The US army and porn. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

He was not responsible for the actions of his spouse but for his own criminal actions.

according to the bogus cid investigation anyway

NBDesign · 12-22-2003, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

The spouses can do as they choose if they do not live in on base housing...or use on base facilities. When they are on base they are required to maintain proper decorum and if they do not...their military spouse will be counselled and it will go in his/her jacket. If the problem persists...it can mean reassignment for him/her and it can even deny him/her re-enlistment.

according to the original post... it is not allowed period.

Quote:

This applies to both on and OFF post residences.

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

The spouses can do as they choose if they do not live in on base housing...or use on base facilities. When they are on base they are required to maintain proper decorum and if they do not...their military spouse will be counselled and it will go in his/her jacket. If the problem persists...it can mean reassignment for him/her and it can even deny him/her re-enlistment.

dude thats crap. a woman i was serving with at leonardwood
got turned down for ocs mainly because her hubby kept getting duis.. OFF post

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 12:31 PM

from woods officer conduct memorandum:

Officers will conduct themselves in a mature and responsible manner, on and off duty. You now represent the United States Army Officer Corps.

Be responsible for your actions, whether they are right or wrong.
Professionally solve personality conflicts with classmates.
Keep your private affairs in order, e.g. financial, and family.

you tell me that cant be applied to spouses doing porn

theking · 12-22-2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend

dude thats crap. a woman i was serving with at leonardwood
got turned down for ocs mainly because her hubby kept getting duis.. OFF post

A higher standard is maintained for Officers...or would be Officers...as you must know...and I of course do not know the full details...but off post DUI's would not affect an enlisted man...and the enlisted man would not even be counselled about his/her spouses driving habits. On post driving habits are a different story.

theking · 12-22-2003, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NBDesign
according to the original post... it is not allowed period.

That is mis-information. Some soldiers wives do not live within 10,000 miles of a soldiers duty station and are not living on base. In no way is the soldier held responsible for the spouses conduct...when they do not live on a military base...or use military facilities...be it DUI's or doing porn.

theking · 12-22-2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend
from woods officer conduct memorandum:

Officers will conduct themselves in a mature and responsible manner, on and off duty. You now represent the United States Army Officer Corps.

Be responsible for your actions, whether they are right or wrong.
Professionally solve personality conflicts with classmates.
Keep your private affairs in order, e.g. financial, and family.

you tell me that cant be applied to spouses doing porn

As stated above an Officer is held to a higher standard...but even an Officer would not be held responsible if his wife did not live on a military base or use military facilities...but unofficially it could affect his career.

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 01:42 PM

well i think we agree about the core issue here
the rest is semantics

and i apologize for slamming you earlier in this thread, wasnt called for

so heres another one:

what do you think the chances of someone getting into say a 96b or 98c job would be if his wife did cyber sex shows?

id also point out that the "moral character" provision in the enlistment standards is broad, and can be easily applied to spouses.

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 01:55 PM

specifically:

2-35 Eligibility

a. Applicants are eligible for enlistment if they are of strong moral character and beliefs.

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 02:03 PM

Quote:

In no way is the soldier held responsible for the spouses conduct...

Quote:

but unofficially it could affect his career.

so which is it?

theking · 12-22-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend
well i think we agree about the core issue here
the rest is semantics

and i apologize for slamming you earlier in this thread, wasnt called for

so heres another one:

what do you think the chances of someone getting into say a 96b or 98c job would be if his wife did cyber sex shows?

id also point out that the "moral character" provision in the enlistment standards is broad, and can be easily applied to spouses.

Well...he/she would probably be denied a job in intelligence...as his character would probably be questioned...having married...or remaining married to a wife of questionable character.

theking · 12-22-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend

so which is it?

Officially he is not responsible...unofficialy it could affect a career...even that of an enlisted man...as the Army does not like problem cases...so it can deny one re-enlistment...but I have already stated that.

