tighten the definition of pornography. One part of the provision states that if a print publication is a periodical, it would be considered sexually explicit if “it regularly features or gives prominence to nudity or sexual or excretory activities or organs in a lascivious way.”

Previously, defense officials have said, they do not consider nudity in itself to be “lascivious.”

“It’s not our intent to have an art magazine banned,” Kennedy said. “Our intention is to enforce the 1997 law so that magazines are banned that feature nudity in a way to develop a prurient interest in a reader.”

He said Broun has specifically named Playboy and Penthouse because those two publications “were always intended to be banned and will now be covered.” Playboy was determined not to be sexually explicit by the Defense Department’s Resale Activities Board of Review.

Although Penthouse initially was banned, new ownership and a new editing team have revised its format, and the Defense Department board allowed it to return to exchanges after another review last year.

“Few people will contest the notion that Playboy and Penthouse and others are sexually explicit,”

Kennedy said. “However, DoD officials with a wink and a nod do not find that these rise to the definition.”

Kennedy said Broun “is a medical doctor and ‘addictionologist’ who is familiar with the negative consequences associated with long-term exposure to pornography,” especially women in the military “who have to deal with this.” Until now, the board has been required to review only newly submitted material, and also reconsider material banned for at least five years, at the request of the publication.

Broun’s proposed legislation would require the Defense Department to annually review all material that is not deemed sexually explicit now, and is therefore allowed in military stores, to determine if it should be prohibited.

The board did not meet between 2000 and 2005, Broun said. In 2006, the Defense Department changed its policy to let banned material be resubmitted for review every five years.

Former Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione challenged the 1997 law in court, claiming it violated his free-speech rights by using government bureaucrats as censors.

A U.S. district court judge agreed and barred enforcement of the law. But a divided appeals court overruled, saying military exchanges are “nonpublic forums in which the government may restrict the content of speech.”

The Supreme Court sided with the appeals court and declined to hear the case in June 1998.

DoD Response to Alliance Defense Fund

This is the response from the DoD in regards to the Alliance Defense Fund letter in the previous post. Here is the link: ConstitutionallyCorrect.com. Here is the text:

Mr. Alan E. Sears
President, CEO & General Counsel
Alliance Defense Fund
15333 N. Pima Road, Suite 165
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

Dear Mr. Sears:

Thank you for your letter dated May 4 to the Secretary of Defense concerning the periodicals and videos sold in military exchange stores. Since Departments of Defense (DoD) policy on this issue falls within my purview, I am responding.

The Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 (the Act), 10 U.S.C. 2489a, prohibits the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on property under DoD jurisdiction and requires the established Resale Activities Board of Review (the "Board"), which reviews material offered for sale or rental on property under DoD jurisdiction to ensure that it is not sexually explicit as defined by the Act.

Pursuant to the Department of Defense Instruction 4105.70, "Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD Property," the Board reviewed Celebrity Skin, Penthouse, and Playmates In Bed and determined that, based solely on the totality of each magazine's contect, they were not sexually explicit. Therefore, the sale of these magazines on DoD property is permissible. The Board recently determined that all "Peach Video DVD's" shall be considered sexually explicit which include, "Blonde and Beyond," "Girls Night In," "Import Skin," "Sex Symbols," and "Wet." Therefore, the sale of these videos on DoD property is not permissible.

We have notified the Board and have asked that it expeditiously review Curves, FHM, Hot Shots 2007 by Playboy, Playboy's Vixen, and XXX. The Board will review these items to determine if they are sexually explicit, and will advise the exchanges to cease selling these items until the Board has made its determination.

I trust this information proves helpful.

Sincerely,

Leslye A. Arsht
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Military Community and Family Policy)

Letter to Secretary of Defense Gates

We have the text of the letter written to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates by the Alliance Defense Fund. We at FixAAFES.org highly encourage you to support this letter and let your petition be known. Here is the link to the PDF file: AllianceAlert.org. Below is the text:

The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense
Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301

Dear Secretary Gates,
Greetings and thank you for your dedication and commitment to America’s service men and women and their families. During this time in our history when so much is being required of our Armed Forces, they deserve no less than the utmost respect and thanks from each and every one of us. They selflessly give their best to us day in and day out. These men and women of honor and integrity also deserve our best in return.

