«

»

Sep 28 2005

More Empty Gestures

Remember that "amateur" porn website I wrote about a few days ago? The one where troops send in their personal snuffpix of blown-up Iraqis in exchange for naked pictures of douchebags’ wives? Salon reports that the Army is now investigating the "scandal" but they come right out and admit that nobody will actually be prosecuted for anything. Naturally, nobody is the least bit concerned about the wife-porn side of it; according to the dudely Geneva Conventions, treating blown-up male body parts "with respect" is more interesting than the exploitation of live women.

10 comments

  1. J. Ascher

    Oh, but like a rapidly adapting bird flu virus, predictably yet too cleverly to contain, hath the dudely purveyors of wife-porn and mutilato-porn, blended their dudely obsessions, with remarkable assiduity, into one toxic display of moral turpitude:

    Witness, “Bad Foot/Nice Puss” (censored version):

    http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-soldiers-allegedly-trading-pictures.html

  2. robin

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40998

    a great riff on the Patriarchal Rules for Properly Maintaining One’s Hotness.

    Thanks Twisty for taking a hard unblinking look at the fashion lie.

  3. Kyra

    Fucking patriarchy can go blow itself. Preferably up.

  4. Steph

    So why can’t the porn site be part of the war crime. I mean they’re killing for sex aren’t they?

  5. Sam

    The Geneva Convention is supposed to protect enemy combatants from having humiliating, sexually-debasing pictures taken of them and distributed worldwide, but somehow it’s okay to do the same to all women from every country.

  6. treacletrade

    I suppose the wives involved were forced to strip and pose naked at gunpoint. Have you Twisty or any of the fawning sycophants which clutter up the comments box ever heard on consentual adult fun?

  7. Sylvanite

    Was it consentual? Do the wives know that their pictures are being posted? I don’t think I’d consent to having nude pictures of me posted to the internet, due to the fact that the pictures could easily be used elsewhere without permission. They’d take on a life of their own, and possibly come back to bite me in the ass later. Wouldn’t be prudent!

  8. Well of course it's f**ked up..... It's war.

    Let’s have a little perspective. Artists have always drwan/photographed/videotaped war. Goya anyone?

    http://www.napoleonguide.com/goyaind.htm

    Patriarchy has been encouraging us to kill each other for a long time. Way before Napoleon, in fact.

    And it isn’t really an exchange, death for sex. they can see death any time, they’re in Iraq. And they can see porn any time, they’re in the US military!

    I happen to agree with the asshole Republican website owner. We want the war, we should see what it really is…… Are we like meat eaters who don’t want to think about animals being killed?

  9. Crys T

    I cannot believe that there are actually people posting here who don’t see the incredible fucked-upness of trading photos of amateur porn for those of dead bodies.

    I suppose the dead are just engaging in a bit of “consensual adult fun” as well?

  10. Indy

    Actually, It seems that they are coming at that site from both sides- I heard that the FBI porn task force was going at them from the porn side- this was a while back- some male blogger was wondering “what, we can look at all the pictures of naked, bleeding iraqi women we want, but THEY GO AFTER THE PORN?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>