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Well...he/she would probably be denied a job in intelligence...as his character would probably be questioned...having married...or remaining married to a wife of questionable character.

doesnt that apply accross the board?

i mean the moral standards concept is universal in the service, only difference between intel jobs and combat engineering is that the vetting process is actually CARRIED OUT to a deeper level.

edit: maybe with the exception of spouses nationality

theking · 12-22-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend

doesnt that apply accross the board?

i mean the moral standards concept is universal in the service, only difference between intel jobs and combat engineering is that the vetting process is actually CARRIED OUT to a deeper level.

edit: maybe with the exception of spouses nationality

Not really. As you must know having spent the amount of time that you did in the military...it is not uncommon for soldiers to marry strippers from the local town (and usually there are an abundance of them)...and/or known prostitutes. The same standards do not apply (other than in theory) to some dumb ass grunt that barely made it into the Army as it does say to an Officer...NCO...or special MOS's.

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 02:28 PM

dude im not talking about strippers
im talking about porn stars and content

theres a major difference

strippers arent PORNOGRAPHY as defined by the regs and you know that

theking · 12-22-2003, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend
dude im not talking about strippers
im talking about porn stars and content

theres a major difference

strippers arent PORNOGRAPHY as defined by the regs and you know that

Quote:

Originally posted by Tanker
Famous Porn star Mika Tan is married to a Marine SGt.

all the people in his unit have her tapes

To the best of my knowledge there are not any regs that specifically define...strippers...prostitutes...or pornstars/content. The sale of porn is not allowed on a military base...and that is about the extent of regs that cover the issue...unless you can specify some that I am not aware of.

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 02:37 PM

they use the title 18 definition:

"Pornography" is a layperson's term, with no particular legal significance. Jones may believe that Penthouse is non-pornographic, while Smith believes that it is. Neither is incorrect.

The term of legal significance is "obscenity", which, after struggling for many years and through many cases, the U.S. Supreme Court defined in Miller v. California in 1973. It is a three-part test, as follows:

"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Note that part (a) does employ community standards. However, all three parts must be met for a work to be deemed obscene, and part (c), as the Court has held elsewhere, is a national threshold, not a community test.

that does NOT apply to strippers, its a different animal entirely
and in this case, the "community" whos standards apply, is the Us Army

Scootermuze · 12-22-2003, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NBDesign
Then what are these pictures that are suppose to be floating around?

If there were pics floating around, someone from here would have happened onto them by now and they'd have been posted.. but this hasn't happened..

So there just may not be any pics at all.. Just another rumor that someone on here started and some believed it..

But those are just my thoughts..

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scootermuze

If there were pics floating around, someone from here would have happened onto them by now and they'd have been posted.. but this hasn't happened..

So there just may not be any pics at all.. Just another rumor that someone on here started and some believed it..

But those are just my thoughts..

some drunken titty pics arent anywhere near what we're talking about anyway

dimonka · 12-22-2003, 02:44 PM

That's pretty interesting, but is it true?

theking · 12-22-2003, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend
they use the title 18 definition:

"Pornography" is a layperson's term, with no particular legal significance. Jones may believe that Penthouse is non-pornographic, while Smith believes that it is. Neither is incorrect.

The term of legal significance is "obscenity", which, after struggling for many years and through many cases, the U.S. Supreme Court defined in Miller v. California in 1973. It is a three-part test, as follows:

"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Note that part (a) does employ community standards. However, all three parts must be met for a work to be deemed obscene, and part (c), as the Court has held elsewhere, is a national threshold, not a community test.

that does NOT apply to strippers, its a different animal entirely
and in this case, the "community" whos standards apply, is the Us Army

They may use Title 18 to define porn but it is not in the regs.

Bottom line...

Quote:

DID YOU KNOW, its apparently against the Code of Conduct for even the SPOUSE of an active duty soldier to participate in the production of any sort of pornography.

this is not a correct statement.

A spouse is officially free to do as they choose as long as they do not live on a military base...use military facilities...or create a scene on a military base. The soldier is not officially held to account for his/her spouses activities...no matter what the spouse does...even committing murder...as long as the above is not applicable. That is the bottom line.

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 03:01 PM

Quote:

A spouse is officially free to do as they choose as long as they do not live on a military base

that is patently false

Quote:

The soldier is not officially held to account for his/her spouses activities

as it that, you dont think failing a security check is being officially held accountable? or being passed over for promotion?

and Ive already said i wasnt referring to the Code Of Conduct, but rather the DOD ethics and the Decency Act. Which by the way CAN be applied as enlistment criteria.

and that defintion is most CERTAINLY in the regs, the Decency act IS military law my friend. and the title 18 definitions of porn and obscenity are what the act uses.

theking · 12-22-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend

as it that, you dont think failing a security check is being officially held accountable? or being passed over for promotion?

and Ive already said i wasnt referring to the Code Of Conduct, but rather the DOD ethics and the Decency Act. Which by the way CAN be applied as enlistment criteria.

and that defintion is most CERTAINLY in the regs, the Decency act IS military law my friend. and the title 18 definitions of porn and obscenity are what the act uses.