Several years ago in an effort to ensure our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines had the best environment in which to work and raise their families, the 1996 Military Honor and Decency Act was enacted by Congress, 10 U.S.C. § 2489. The Act banned the sale or rental of "sexually explicit material" on U.S. military installations or in military exchange stores such as AAFES, NEX and MCEX. The statute defines "sexually explicit material" to include recordings, films, videos, periodicals with visual depictions, or materials "produced in any medium, the dominant theme of which depicts or describes nudity, including sexual or excretory activities or organs, in a lascivious way." Congress could not have spoken more plainly when it passed the Military Honor and Decency Act. This type of material is not appropriate or in keeping with the military’s values of honor and integrity- core values of every branch of service of the United States Armed Forces.

We were troubled to learn from service members and their families that, despite the law on the books, these types of materials are widely available on U.S. military installations. A survey was conducted of various military bases and we have confirmed that materials prohibited under the Military Honor and Decency Act are being sold. Sadly, it seems true, that the Act is not being enforced by the Department of Defense.

The following is a small sampling of what is prohibited under the law but currently available for sale, according to first-hand witnesses:
Andrews Air Force Base: Playboy, Penthouse, Perfect 10, Playboy College Girls, Nude Playmates, FHM, Celebrity Skin, Playboy’s Vixens.
Edwards Air Force Base: Playboy, Playboy College Girls, FHM, Playboy’s Vixens.

Fort Bragg: XXX, Playboy College Girls, Perfect 10, Curves, FHM.
Fort Knox: Playboy, Penthouse, Nude, Perfect 10, Playboy’s Vixens.
Pearl Harbor: Playboy, Perfect 10.
Pentagon: FHM
United States Military Academy: Perfect 10, Playboy Lingerie, Hot Shots 2007 by Playboy, Playmates in Bed
United States Air Force Academy: Playboy, Lingerie, Playboy’s Vixens, Playboy’s College Girls, Nude, Perfect 10, Curves

There were very important reasons that motivated Congress to pass the Military Honor and Decency Act. Families and children frequent military exchanges and were exposed to pornography. Sexual harassment experienced by military service women was a major concern. The fact that materials sold in military exchanges predominately depicted sexually exploitive images of females is linked to such harassment. Pornography’s destructive impact on individuals and on marriages was a primary concern. Married life combined with the rigors of military life is difficult enough without adding easy access to pornography to the strain. News articles reveal that addiction to pornography is becoming a significant problem among servicemen. There are reports from chaplains that this addiction is becoming a theme among those they counsel. Military law enforcement officials are seeing more service members arrested and/or charged with the sexual abuse of a child. These problems have escalated during the period of non-enforcement of the Military Honor and Decency Act. When it was signed into law, there was overwhelming support for this important legislation because of the evidence demonstrating its necessity.

Military exchanges in the Middle East do not sell sexually exploitive materials out of respect of Middle Eastern values. Yet, while American values also do not support the sexual exploitation of women, respect is not being shown of our own beliefs of honor and integrity for every individual. Even though the law is on the books, the Department of Defense has not enforced it properly.

We, the undersigned, appreciate the opportunity to apprise you of the current situation. We also appreciate your consideration of the concerns outlined in this letter. It would be our hope to meet with you privately at your earliest convenience to learn how we can support an effort to immediately enforce the Military Honor and Decency Act. We believe in your commitment of nothing but the best for our brave service men and women and their families. Please affirm that commitment by enforcing this important law.

Thank you very much. We look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Sincerely,
Alan E. Sears
Former Executive Director
Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography

Bryan Wickens
President
Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana, Inc. ("ROCK")
Louisville, Kentucky

Patrick A. Trueman
Former Chief
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
U.S. Dept. of Justice

cc:
AAFES: MG Bill Essex, Commander
NEX: Rear Admiral R.E. Crowley, III, Commander
MCX: BG (ret) Michael Downs, Director

Military Defends Ruling on Sales of Adult Material on DOD Property

Taken from Stars and Stripes (15 SEP 2007):

By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Saturday, September 15, 2007

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Defense Department and a Christian group are at odds over whether adult material sold on department property should instead be banned.

The Military Honor and Decency Act prohibits sexually explicit material from being sold in military exchanges and elsewhere on Defense Department property, said department spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk. But a department review board is tasked with determining what material is considered explicit and what is permitted.

Since 1998, the review board has reviewed 473 titles and deemed 319, or about 67 percent, to be sexually explicit, Melnyk said. The board had previously banned Penthouse and Playgirl as explicit material, but reversed those decisions in May 2006.

The Christian group Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates in May that protested the sale of those and other adult magazines at military exchanges, saying they violated the decency act.

But the review board had already determined that “based solely on each of the magazines’ content, they were not sexually explicit,” Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for military community and family policy Leslye Arsht said in a response to the group.

Figuring out which adult magazines and other material cross the line on sexually explicit material is a delicate balancing act, Melnyk said.

“The Department of Defense is committed to upholding both the Military Honor and Decency Act, and publishers’ and readers’ First Amendment protections, which the men and women of the United States Armed Forces defend every day,” Melnyk said.

In her letter, Arsht did not elaborate how the board came to the conclusion that the magazines are not sexually explicit, but cited the “Peach Video DVDs” as examples of material that cannot be sold on exchanges.

But Patrick A. Trueman, attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the members of the review board need to use “a little common sense” in determining which materials cannot be sold on Defense Department property.

“The law is not complicated in its definition of ‘sexually explicit,’ ” Trueman said. “The porn magazines that are allowed such as ‘Nude Playmates,’ ‘Playboy,’ ‘Penthouse,’ etc. are sexually explicit.”

Trueman also noted that Congress has the ability to limit troops’ First Amendment rights: “Military men and woman are not permitted to wear anti-war symbols and may be required to shave and wear their hair at a certain length, for example.” He said the intent of the Military Honor and Decency Act is clear.

“Congress was concerned about sexual harassment in the military and making military duty more accommodating to servicewomen,” he said. “It was also attempting to protect military families, particularly children, who frequent the exchanges and should not be exposed to porn.”

The review board consists of representatives from each of the services and their military exchanges, with both men and women members as well as active-duty, reserve and retired servicemembers, Melnyk said.

Anti-porn Groups Decry Exchange Sale Policy

Taken from Army Times (22 SEP 2007):

By Karen Jowers - Staff writer

Upset that the Pentagon allows military exchanges to sell adult magazines such as Penthouse, Celebrity Skin, Playboy’s Vixens and others, more than 40 anti-pornography groups plan to appeal to the Pentagon inspector general.

“The question of selling pornography in military exchanges has been decided by Congress, and the Department of Defense cannot change the law,” said Patrick Trueman, special counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian public interest law firm that is one of the signatories to a May 4 letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Army and Air Force Exchange Service officials said concerns about “adult sophisticate” materials represent a small portion of complaints to AAFES.

Last year, 27 comments — less than 0.2 percent of the 16,344 comments AAFES received — expressed dissatisfaction with the adult sophisticate assortment, spokesman Judd Anstey said. One customer asked for an expanded assortment.

Penthouse returned to military exchanges this summer 10 years after a Pentagon review board banned it as sexually explicit. But the anti-porn groups weren’t spurred by Penthouse alone; other magazines, such as Playboy, were not banned but are still on the groups’ list of targets.

Following a Pentagon rule in late 2006 that allows banned material to be reviewed every five years, Penthouse was reviewed this spring and was reinstated, along with Playgirl and Ultra for Men. Hustler was reviewed again, along with 14 other publications that were deemed to still be sexually explicit and will remain banned from exchanges.

But there has been no change in the law or the Pentagon board’s definitions of “sexually explicit.”

Rather, the change was in the magazine, Penthouse publisher Diane Silberstein said. New owners who took over in 2004 have worked to recreate Penthouse based on the magazine’s “original DNA” when it was launched in 1969, she said.

They hired two research firms, which collected data showing that while men do want to see young women in their entirety, they want more glamour shots, Penthouse representatives said.

“Men are attracted to the magazine by beautiful women ... and stay because they want to read the articles,” she said. They didn’t revamp the magazine in an effort specifically to get it back into military exchanges, she said, but simply “created the best magazine for the marketplace.”

However, she noted, Penthouse “has had a long relationship with the military.” The magazine wrote about issues confronting veterans after the Vietnam War, such as Agent Orange exposure.

“We’re also doing a number of articles to support returning vets” of the current wars, she said, to include an in-depth article on debt in the military.

“Penthouse is thrilled to be back on military bases,” she said.

By July, it was back in more than 500 exchange outlets worldwide, including in the Iraq and Afghanistan combat zones. Sales figures are not available yet.

Penthouse was one of more than 200 publications banned in the late 1990s by the Resale Activities Board of Review as a result of the 1996 Military Honor and Decency Act, which prohibits the sale of “sexually explicit material,” to include audio recordings, films, videos or periodicals, in military resale outlets.

