A US Air Force sergeant who posed nude for Playboy magazine has been removed from active duty and demoted.

The move reverts Michelle Manhart to air national guard status, a move which has prompted her resignation, she says. “I’m disappointed in our system. They went too far with it.”

At the time the air force released a statement saying that her actions did not “meet the high standards we expect of our airmen”.

Yup. High standards. Uh huh. Meanwhile “Twelve percent of the women who graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2003 reported that they were victims of rape or attempted rape while at the Academy (NY TIMES).” Nothing serious was done about that, but I guess that’s OK by the Air Force standards.



  1. Peter Jakobs says:

    what do you expect in a country where killing people is ok on tv, but not showing a nipple? It’s obvious that sex is far more dangerous to society than violence…

    pj

  2. Named says:

    I guess if she was filmed gulping GO pills and killing allies through friendly fire, she would have been a national hero!

    America is WAY too puritan.

  3. Peter Jakobs says:

    well, probably not for killing allies. That’s too negative a view, if you’re hinting the video with the A10 pilot who accidetly shot a british convoy, you should also have seen that the guy was a) let down by his mission control and b) was really shocked by his actions.
    But you’re right, if she was killing enemies, she’d be a hero, but if she’s being a beautiful women, she’s violating the standards. Beauty should rank much higher than killing skills on any standards scale that’s worthy for a modern civilization.

    pj

  4. Mister Justin says:

    3,

    Hey, the Yanks also killed Canadians!

  5. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    As the Pakistani army hosts a sizable contingent of hardcore Muslims, likewise, the USAF is infiltrated with hardcore Xians, who’ve managed to avoid pretty well, until certain incidents of evangelizing and religious discrimination at Colo Springs. I don’t say there’s necessarily a connection, but…

    High standards of atavistic prudery, I think they’re referring to.

  6. Peter Jakobs says:

    You’re right, Laurent, and I think it’s legitimate to compare the american society with countries like Iran and Pakistan. Clearly, they’re loosing separation between religion and state more and more. Actually sad to see, as it really was the land of the free years and years ago, now it’s more and more becoming the land of the narrow minded.

    I just hope that Europe sees it’s chance to be the leading enlightened place in the world.

    pj

  7. MikeN says:

    Yeah, having your women soldiers appearing in Playboy will probably be great for morale, but I doubt it would produce a properly functioning military.

  8. MikeN says:

    >If she was killing enemies, she’d be a hero, but if she’s being a >beautiful women, she’s violating the standards. Beauty should rank >much higher than killing skills on any standards scale that’s worthy for a >modern civilization.

    Beauty does rank higher in America. The military isn’t about beauty though, and only the enemies would prefer it be that way.

  9. JT says:

    She is a disgrace to the Air Force! If she wanted to pursue a modeling career, she should have gotten out of the Air Force first. She just used this controversy for free publicity. All while her fellow military members are fighting a war. I think she’s a mutt and if it wasn’t for her military status, Playboy wouldn’t have given her a second look. Her so-called modeling career is going nowhere. And since she lacks no moral fiber, her husband and children will be the next to go in the wake of her ambition.

  10. ECA says:

    I would think waving these posters to the Enemy COULD…
    Make them trade sides.
    enrage them to the point of making mistakes.
    make them shoot at the posters, so we can FIND THEM.

    So, whats the complaint they have??
    They said FIND the ENEMY, and it looks like She has a better idea then the military does…

  11. Peter Jakobs says:

    #8,#9: so what you’re saying is that by having a side activity such as modelling she hurts the american forces ability to fight? nah!
    Would a male soldier have been treated the same if he was modelling? I’m willing to bet he wouldn’t. This is pure American pruderie. Let’s face it, the US is falling back into a medieval values system. They’re being driven by a religous right that is in no way different from the same forces in Iran, just that thir god bears a different name.
    If the Airforce was smart, they would user her as a marketing icon, demonstrating that female soldiers can be smart and pretty (just guessing positively on the first item). Instead they make it a marketing disaster. Very cool.

    pj

  12. “Be ALL You Can Be! (and show it off)”, right?

  13. Allen McDonald, El Galloviejo® says:

    #9
    ( ¿ Isn’t that the name of a Beatles song on the White
    Album ? )

    ¡ Ur Absolutely right !

    No member of the Air Force should ever be allowed to be a model.

    In addition, no model should ever be allowed to become a member of the Air Force.

    You don’t have to be pretty in order to drop white phosphorous bombs on infant children and their mothers and fathers and burn them alive. You just need to know which button to push.

    What the heck, they were all going to die eventually anyway.