The active duty Army person may be held accountable for HIS/HER lack of character and lack of good judgement by marrying someone that the Army deems lacks good character and good judgement...but this would only apply to a few MOS's.

It has been some time since I have spoken to an Army Recruiter so I do not know if they even ask a potential recruit about his wife's occupation...but if they do...I also seriously doubt that a recruit would be denied enlistment because he answered that "My wife is a porn star"...and if he was specifically denied because of the occupation of his wife...I assume that he would...or could...take the case to a Federal court. I am satisfied that he would...or could...be denied certain MOS's.

I am in a 180 degree disagreement with you.

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 03:34 PM

Quote:

The active duty Army person may be held accountable for HIS/HER lack of character and lack of good judgement by marrying someone that the Army deems lacks good character and good judgement...but this would only apply to a few MOS's.

thats only SLIGHTLY at odds with my stance

hardly 180 degrees dude

theking · 12-22-2003, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend

thats only SLIGHTLY at odds with my stance

hardly 180 degrees dude

Well if you agree that off base behavior of a spouse may only affect...to some degree...the active duty person...in a few MOS's then a 180 would be an overstatement.

NBDesign · 12-22-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

That is mis-information. Some soldiers wives do not live within 10,000 miles of a soldiers duty station and are not living on base. In no way is the soldier held responsible for the spouses conduct...when they do not live on a military base...or use military facilities...be it DUI's or doing porn.

Never being in the military I would not know... But if it were true did not think it would be fair.. but then again, not like it will ever effect me so.. I really have no reason being in this thread.

theking · 12-22-2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NBDesign
I really have no reason being in this thread.

You win the prize for being correct...but I have noticed that about you in a number of threads.

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

You win the prize for being correct...but I have noticed that about you in a number of threads.

i like you

theking · 12-22-2003, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend

i like you

Well...even though we have a slight disagreement...

to a fellow Vet. My thirty year career was stopped at twelve years in the 1st Gulf War...why did you leave after twelve...if you care to say?

jimthefiend · 12-22-2003, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Well...even though we have a slight disagreement... to a fellow Vet. My thirty year career was stopped at twelve years in the 1st Gulf War...why did you leave after twelve...if you care to say?

not 12, that was someone else

7

i blew out a knee on a bad tandem barrel jump

well the jump itself was fine, it was more the landing that wasnt so hot

Ben-MensNiche · 12-22-2003, 11:46 PM

Maybe you can start an underground site for spouses of army guys

Could be a money maker, hehe

theking · 12-22-2003, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimthefiend

not 12, that was someone else

7

i blew out a knee on a bad tandem barrel jump

well the jump itself was fine, it was more the landing that wasnt so hot

Yep...my mistake...it was TheJimmy with 12.

BVF · 12-22-2003, 11:53 PM

When I was in the Navy and found out that you can get in trouble for ADULTERY, I knew it wasn't the place for me...

Fuck the free food and world travel and free training....I got tired of being reminded every fucking day that I should be grateful for the free training they were giving me...

I would only go back if I lost all of my money, my home, and my family, and had nothing else to live for...anybody with a real life that is past the age of 21 shouldn't even think about joining the military.

jimthefiend · 12-23-2003, 07:40 AM

Quote:

When I was in the Navy and found out that you can get in trouble for ADULTERY

you know thats a good point none of us mentioned

johnbosh · 12-23-2003, 07:41 AM

shit:D

Rochard · 12-23-2003, 09:16 AM

I honestly believe that certain jobs do have the right to hold spouses to "higher standard". It's rather simple - the things that I do on a daily basis working for Lightspeed is illegal for most people to discuss in the work place. My wife, for example, cannot go into her work place and tell her co-workers about the Sorority shoot I did last week. I could imagine the conversation now: "Then Raimi starting licking Jordan's snatch while Kali was playing with her boobs". This would be grounds termination in most work places, as well as a potential lawsuit.

I was in the Marines for four years, and married for three of those years. My wife was a stripper; She was also very bisexual. We had parties every night with kegs of beer; More often than not I was walking around naked at the end of the night. Is this proper conduct for someone who represents the US Government?

I don't have a problem with anyone working in the adult industry, however, I can respect people who do have a problem with it.

12-22-2003, 02:44 PM	#70
dimonka Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 477	That's pretty interesting, but is it true? __________________ Find out what REBILLS are!

12-22-2003, 11:46 PM	#81
Ben-MensNiche Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 726	Maybe you can start an underground site for spouses of army guys Could be a money maker, hehe __________________ ICQ: 310539245 Email: [email protected]

12-22-2003, 11:53 PM	#83
BVF Black Vagina Finder Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Midwest Posts: 13,975	When I was in the Navy and found out that you can get in trouble for ADULTERY, I knew it wasn't the place for me... Fuck the free food and world travel and free training....I got tired of being reminded every fucking day that I should be grateful for the free training they were giving me... I would only go back if I lost all of my money, my home, and my family, and had nothing else to live for...anybody with a real life that is past the age of 21 shouldn't even think about joining the military. __________________ Black Pussy Click On Mr Cosby..CCbill, 60/40, 136 FHG's....The Cos Loves Black Ghetto Pussy!!

12-23-2003, 09:16 AM	#86
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,673	I honestly believe that certain jobs do have the right to hold spouses to "higher standard". It's rather simple - the things that I do on a daily basis working for Lightspeed is illegal for most people to discuss in the work place. My wife, for example, cannot go into her work place and tell her co-workers about the Sorority shoot I did last week. I could imagine the conversation now: "Then Raimi starting licking Jordan's snatch while Kali was playing with her boobs". This would be grounds termination in most work places, as well as a potential lawsuit. I was in the Marines for four years, and married for three of those years. My wife was a stripper; She was also very bisexual. We had parties every night with kegs of beer; More often than not I was walking around naked at the end of the night. Is this proper conduct for someone who represents the US Government? I don't have a problem with anyone working in the adult industry, however, I can respect people who do have a problem with it. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

12-22-2003, 12:31 PM	#54
jimthefiend So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: icq: 121189 Posts: 18,889	from woods officer conduct memorandum: Officers will conduct themselves in a mature and responsible manner, on and off duty. You now represent the United States Army Officer Corps. Be responsible for your actions, whether they are right or wrong. Professionally solve personality conflicts with classmates. Keep your private affairs in order, e.g. financial, and family. you tell me that cant be applied to spouses doing porn

12-22-2003, 01:42 PM	#58
jimthefiend So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: icq: 121189 Posts: 18,889	well i think we agree about the core issue here the rest is semantics and i apologize for slamming you earlier in this thread, wasnt called for so heres another one: what do you think the chances of someone getting into say a 96b or 98c job would be if his wife did cyber sex shows? id also point out that the "moral character" provision in the enlistment standards is broad, and can be easily applied to spouses.

12-22-2003, 01:55 PM	#59
jimthefiend So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: icq: 121189 Posts: 18,889	specifically: 2-35 Eligibility a. Applicants are eligible for enlistment if they are of strong moral character and beliefs.

12-22-2003, 02:28 PM	#65
jimthefiend So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: icq: 121189 Posts: 18,889	dude im not talking about strippers im talking about porn stars and content theres a major difference strippers arent PORNOGRAPHY as defined by the regs and you know that

12-22-2003, 02:37 PM	#67
jimthefiend So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: icq: 121189 Posts: 18,889	they use the title 18 definition: "Pornography" is a layperson's term, with no particular legal significance. Jones may believe that Penthouse is non-pornographic, while Smith believes that it is. Neither is incorrect. The term of legal significance is "obscenity", which, after struggling for many years and through many cases, the U.S. Supreme Court defined in Miller v. California in 1973. It is a three-part test, as follows: "The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Note that part (a) does employ community standards. However, all three parts must be met for a work to be deemed obscene, and part (c), as the Court has held elsewhere, is a national threshold, not a community test. that does NOT apply to strippers, its a different animal entirely and in this case, the "community" whos standards apply, is the Us Army

12-23-2003, 07:41 AM	#85
johnbosh Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Netherlands, Rotterdam Posts: 8,965	shit:D