Sexually explicit material is defined as having “as a dominant theme the depiction or description of nudity, including sexual or excretory activities or organs, in a lascivious way.”

The law does not affect troops’ ability to buy adult material in stores outside installations or to purchase subscriptions.

In response to the groups’ complaints, Leslye Arsht, deputy undersecretary of defense for military community and family policy, wrote that the board reviewed Celebrity Skin, Penthouse, Perfect 10, Playboy, Playboy’s College Girls, Playboy’s Lingerie, Nude, Nude Playmates and Playmates in Bed — “and determined that, based solely on the totality of each magazine’s content, they were not sexually explicit.”

As such, their sale in exchanges “is permissible,” Arsht wrote in a letter to the groups last month.

At press time, defense officials had no comment on how many magazines and other materials have been reviewed since defense officials decided late last year that publishers could request a new review once they had been banned for five years.

The board’s interpretation makes “no sense,” Trueman said. The Alliance Defense Fund and the other groups contend that Playboy, Penthouse, Perfect 10 and a host of other publications and videos sold in the exchanges are prohibited by the law.

“Who reviews the review board? I wonder if there are any military wives on this review board,” he said. “You hear people say, ‘I only buy it for the articles,’ but who believes that?

“How could a person with any ... common sense say these are not sexually explicit? The Department of Defense feels awkward about taking porn away from service members.”

He cited incidents of sexual harassment in the military and other problems that he contends are exacerbated by pornography.

“I know from my 20 years as a prosecutor and as an activist that men involved in porn look at women in a different way,” he said. “At the military academies, they’re selling the same magazines. Don’t women deserve to be safe in that environment?”

While Trueman was serving as chief of the child exploitation and obscenity section in the criminal division of the Justice Department, he said, he tried unsuccessfully to get Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to issue executive orders banning porn in military exchanges. He later supported the 1996 law.

The groups were prompted to complain to Gates, Trueman said, after concerns were raised this spring by some troops and their families that porn was still sold in exchanges.

Army wife MaryAnn Gramig, who lives at Fort Knox, Ky., and is the research and policy director for the nonprofit organization Rock: Building Stronger Communities and Families, said she surveyed a number of exchanges by phone, including those at the academies, after some complaints were raised.

“I happened to be a military spouse working for a pro-family group,” she said.

But she’s long been aware of adult materials sold in the exchange at her own base, she said.

“I have three children, and we shop at the exchange. I don’t let them go to the periodical section without me,” she said. “There’s enough stress on the military and families. This doesn’t help.”

Guccione Loses Appeal on Military Ban - Bob Guccione, Penthouse Cannot be Sold on Military Bases

Taken from FindArticles.com (Article Date: 1 March 1998):

If the federal government has its way, Bob Guccione's going to have to peddle his Penthouse somewhere else. The government recently won a federal appeals decision upholding a ban on selling adult titles in military exchanges.

The ban, officially called the Military Honor and Decency Act, was part of a 1996 defense bill and prohibits exchanges from selling what it defines as "sexually explicit material."

Thought by some legal scholars to be unconstitutional, the ban was initially overturned in early 1997. But the government appealed, and won a two-to-one panel decision in the Second Circuit last November. Now, attorneys for Guccione have filed their own counter-appeal seeking an en banc hearing (meaning all Second Circuit judges would hear, and rule on, the case). If that request is denied, Guccione's vowing to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"For any ordinary shop in the United States, we would agree with their right to carry or not carry any product for sale," Guccione says. "But when you force stores, through an act of Congress, to take a group of magazines and audiotapes and videotapes off the shelves, that is a First Amendment issue and clearly an act of censorship."

Supporters of the ban point out that it doesn't prohibit people in the military from buying the magazines off-base or subscribing to them. It merely bans the titles from being sold in base exchanges.

In 1997, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, which runs all exchanges for those two branches, sold some $57 million in magazines, according to a spokesman. In exchanges around the world, AAFES carries 122 adult titles, accounting for 18 percent of total sales, though most stores only carry about five. Those titles are still currently on the shelves.

Lawrence Savell, a media law specialist at the New York City firm of Chadbourne & Park, says he thinks Guccione's appeal has merit. "Under classic First Amendment analysis, this [ban] wouldn't hold up," Savell says. "When you start distinguishing between different types of material, that undermines the legitimacy of the statute." He points out that the law as it's currently written would not ban a book containing erotic content, but would ban an audio recording of that book. Similarly, Penthouse is banned, but a book containing images from Penthouse would not be.

