There is always a swirling debate on sex in American society. Those who are disgusted by Janet Jackson flashing her breast at a halftime show are either moral or unsophisticated fundamentalist prudes, depending on the speaker’s viewpoint (and potentially nationality). Many point to the increasingly graphic displays of sex and sex acts in regular everyday life; from Deadwood’s chronic use of “cocksucker” and “pussy” to our Superbowl halftime show. Whether this is just a natural part of our animal existance or degeneration of societal standards along the lines of the fall of the Roman Empire is open to debate.
It occurs to me that, whatever horrors were perpetrated on WWII, Korean, WWI, Civil War, etc. prisoners, I do not recall their occurring the high and graphic level of sexual violence and themes. Fascinating in these series of photos we are receiving from Iraq are the fact that they all appear to be linked to some type of sexual torture. I understand that I could well be wrong, but I simply cannot imagine U.S. WWII forces posing captured Nazis or Japanese soldiers in photos of oral copulation or human sex pyramids (and I’m not the “America is great and would never do such a thing” type here; I very easily envision a lot more summary executions, particularly of the Japanese, than were ever admitted).
Part of the disgusting nature appears to be the almost joking nature of all of the shots - the seemingly light way in which the pictures were taken, as if to say “Hey, it’s just a bunch of sex pranks, there’s nothing terribly wrong with that.” These pictures, in my mind, are directly associated with the internet; they have a feel of the last 10 years of our society, where bulletin boards and websites designed to make light of human tragedy and sex abound.
So: 1) is the Iraqi prisoner mistreatment a sign that the desanctification of sex and human flesh is taking a toll on our society; and 2) since there is nothing wrong with sex, homosexuality, oral sex, etc., is the abuse on the prisoners relatively minor (or of at least a much lighter nature) and not to really be worried about, unless we are prudes?
There is always a swirling debate on sex in American society. Those who are disgusted by Janet Jackson flashing her breast at a halftime show are either moral or unsophisticated fundamentalist prudes, depending on the speaker’s viewpoint (and potentially nationality). Many point to the increasingly graphic displays of sex and sex acts in regular everyday life; from Deadwood’s chronic use of “cocksucker” and “pussy” to our Superbowl halftime show. Whether this is just a natural part of our animal existance or degeneration of societal standards along the lines of the fall of the Roman Empire is open to debate.
It occurs to me that, whatever horrors were perpetrated on WWII, Korean, WWI, Civil War, etc. prisoners, I do not recall their occurring the high and graphic level of sexual violence and themes. Fascinating in these series of photos we are receiving from Iraq are the fact that they all appear to be linked to some type of sexual torture. I understand that I could well be wrong, but I simply cannot imagine U.S. WWII forces posing captured Nazis or Japanese soldiers in photos of oral copulation or human sex pyramids (and I’m not the “America is great and would never do such a thing” type here; I very easily envision a lot more summary executions, particularly of the Japanese, than were ever admitted).
Part of the disgusting nature appears to be the almost joking nature of all of the shots - the seemingly light way in which the pictures were taken, as if to say “Hey, it’s just a bunch of sex pranks, there’s nothing terribly wrong with that.” These pictures, in my mind, are directly associated with the internet; they have a feel of the last 10 years of our society, where bulletin boards and websites designed to make light of human tragedy and sex abound.
So: 1) is the Iraqi prisoner mistreatment a sign that the desanctification of sex and human flesh is taking a toll on our society; and 2) since there is nothing wrong with sex, homosexuality, oral sex, etc., is the abuse on the prisoners relatively minor (or of at least a much lighter nature, given that the only issue is force, and not the sexual acts) and not to really be worried about, unless we are prudes?
I don’t particularly think so, but others seem to. Zoe Heller has an editorialin this morning’s Telegraph arguing a similar reasoning. Registration is required.
It occurs to me that, whatever horrors were perpetrated on WWII, Korean, WWI, Civil War, etc. prisoners, I do not recall their occurring the high and graphic level of sexual violence and themes.
When the abuses at Abu Ghraib first came to light (to the US public at least) they were called just that: “abuses.” Now, there’s been some talk of physical abuse; punching, beating, rape and even homocide. Bad stuff. Bad stuff indeed.
However, I would hesitate to refer to these activities as “horror;” in the grand scheme of things, Abu Ghraib is small potatos, but I’m glad it finally came to light. Keep calling it a “horror,” and you’ll find that you’ve run out of adjectives when the shit really hits the fan
As to the OP, I couldn’t say, but I’d be willing to bet that with a small amount of digging, you will find cases of sexual abuse of prisoners in any of the wars you mention.
“Between December 1937 and March 1938 at least 369,366 Chinese civilians and prisoners of war were slaughtered by the invading troops. An estimated 80,000 women and girls were raped; many of them were then mutilated or murdered.”