    Besides, ‘ If God had wanted us to be naked, we would have been born that way. ‘ – Oscar Wilde

    Allen McDonald, El Galloviejo®

  14. MattH says:

    I don’t agree with it, but I used to be in the Air Force, and all the branches are the same. You sign a contract, and there are all kinds of oathes and crap about setting the example, moral superiority, blah blah blah.

    Like it or not, the military is a right wing, read : conservative, force.

  15. MattH says:

    Oh yeah, they’re also hyporcrits.

  16. JT says:

    This all comes down to the simple concept that the military is an all volunteer force. If you want to pose nude, if you’re gay, if you don’t believe in war, then join another organization. You know what the rules are going in. If you don’t like the rules, don’t volunteer, it’s that simple.

  17. Milo says:

    She made some money, will undoubtedly get lots of publicity and job offers, and has ensured she won’t be sent to Iraq. We might see a lot more of this.

  18. SoundsThe Alarm says:

    #10 & 16,

    Listen JT if your gay, just admit it and be happy with yourself. No one on this board except neocon closeted fundie Republicans really cares if you are.

    There isn’t one red-blooded American male in or out of the military that wouldn’t be proud to hold her playboy picture up with one hand! Heck I could think of a fair number of lesbians in that group too.

  19. Mr. Fusion says:

    #10 & 16

    So if a serviceman want to deliver pizzas or write books in their off time, it is OK. If they want to pastor, there isn’t a problem. If a serviceman wants to stump for Jesus (because he is bigger then the Muslim god) you don’t have a problem. But if they try taking off their clothes then hang ’em.

    Good Christ man, how the hell do you look in the mirror every morning??? Even most of you gay men can appreciate a beautiful woman.

  20. WokTiny says:

    whether we agree with their standards or not, its fairplay for them to try to hold standards. If someone does something unbecoming an officer (or, whatever) it is the organizations option to preserve their image as they see fit. I expect this sort of discipline happens for other reasons, this just gets more attention because a nude woman is involved.

  21. Guyver says:

    1) You should check out Japanese TV. It’s pretty violent stuff, but you don’t see violence really having a profound effect on that society.

    2, 3, 7) This individual is in the situation she’s in now because she wore her military uniform in a “disgraceful” manner. She knew this as well as EVERY military member when joining. I’m not upset over her doing this, but she knew the consequences and she did it anyways. This isn’t up for interpretation; dishonoring the military and the consequences of that are CLEARLY explained to every member of the military when joining. To turn this into religious prudence is intentional liberal ignorance IMO.

    11) You’re right. A male soldier would not suffer the same. It would be more severe because there’s less tolerance for that kind of behavior from males. From my personal experiences this is the case. It’s not prudery it’s chauvinism. If there’s anything that should be said of this, it’s that they let her off very light. It’s not the modeling that got her in trouble; it’s the wearing of her uniform with her side job that got her in trouble. Compound the fact that the military has gotten a black eye over things like the tail hook scandal this was probably a wise thing to do. The military serves two purposes. Kill and destroy. Politicians spin it differently. There may be those who join the military under occupations that do not have any direct link to killing / destroy, but their job supports that function. The Air Force didn’t want their own tail hook nor do they want to send the wrong message to the femi-nazis on Capitol Hill.

    13) Although you clearly don’t realize / ignore the fact that our military is the most proactive in trying to avoid innocent deaths as possible when compared to other militaries, you clearly have issues with war ever being used as a last option. You’re entitled to that viewpoint, but do you really think more diplomacy with the likes of Hitler would have made the world a “safer” place? The enemies we combat usually don’t have a problem with placing their soldiers amongst civilians and religious places of worship because even they KNOW we don’t engage them if we know they are doing this. Fascinating you’ve reduced our efforts down below theirs.

    14) I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but often times it’s more about not disgracing the branch more than conservative right-wing values. Depending on the situation the two can go hand in hand, but in this particular case it really wasn’t, she could have completely avoided her predicament if she would have posed without her uniform.

    15) This can be true at times.

    16) Bingo! But look at it that some people are looking at clever ways to get national publicity by pushing the envelope in spite of the rules. The liberal media fails to understand that when you join the military you forfeit your freedom of speech as well as becoming government property. Literally. If you get sunburned and cannot perform your duties, you can get an article 15 for “damage to government property”. I’m not kidding.

    17) You should see the pregnancy rates in units getting ready to deploy for combat. Quite remarkable that the liberal media seems to not notice or ignores that this has caused serious problems with combat readiness within units.

  22. Guyver says:

    19) Sounds like you’ve never been in the military which is why you are mistaken in your viewpoint. On top of that, you don’t seem to realize that the military has Muslim holy men. In fact, you can also be a freely practicing Satanist in the military because the military will not hold you back from practicing your religion no matter how unpopular it may be. Lastly you do not seem to realize that the Muslim god is the same as the Christian god. Just so you know, they’re the same and Muslims also acknowledge Jesus as a great prophet like Moses, but they don’t consider him to be the son of God.