DOD Radio and TV has Higher Standard Than AAFES

This excerpt from DOD Directive 5120.20 shows that the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) has restrictions that regulate what can be broadcasted. Pornography, explicit music, and explicit videos are all banned from broadcasting. Not only are these, but deviant and socially unacceptable behavior is also prohibited. Why can't AAFES apply similar standards to its product catalogue? If it is freedom of speech they claim as their reasoning, then why is there regulation of AFRTS? If it is inappropriate for AFRTS, then it is inappropriate for AAFES. There is absolutely no difference in what customers are authorized for both services and both have a captive audience of military families and service members.

C4.10. UNAUTHORIZED PROGRAMS and PROGRAM MATERIAL

C4.10.1. Pornographic Materials.

The airing, reproduction, or mere existence of audio and/or video pornographic materials within the premises of any AFRTS facility is prohibited. The airing, reproduction, or exhibition of any such materials within an AFRTS facility shall also be punishable under provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

C4.10.2. Demeaning Audio or Video Materials.

The airing or reproduction of any unauthorized audio or video program materials within an AFRTS facility shall also constitute a violation of this Regulation. Examples of such materials are: racist propaganda; audio/video materials whose sole purpose is to demean any race, gender, nationality, or religion; materials promoting the use of drugs or alcohol, or promoting deviant or socially unacceptable behavior; material promoting religious cults; material promoting the overthrow of governments.

C4.10.3. Lyrics Alert Labeling.
Outlets shall not air any song that is labeled with a "Lyrics Alert," "Very Explicit Lyrics" or similar notice. These music industry alerts are used to label songs that contain lyrics that may violate existing U.S. broadcast law and/or relevant community standards of good taste. Outlets shall report songs without alerts that include offensive swear words, racially demeaning language, lyrics that encourage drug use, sexual abuse or harassment, to AFRTS-BC.

Pornography Promotes Rape and Aggression Towards Women

According to the following studies, there is strong evidence that shows a direct correlation between pornography and sexual aggression towards women. According to this statistical analysis, AAFES has a choice to make. They can choose profit by selling pornography or they can choose to aid in the protection against sexual harassment and sexual abuse by not selling pornography. This article is taken from KTK.ru:

Gray, Susan (1982)
"Levels of aggression in already-angered men are increased by exposure to hard-core materials."

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Research conducted involving 36 serial murderers revealed that 81% (29/36) reported pornography as one of their highest sexual interests, making pornography one of the most common profile characteristics of serial murderers.

Dr. William Marshall (1983)
He found that 86% of rapists admitted regular use of pornography, with 57% admitting actual imitation of pornography scenes in commission of sex crimes.

Malamuth (1981)
Responses found to characterize (convicted) rapists were:
1) general acceptance of rape myths, and
2) high arousal to rape depictions.

He studied male college students, asking them, "How likely would you be to rape if you knew you would not be caught?" --35% indicated they would.

Malamuth and Check (1985)
After studying 307 students, they concluded that "media depictions (pornography) suggesting that (showing that) rape results in the victim's arousal contributes to men's belief in a similar rape myth -- particularly men with higher inclinations to aggress against women."

Victor Cline, Ph.D. (Utah Psychologist)
He identified a common pattern of progression with many pornography users (sex offenders):
1. addiction to hard core pornography;
2. escalation in the need for more shocking material;
3. desensitization toward initially shocking material; and
4. an increased tendency to "act out" sexual activities

Zillmann, Dolf (1982)
Findings show that massive exposure (4 hours forty minutes over six weeks) to standard pornography (people having consensual, nonviolent sex) resulted in
1. a loss of compassion toward women as rape victims and toward women in general;
2. a loss of concern about the effects of pornography on others;
3. a need for more violent and bizarre forms of sex;
4. a desensitization to violent, non-coercive hard core pornography; and
5. a trivialization of rape.

Michigan State Police ( Lt. Darrell H. Pope)
Studied and recorded the use of pornography in sex crimes. He researched 48,000 sex crimes spanning a 20 year period (1956-1979). (Research was done in 1977, replicated in 1981).

In 42% of the 48,000 sex crimes investigated, police indicated that pornography was involved -- used just prior to, or during the act of sexual assault -- as stated by the victim or the offender.

Silbert and Pines (1984)
A detailed content analysis of 193 cases of rape and of 178 cases of juvenile sexual abuse revealed a clear relationship between violent pornography and sexual abuse.

Goldstein, Kant and Harman (1973)
Rapists are 15 times as likely as non-offenders (30% to 2%) to have had exposure to "hard core" pornography during childhood or between 6 to 10 years of age. They also tended to report an earlier age of "peak experience" with pornography."

It is highly likely, based upon McGaugh's studies on memory, that the early experiences "stood out in the minds" of these children because of the release of the chemical epinephrine during their emotional arousal. This makes these findings even more disturbing.

The correlation investigations show, that porno materials can provoke a man to behave aggressively with a woman. As J. Court (1984) mentioned, during 1960-1970 the quantity of rapes has sharply increased after the widespread distribution of porno materials. Such tendency was not observed only in those regions of the world, where pornography distribution was under control. Here are some examples: at Hawaii the quantity of rapes increased in 9 times, than decreased (a temporary limit on pornography was introduced), than increased again (after the cancellation of the limit on pornography). The example of northern American States shows, that the selling rate of magazines with sexual content is in strict correlation with rape statistics (the quantity of young people and other factors were taken into account). Alaska was the first at selling sex-magazines and also at rapes, Nevada was at the second place, and so on. Sexual criminals are usually an active consumers of such products. People, who were condemned for sexual harassment to children, had watched porno films much more often, than those, who haven’t committed such crimes. The same is true with the serial killers (according to FBI data). One can suppose, that the consumption of porno products is the consequence (and not the cause) of some psychological deviation. But laboratory experiments indicate quite clear dependencies: the analysis of 21 experiments in this field allows to conclude, that watching porno materials, especially containing violence scenes, fosters aggressive attitude to women.

Troops Weigh in on Sale of Sexually Explicit Materials

Article taken from ArmyTimes.com:

A consumer group of enlisted members and officers should be formed “to help analyze material for decency,” in addition to the senior civilians who weed out sexually explicit magazines, videos and audio materials from the shelves of military stores.

That’s what one person suggested to Defense Department officials during their periodic review and updating of procedures for reviewing sexually explicit materials.

Nice try.

“Forming the suggested consumer group is unnecessary,” defense officials wrote in their response to that comment, included with others in the Nov. 15 edition of the Federal Register.

“The Resale Activities Board of Review includes civilian representatives from the Army, Navy, and Air Force who are capable of identifying sexually explicit material,” officials said.

The updated rule includes one new policy change that will open the door to reconsideration of some materials that have been previously rejected. Materials that have been determined by the board to be sexually explicit can be submitted for reconsideration every five years.

The Defense Department regulations are simply carrying out the Military Honor and Decency Act, passed by Congress 10 years ago. The law, spearheaded by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., has been challenged, but has been upheld in federal court.

Judging from the public comments in the Federal Register, it’s clear that many people are unaware of the law — and are surprised and concerned when they hear about it.

“I don’t want regulations on what I look at,” one service member wrote.

Others expressed concern about censorship and restrictions on free speech.

But as defense officials wrote in response to every one of these concerns, the regulation “does not prohibit the possession or viewing of the sexually explicit material” by military personnel or Defense Department civilian employees.

It only “prohibits the sale of sexually explicit material on property” under Defense Department jurisdiction.

Not everyone opposes the law; in fact one person wants it to go further.

“I don’t see how the barring of sale or rental of pornographic materials is going to help anything,” the person wrote.

If the issue is pornography on property owned by the Defense Department, “then possession of it should be banned entirely.”

Appeals Court Upholds Ban of Sale of Porn at Military Bases

Taken from SFGate.com (Article Date: September 13th, 2002):

A U.S. appeals court in San Francisco today upheld the federal Military Honor and Decency Act, which prohibits the sale or rental of sexually explicit magazines and videos on military bases.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 1996 law does not violate the First Amendment right of free speech.

A three-judge panel said the law is reasonable because it seeks to
restrict the sale of materials "at odds with the military's image of honor,
professionalism and proper decorum.''

The court made its ruling in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose in 1996 by three magazine distributors and three individuals.

The panel affirmed a 1999 ruling in which U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose turned down the magazine distributors' bid for a preliminary injunction.

The law primarily affects post exchanges -- the military stores that are open only to present and former armed services families.