For that matter, there were the Korean women sold into sexual slavery by Japanese soldiers… okay, I should stop lest it sound like I’m picking on the Japanese. That was just the first thing that came to mind.
I’m not sure if the OP is talking about POWs or civilian captives, maybe that makes a difference.
As I’m trying to say, no, it’s not. I think our codes about not mistreating POWs are a modern invention, after all in the past it was quite common for the victors to use their captives as slaves and such.
This is silly, and perhaps somewhat offensive. The fact that a specific sex act isn’t a sin (or whatever) doesn’t make its perpetuation on unwilling victims any less despicable. Are you suggesting that somehow people who don’t think gays are bad are okay with rape?
Which was performed by U.S. soldiers (since we are talking about changes in U.S. values toward sex, not the values of the land of tentacle rape)? What do the acts of Japanese soldiers, who came from a society with complete different worldviews, have to do with the question?
No, I’m saying that for them, force is the only bad part of it. The fact that it was sodomy that was forced does not make it “worse” than if they were forced to do something else that they did not want to do.
Forced sex with someone is in my opinion (and not just mine) about the worst thing you can do to someone short of killing him or her. It has nothing to do with the sex acts being right or wrong. The issue is consent, and the thing that makes it especially bad is the personal nature of sex. I’m not sure why any of this is relevant.
I wasn’t responding to you there. My opinion here is that what we’ve seen in Iraq is a reflection of human nature, not of anything particular to our culture or modern times. There may be a good example of American soldiers doing something like this from earlier in history; if there’s not it may just be because they didn’t have digital cameras.
Yes. And I find it very interesting that this spring when I assigned 55 college freshman to write about “an issue important to you and your generation,” with no prompting whatsoever (if anything, I steered them to political issues), the most popular topic was, broadly speaking, “the desanctification of sex and its toll on our society”
But why? If sex is “no big thing,” why is it the worst thing? What makes it so personal?
[/quote=Marley23]
I wasn’t responding to you there. My opinion here is that what we’ve seen in Iraq is a reflection of human nature, not of anything particular to our culture or modern times. There may be a good example of American soldiers doing something like this from earlier in history; if there’s not it may just be because they didn’t have digital cameras.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. The whole topic just occurred to me when I realized that I do not think the people of my grandfather’s generation would have even had the thought of shoving a glowstick up a prisoner’s ass and taking a “thumbs up” photo next to it. They may have performed torture or done similar things, but I think it would have been viewed as an embarassment, not as something to get on film comparable with a Mardi Gras “show us your tits” shot with drunken frat boys.
Like I said, it’s the nature of sex itself. It’s a very personal activity between (most of the time) two people who have to trust each other and often is a display of very personal feelings. We’ve had this argument on these boards before. If you insist on making it, this could turn into a flame-fest and wind up in the Pit. Maybe you don’t get it, but the things you’re saying come across as very insensitive.
I don’t think it’s easy to picture anybody doing something like that, but it happens nonetheless. You might remember a similar incident involving the New York Police about seven years ago, when Ms. Jackson was known mostly for her singing. I think someone else mentioned the Milgram Experiment in another thread on this topic.
Because of cultural differences, I think that at some point in the process someone realised that the allied forces in Iraq had an advantage in that using humiliation of a sexual nature on Arab men had a profound effect on the victims, while not seeming too extreme to the perpetrators.
Maximum effect with minimum fuss – unless, of course, some fool takes pictures and they get into the public domain!
Read your classics. Since early history rape has been considered an advantage of being in the military. Spoils of war and all. This is now frowned upon, but I doubt you could find a military conflict where it was not rampant. Now we just have imbeciles who take pictures.
I think (cannot cite, will not cite, don’t have to cite…) that back when ;the Israel Supreme Ct. (at long last…) said that they would not allow the really, really, (we mean ;REALLY BAD) physical stuff (which presumably was previously allowed…, or at least tolerated…or the subject of ambiguity…)
I am SPECULATING that the mossad wise guys sat down and said,
Hoo boy, vat the fuck…
I gottanidea.
Maybe we could give these momsers terminal schpilkis,
And still not have “do-gooders” hocking us a chynick…
Note that “manipulating pain medication” is listed as one of the methods secondary to which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave it up–
I think in another culture, that is described thusly
Yeah, first I gets the bitches hooked on smack, and then I turn them out…
They’ll do anything for that next fix, ya feel me?
ref:Iceberg Slim…
disclaimer:“ya feel me” as an expression postdates the active carrer of the estimable Mr. Slim–I am paraphrasing. Hence, i will not cite, don’t have to cite, etc…etc.)_
Alaric, that was a little funny, but I have no idea what you are saying.
You seem to be saying something about how Israel does not torture people quite as severely as they used to. Next, you show an unrelated, but good, example of techniques that US interrogators have learned from the grand tradition of whoremongering.
I’m not asking for a cite, but what is the connection?
Additionaly, do you know how much they charge to have the Sheikh for a whole night?
