Don't look! They're naked! No, really, don't look, its against the law.

Congress has solved all the problems of the VA and the military. The equipment shortages and the strain from too many deployments have been fixed. Hallelujah!

At least that's what I have to believe. Because otherwise, I would have to think that these Congressmen, including three from Virginia are just idiots.

SFC SKI puts this perfectly:
It’s good to know that those 16 backers have taken care of all the other problems the military faces and are now taking care of this issue.

Nothing builds up my morale like some know-nothing busybody congressman checking up on conditions at military bases and being able to see the lack of adequate and affordable housing, reduction in base services like affordable childcare, or the various pawn shops, strip bars, and “E-Z credit know money down payday loan” places lining both sides of the entry to a military post, and can see it’s nudie mags in the PX that is the big threat facing “our boys and girls” in uniform. Oh for the day when 18 is considered adulthood, and not some waypoint on the prolonged childhood the nannystaters want it to be.

Co-sponsors of a bill that thinks Playboy and Penthouse are too dangerous for our military.

Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 4/16/2008
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 4/16/2008
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 4/16/2008
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] - 4/16/2008
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 4/16/2008
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] - 4/16/2008
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 4/16/2008
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 4/16/2008
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 4/16/2008
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 4/16/2008
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 4/16/2008
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] - 4/16/2008
Rep Sali, Bill [ID-1] - 4/16/2008
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 4/16/2008
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 4/16/2008
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] - 4/23/2008

Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] , whose district has NO military bases, has decided that because military salaries are paid by taxpayer money, he has to rid bases of what little "pornography" there is. Over at the Ace of Spades, is the money quote:

“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.

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.

What the heck? According to his reasoning, I can't buy anything that he might find offensive, because taxpayer money is involved. His argument is that anyone who draws pay from the Government has to make some sort of accounting on how that money is spent to the persons paying their salary. Would that include government retirement pay too? What's next? Smoking? That would seem more harmful to service members than pictures that might turn them on. What is he buying with his salary? Is he wasting his money on smokes? Alcohol? Big Macs? Hidden desires?

Now, before everyone jumps on me about protecting society about the evils of pornography, the good Congressmen are NOT talking about x-rated material. THAT is already banned from base.
Besides, we are talking about men and women, not children. These are adults. And the base PX's such as AAFES and the Navy Exchange, are NOT run with taxpayer dollars. This busybody needs a life.
Since 1997 AAFES has not sold most "adult magazine" because of a Congressional requirement that bars the sale of sexually explicit material. The Department of Defense has stated that it does not rate nudity in and of itself to be sexually explicit.

Here is the new bill:

Section 2495b of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as (d) and (e), respectively;

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

(c) Annual Review of Materials- At least annually, the Secretary of Defense shall review material that is not deemed to be sexually explicit to determine if such material should be deemed sexually explicit and thus prohibited by this section.';

(3) in subsection (e) (as redesignated)--

(A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

(1) The term `sexually explicit material' means--

(A) an audio recording, a film or video recording, or a print publication with visual depictions, produced in any medium, the principal theme of which depicts or describes nudity or sexual or excretory activities in a lascivious way; or

(B) if the print publication is a periodical, it regularly features or gives prominence to nudity or sexual or excretory activities.'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

(3) The term `principal theme' means a theme that is primary in importance, influence, attraction, or degree but not necessarily dominant relative to other themes in the material.

(4) The term `lascivious' means lewd or indecent and intended, designed, or given to elicit a sexual response.

(5) The term `nudity' means human genitals, pubic area, anus, anal cleft, or any part of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola with less than an opaque covering but does not include the exposure of the cleavage of the female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, bathing suit, or other apparel.'

So, R-rated movies are right out, as is any HBO show like "Sex and the City." FHM and MAXIM magazines, along with the Victoria Secrets catalog are too much for our fine military members.
Since the sexual theme does not have to be dominant, I guess movies like Basic Instinct, Heat, and that Sci-Fi great, Species, must be banned as well.

At Army Times:

“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.”

So, he is saying that women in the military are in danger from men reading Playboy and Penthouse. The same women that are able to enter combat and kill the enemy? That the thoughts generated by these magazines will cause men to harm women? He's worried about men addicted to pornography and think that they read Playboy and Penthouse? Has this man heard of the internet? Does he really think that any idiot that would abuse women would get his ideas from these magazines? And why does he single out men? I've met some very aggressive women in the military. They like porn too.

And why stop there? I've seen the romance novels in the bookstore. I thought men were bad, but some of those romance novels make Penthouse Forum look tame.

And why are the restrictions limited to sex? Have you seen some of these horror movies lately? Now, those are disturbing.

None of this should be banned. These are adult men and women. Even my wife thinks this idea is stupid and she is no fan of pornography of any sort.

And besides, apparently this stuff is good for you (if you're a guy, that is). Contact these Congressional busy bodies and tell them so. I thought better of our representatives. I guess I'm just an innocent.