A Department of Defense agency called the Resale Activities Board of Review periodically evaluates materials sold and rented at the exchanges and decides which books, magazines, films and tapes should be banned because they are sexually explicit.

The appeals court said free-speech rights are somewhat restricted at a military exchange because an exchange is not a traditional public forum where free speech is exercised.

The panel said an exchange is not a public forum because the military controls the items stocked and limits public access to the stores.

The 9th Circuit court agreed with a similar ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 1997. Lawyers for the magazine distributors were not immediately available for comment today.

The Pentagon Takes Aim on Pornography

Taken from TFFKY.org (Article date: March 1999):

After a two-year court battle the Pentagon issued an historic directive last Sept. 21 to remove hard-core pornography from U.S. military bases worldwide, including Kentucky’s two bases at Fort Campbell and Fort Knox. The new policy is likely to have a massive effect as the military has been one of the nation’s largest outlets for hard-core pornography.

The sequence of events leading up to the action began in 1996 when Congress passed the Military Honor and Decency Act, banning the sale of sexually explicit material portraying nudity in “a lascivious way.” After a two-year court and appeal process, an eight-member panel was set up by the Department of Defense to decide precisely which materials pass the “lascivious” test.

Publications such as Penthouse and Hustler were found to fail the new guidelines and consequently have been banned from military base commissaries, while Playboy was allowed to remain. Altogether, the eight-member panel ordered 153 sexually explicit publications and videos to be removed from base shelves. Through this first assessment process only 14 items were permitted to remain, but the panel will continue to review material on an ongoing basis, thus making it possible for more to be dropped.

Hard-core pornography was permitted to stay in base stores for two years after the law was challenged by General Media Communications, the publisher of Penthouse magazine. General Media lost its final appeal when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their arguments and let the ban stand.

“Its about time,” said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, author of the Military Honor and Decency Act. “It’s sad that the military had to wait for an act of Congress and more than two years of litigation up to the Supreme Court before it could become a responsible employer and remove this garbage from Department of Defense store shelves.”

According to Fred Bluhm, Chief, Media Branch for the Army Air Force Exchange Service — the supplier of all commissary goods to the U.S. military, the removal of sexually explicit materials will cost base commissaries worldwide at least $10 million dollars per year in sales.

Kentucky’s two major military bases — Fort Campbell and Fort Knox, are home to nearly 50,000 family members who will notice a difference next time they shop at their base store. At Fort Campbell 90 different magazines and videos have been removed from the shelves. Not quite as many were removed from Fort Knox since it is a smaller base and sold fewer of the targeted materials.

Shoppers frequenting the base stores will now be able to navigate through a much more family-friendly atmosphere and peruse the shelves minus scores of sexually offensive material. “If you were to ask the average housewife and family member on base, most would say they welcome the action to remove sexually explicit material from base stores,” says Fort Campbell’s Public Affairs Officer, Lt. Col. Bill Buckner.

Some suggest that removal of the obscene material sends a strong message that the U.S. government is in the business of promoting more than just morale amongst the troops. “The army is values-based,” says Buckner. “It is about respect, honor, integrity, discipline, and courage.”

Porn A Growing Problem in Military (Family.org Article)

Taken from Family.org:

Porn A Growing Problem in Military
from staff reports

Chaplains report an increasing number of confessions from servicemen and women about addiction.

Pornography is causing a problem in the military, with chaplains overseas and at home reporting that an increasing number of servicemen and women are confessing to their pastors about porn's hold on them.

Father Mark Reilly, a Marine Corps chaplain, recently returned from a tour in Iraq where he heard continual confessions from soldiers addicted to porn.

"People will mail them stuff," he told Family News in Focus, "and the Internet is the biggest source of the spread of this addiction I would say."

The combination of war stress and being away from loved ones is a bad mixture for a porn addiction, he explained, adding that curbing the problem starts at home.

"I have trouble with the fact that you can step into the PX and buy pornography," Reilly said. "I don't think our Post Exchanges need to be in the business of peddling porn."

Congress enacted the Military Honor and Decency Act in 1996 to ban the sale of sexually explicit magazines and videos at military stores. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, said the law isn't being enforced.

"When a military base makes available pornography, or condones it, or does nothing about it when it comes in through other areas," she said, "it sort of implies that it's OK with the leadership."

Donnelly said she wants porn in the PX revisited, and it should start with admitting there's a problem.

