Join 3,551 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Nude, Gay Marines?
January 12, 2001 2:36 AM   Subscribe

Nude, Gay Marines? Isn't that what the web is all about? The right to be different? United States Marine Corps officials are investigating reports its troops are posing nude for gay pornography being sold on the Internet....
posted by murray_kester (18 comments total)

 
"The Few, The Proud, The Fabulous"
posted by Optamystic at 3:34 AM on January 12, 2001


Just goes to show the the GOP is right when they said something had to be done about improving the pay and the morale for the military. We used to say: Bit the apple and F---K the core.
posted by Postroad at 4:04 AM on January 12, 2001


If they shoot straight, who cares about anything else? Don't the Marines have better things to worry about?
posted by David Gaddis at 4:35 AM on January 12, 2001


"The Marines -- Straight Shooters!"
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:07 AM on January 12, 2001


"United States Marine Corps officials are investigating reports its troops are posing nude for gay pornography being sold on the Internet."

This is a really irritating quote in light of this other quote:

"While pornography involving adults is legal in the United States, posing naked is a criminal offence under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice, Marine Corps spokesman Captain Rob Crum told the Times. "

So if the issue is posing naked, why does the article take pains to continually highlight the fact that it might be (gasp) GAY pornography? And was the one woman the article mentioned posing for a lesbian porn organization?




posted by Skot at 8:46 AM on January 12, 2001


Skot: I see the word "gay" in there once. Where's the continual highlighting of it?
posted by pnevares at 10:53 AM on January 12, 2001


Hm. Perhaps if I learned to read.

Actually, I think my knee just jerked a bit to the left. And with no aspersions cast towards Murray, the post tag did seem to highlight that particular issue.

But my bad. I should have read more closely before dithering.
posted by Skot at 11:15 AM on January 12, 2001


When you join the armed forces, you sign away all sorts of individual rights. That's just the way it is.

Besides, the article makes clear the problem isn't that it's gay porn, but that it's porn period. It makes the Corps look tacky and sleazy.
posted by aaron at 3:26 PM on January 12, 2001



Straight people are so entertaining sometimes, particularly when they write news articles that fail to mention the dozens and dozens of magazines and J/O videos on the market featuring real live Amerikanski soldiers. It's been going on for years. Then there was the Advocate cover story about the naval officer-cum-porn star. It is of course news that the Marines have reissued some kind of edict, but it isn't even an underground phenomenon. Don't these people even read Steven Zeeland books? And anyway, some of us would prefer photos of, say, naked Israeli soldiers. Where do we buy them?
posted by joeclark at 4:39 PM on January 12, 2001


Why *should* straight people know about this, and why is it so entertaining that they don't? Smirky people are so annoying sometimes, regardless of sexual preference).
posted by rodii at 4:54 PM on January 12, 2001


naval officer-cum-porn star.

I really just don't have to make any comment on that phrase at all, now, do I?
posted by baylink at 5:46 PM on January 12, 2001


On behalf of the MetaFiltration Community, I'd really rather you didn't. ;-)
posted by bradlands at 10:38 PM on January 12, 2001


Why *should* straight people know about this, and why is it so entertaining that they don't?
Real journalists do research, refusing to assume that a new edict equates to a new phenomenon.
posted by joeclark at 8:43 AM on January 13, 2001


That's a non-answer. What does being a real or unreal journalist have to do with "straight people" besides that it allows you to make your smirky little debating point?
posted by rodii at 8:49 AM on January 13, 2001


Best quote:

It would not be the first time corps members have been exposed for exposing themselves.

haha ;)
posted by ookamaka at 4:53 PM on January 13, 2001


That's a non-answer. What does being a real or unreal journalist have to do with "straight people" besides that it allows you to make your smirky little debating point?
Straight reporters, with no knowledge of le monde homosexualiste, take what the military says at face value. Gay reporters, or, presumably, straight reporters who bother to look things up, write better-informed stories, because they simply have more information. Gays know a lot about straights, but the converse is generally not true. I repeat: That the Marines are making a stink about it is news. That it's happening isn't, and indeed, a visit to any big gay bookstore would produce a shopping cart full of Marine porn dating back to the early '90s. (Cf. Dirk Yates.)
posted by joeclark at 9:36 AM on January 14, 2001


So the reporting is lame. And the way you know the sexual preference of the reporter is what, again?
posted by rodii at 9:23 PM on January 15, 2001


The reporter is obviously straight because he clearly knows so little about gay Marine porn. No self-respecting homosexual would admit to such ignorance!
posted by kindall at 10:38 PM on January 15, 2001


« Older Tuesday's Lunar Eclipse ...  |  Chefs Prepare to Spill Ink in ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments