Reason Magazine

Site Search

Trading Death for Sex?

Jefferson Morley, at the Washington Post's somewhat stiff World Opinion Roundup blog, looks at the gore-for-porn story first highlighted by bloggers and two Italian newspapers in August and September. Better late than never, and one of Morley's hooks is that the New York Times and the Washington Post, who published stories on the affair, can't seem to agree on whether U.S. military personnel actually traded gory photos from Iraq and Afghanistan for access to the pornography sections of the Now That's Fucked Up website.

The Times does indeed have a bizarre headline, saying "Army Inquiry Finds No Evidence G.I.'s Gave War Photos to Web." It then goes on to say that "[l]ocal commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to stress to their troops that such actions could violate military standards for good order and conduct, and to demand an end to the practice." The latter clause seems to contradict the "no evidence" claim.

The Post was more precise in saying that "officials said yesterday that there is insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges," a considerably less assertive claim of innocence. The piece goes on to say that "Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said investigators have been examining the photos for clues to their origin, adding that commanders in the field are emphasizing that taking and posting such photos is unacceptable." And while he did add that "It is very difficult to establish they are in fact being submitted by soldiers..." the commanders seemed implicitly less certain that U.S. soldiers were innocent.

Among the messages here (other than the appalling nature of the gore-for-sex trade) is how long it took for the Times and Post to pick up on the story, but also both papers' apparent unwillingness to do a story on the Now That's Fucked Up website (which Morley refuses to link to or even mention by name) to see whether there is information there that might undermine the military's obvious diffidence in addressing the accusations head on. Evidently both the Times and Post share that diffidence.

Send this article to:

« Excruciatingly Pointless Media Catfight of… | Main | New at Reason »

Comments to "Trading Death for Sex?":

linguist | September 30, 2005, 2:14pm | #

The Sun-Times reported this as soldiers getting free porn in exchange for the photos.

Now, I can't actually enter Now That's Fucked Up while sitting in my office, but is it even a paid site?

And if so, why would soldiers go there, when (as has been mentioned several times here) there's so much available for free?

This struck me as indicating that soldiers may have been more interested in having a forum for thier photos than they were in getting porn from this particular site.

keith | September 30, 2005, 2:22pm | #

From what I see, there are certain sections of the site that are free, and others that are "pay" only in the sense that you get access to them after providing material for tme. So in other words, if you want to see certain naughty photos, you have to give up some photos yourself.

-K

mattc | September 30, 2005, 2:58pm | #

I think I've found a new website to spend the day exploring.

Ruthless | September 30, 2005, 3:04pm | #

I'm waiting for kwais to comment.

Clearly Insane Person | September 30, 2005, 3:10pm | #

So, um, anyone here interested in trading sex for death?

*cough*

[crickets chirping]

Thank you! I'm here all week. No, really.

Brian | September 30, 2005, 3:13pm | #

Uh, guys, can we stop taking pictures of dead iraqis, naked iraqis, iraqis on leashes, naked iraqi pyramids, dead naked iraqis, etc.

It's getting a little weird.

Ruthless | September 30, 2005, 3:28pm | #

Clearly Insane Person,
Are you either a preying mantis or a black widow spider? That would explain those crickets I heard chirping.

Sick Pup | September 30, 2005, 3:50pm | #

Brian,
You forgot "Iraqi on a chair wearing Halloween costume and electrical cords." My all-time fave.

NoStar | September 30, 2005, 4:01pm | #

It wasn't done and orders have been given not to do it again.

Almost qualifies as the Friday Fun Link.

joe | September 30, 2005, 4:08pm | #

I've been married for years.

At this point, either one would be a welcome change.

rob | September 30, 2005, 4:12pm | #

Great, now I can't get the Eddie Izzard "cake or death" routine out of my head...

Greg | September 30, 2005, 5:41pm | #

Doesn't anyone else think this is a little implausible? Is porn really so hard to find on the net that troops out in the field go around taking photos of dead bodies just to get some porn shots? This smells of that bogus 'Paintball hunting of nude models' story of a few years ago to me.

Pete Guither | September 30, 2005, 5:51pm | #

AmericaBlog has been covering it and archived some of the actual photos from the site. Appears real, with clear faces of soldiers.

Ruthless Necrophiliac | September 30, 2005, 8:22pm | #

"I've been married for years.

At this point, either one would be a welcome change."

joe,
Your joke has almost given me a headache trying to come up with the implications.
Here is my solution: I can understand death and sex being the two sides of a barter arrangement. But as a third party, I would take sex over death, I think.
On the other hand, at my age, while sex could cause death, it's highly unlikely death could cause sex. Then again.
A headache back atcha.

By the way, thoreau has already placed the little woman on a schedule. She is obligated to do her wifely duty (the mitzfah?) every prime calendar year.

nds | October 1, 2005, 12:02am | #

I think that US soldiers should not be punished or prosecuted for this in any way, given the kind of enemy they are fighting.

daddy doo doo | October 1, 2005, 5:00am | #

I'm actually a member of said site, it's an amateur site in which people send in their own pics, to join the site you can either pay $10 or send in pictures of a woman you know (theres a male section, but I don't think it works the same way) It's funny because a lot of soldiers send in pictures and I always thought it odd, there are sections of the site devoted to like war pictures but I have never checked them out, so I can't say how gruesome they are, it's a foreign site as far as I know, I think Dutch, but I am not entirely sure, I don't understand what the problem is here to be honest, is it a moral one or a legal one? Anyway, ladies, let your man take pics of you and oncee you break up, you could end up on a site like this

daddy doo doo | October 1, 2005, 5:01am | #

Anyway ladies, I'm not saying that you shouldn't let your man take pics, otherwise I wouldn't get to see you ;)

A Male Praying Mantis | October 1, 2005, 2:45pm | #

Trading sex for death?

What's the big deal?

Cliff | October 1, 2005, 4:55pm | #

Interesting poll I participated in on AOL:

The Patriot Act should:
Be scrapped altogether 46%
Be scaled back 28%
Be expanded 26%

Which is of more concern to you right now?
Protecting my civil liberties 61%
Protecting the U.S. from terrorists 39%
Total Votes: 42,678

ordering soma online | October 11, 2005, 2:38am | #

yes.this is my site http://soma.gorlum.thebbs.org/argento_soma.html Thanks.

buy propecia and proscar | October 11, 2005, 5:06am | #

gynecomastia proscar proscar canine medication http://proscar.gorlum.thebbs.org/proscar_without_prescription.html proscar 15mg prescription proscar http://proscar.gorlum.thebbs.org/order_proscar.html and .... proscar 15mg proscar pictures http://proscar.gorlum.thebbs.org/proscar_symptoms_of_overdose.html proscar side affect of proscar in europe http://proscar.gorlum.thebbs.org/buy_proscar.html proscar effectiveness buy propecia and proscar http://proscar.gorlum.thebbs.org/proceed_hair_growth.html .Thanks.