"Congress is going to have to take a look at this. Certainly the Pentagon is going to have to enforce those rules," she said. "It's a matter of good order and discipline and not just a matter of religion or free speech. It's a matter that the military itself needs to be concerned about."

In the meantime, the only help soldiers are finding is in the confessional and from their chaplains.

Pornography a Problem in the Military (ABC News Article)

Taken from ABCNews.Go.com:

Combating the 'Problem of Pornography'
Divorce rates in the military have risen, especially in the Army, where the number of divorces nearly doubled from 2001 to 2004, according to the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland.

Chaplain Randy Brandt, stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany, said the kits have helped combat the "problem of pornography."

"Even while we were in Iraq, the pervasion of this problem was evident — soldiers had porno CDs they could play on their personal DVDs, and they had sexually suggestive magazines "graciously" donated for the soldiers' entertainment," Brandt said. "The problem is an age-old one with the military: Soldiers are far away from home for a long time, sexual frustration sets in, and the visual stimuli become the easiest release."

But Brandt said the real problem starts when the soldiers return home.

"The soldiers come home, many are addicted to this type of sexual stimulation and either consciously or subconsciously they begin to compare their current relationship with the visual/Internet/virtual reality that they are used to and unfortunately, the real woman — wife or girlfriend — rarely can measure up," Brandt said.

1st Infantry Division General Order #1

When the First Infantry Division deployed to Iraq, the Commanding General, MG John Batiste, issued General Order #1. The purpose of this order is to "identify conduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline while deployed in the Iraqi Theater of Operations."

One of the items identified as prohibited in this order is the use of pornography. Apparently, according to MG Batiste, pornography (to include sexually explicit images and words) affects "good order and discipline" in the ranks of the 1st ID while serving in Iraq. Below are the exact words dealing with sexually explicit items.

4. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES:
c. Possession, transfer, sale, creation, or display of any pornographic or sexually explicit material.
5. DEFINITIONS:
d. Pornography: Any depiction (either by writing or picture) of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement.

Now what does all this mean to AAFES? AAFES is to support the mission of the military. The military is not a career or job, it is a profession. Within this profession, there is a seperate standard - a seperate mission. AAFES' sole job is to support the men and women of the Armed Forces. According to this, their products should be in line with the military mission.

How can Soldiers, who train to fight wars, switch from buying pornography and sexually explicit materials at their local government store (AAFES) and then deploy and be expected to immediatly do away with it altogether? The bottom line is Service Members shouldn't have to. AAFES should be supportive, in-touch with the mission, and make the adjustment.

Censorship

Censorship is the control of speech or other human expression. The freedoms against censorship granted to Americans comes primarily from the First Amendment of the Constitution which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One could almost argue that asking AAFES to not sell pornography or CD's with explicit lyrics is censorship. However, that argument is logically invalid because the First Amendment states that we have the right to say what we want, but it doesn't guarantee us the ability to make a profit off of our speech. You can say what you want, but people don't have to be forced to listen to it or be forced to pay for it. That is why Wal-mart and Target don't sell pornography, because they choose not to.

Also, since AAFES is a government store, it could be argued that the government is censoring products. That just doesn't pass the common sense test. A store can't sell everything - even if it is a government store. It isn't going to sell books that teach us how to build bombs nor is it going to sell books that teach us how to break into government computer servers. AAFES "bans" those books from its product catalogs because they would threaten national security. A store can't sell everything, so by its very nature, even if it is run by the government, it must be selective in what it sells.

Another point. AAFES serves the military. The military doesn't fall under the First Amendment, those rights are actually taken away when you take your Oath of Enlistment or Commission. In fact, the military falls under a totally different judicial code called the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In order to maintain good order and discipline, Congress and the President have powers within the Constitution to limit the speech of Service Members. Some laws in the UCMJ that limit free speech are Articles 88-90. They read as follows:

Article 88:
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 89:
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 90:
Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

Not only to these military laws limit free speech, but they give superiors the ability to tell service members what to do. That is definitely not freedom; it is essential for discipline, however.

So back to AAFES. AAFES serves the military who falls under UCMJ. If AAFES sells products that contradict the spirit of the military, it shouldn't sell them. And if the military commanders or the civilian command authority decides a product undermines discipline in the military, they have every right, under the law, to ban that product. This in no way is censorship, because books are still allowed to be printed, movies are still allowed to be made, and CD's are still allowed to be produced. These companies just aren't going to make a profit on the military who wish to maintain their Honor and Decency.