    But that probably wasn’t your point, your point was probably a secular progressive stance on how Christianity and its value system when applied are a bad thing or something to that effect. She didn’t get in trouble with taking off her clothes. It was her posing with her uniform in these nude poses. There’s a difference. You throw the official military uniform into this and it changes the whole thing because now you’ve put the Air Force in a situation about whether or not they should punish those that they deem dishonorably portrays their branch. If you don’t think this is a big deal, I whole heartedly encourage you to walk around in a real military uniform and play “soldier” for the day. There are laws against you wearing uniforms of the military or police… it’s called impersonating, and you could get charged with that. You also are not allowed to wear medals / awards that the military has if you never earned them. There are laws against that no matter how stupid you may feel it is.

    20) Agreed. Corporations do it all the time, but you don’t hear the liberal press griping about it when you get someone like Harry Stonecipher getting ousted from his post at Boeing, but if it’s one of their own like good old Clinton, that’s when the gloves come off and standards shouldn’t be applied it seems.

  23. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #16 – This all comes down to the simple concept that the military is an all volunteer force. If you want to pose nude, if you’re gay, if you don’t believe in war, then join another organization. You know what the rules are going in. If you don’t like the rules, don’t volunteer, it’s that simple.

    Comment by JT — 2/16/2007 @ 6:33 am

    If you represent the official attitude of the military… Then go fuck yourself. I don’t want my freedoms defended by jingoistic asshats who don’t actually believe in freedom in the fist place. It’s attitudes like yours that make it hard to support the military.

    Go tell your story to Fox… Around here, we actually like women and freedom.

  24. rax262 says:

    What were they thinking? All I can say is: Best recruiting poster EVER!

  25. TJGeezer says:

    #17 – If results are what matter, you hit that particular nail on the head.

    #22 – You’re right. The discussion is clearly all about Boeing and Clinton, or should be. (But seriously, you’re probably right about one thing – if she hadn’t capitalized on her military uniform, her military superiors might not have over-reacted the way they did.)

  26. Guyver says:

    23 , 24) It had nothing to do with obscenity in the general sense. It had to do with the fact that regardless of any sidejob she has, her primary occupation 24/7 is a military service member and she used military property (her uniform) to do these pictures.

    Her initial uniform was issued to her and all her subsequent uniforms were paid for by non-taxable clothing allowances that she gets on a periodic basis from the Air Force. She technically and legally does not have the right to use the military uniform as she sees fit. When she used the uniform in an unauthorized manner, she was representing the Air Force. Period.

    This isn’t about a military service member per se posing nude, it’s about her using those uniforms in a way that she was not allowed to do. I’m not sure why everyone’s so blind to this.

    She could have avoided this IF SHE WANTED TO by not using her military uniform. Had she just posed nude, this would have been a non-issue. She chose not to for obvious reasons. Kinda silly that a woman who uses government property in an unauthorized way is getting so much sympathy and air time when everyone in the military knows this is not allowed.

    What this whole discussion should really revolve around is can an individual use their military uniform in a public arena as they see fit regardless if this is unbecoming of a military service member. That’s the bigger issue to this whole fiasco.

  27. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    Guyver –

    I fully understand where you are coming from, and I whipped off my quip quickly between tasks at work… I don’t disagree insofar as the uniform issue is concerned – and I’m not in the habit of being that concerned with the plight of nude models, except that I have no objection to nude models.

    JT –

    Let me walk back the “go fuck yourself” line… What set me off was the tone of your position “You know what the rules are going in. If you don’t like the rules, don’t volunteer, it’s that simple.”

    I’m a citizen and I have the good fortune of being born to a country where citizens are supposed to have oversight over the government and the military. I took the tone as arrogant and I took it to assume some authority over civilians. The military is a subserviant military. They do not rule us, we rule them. It’s this relationship that helps ensure the military is a tool for preserving freedom…

    If it seems like some whack morality crap is getting pushed onto the citizens who volunteer to put their bodies in harms way, I’m going to get mad. But I do respect the need for discipline and standards in order for the military to function effectively.

    So let me just say that i shouldn’t have been rude about it, and the above is what I want to say about it.

  28. James Hill says:

    This story has all of the elements of a good DU post: No real news, no real important findings, just nerds talking about women… something they know next-to-nothing about.

  29. James Hill says:

    #31 – What, you finally got a mirror?

    Nice try, but stay down at the kids’ end of the pool.

  30. Guyver says:

    26) Sorry about my little soapbox. 🙂 Just trying to illustrate how the media seems to have double standards.

    I guess we should ask if maintaining standards and expecting individuals not to use government property as they see fit should even be as controversial as people are making it out to be.

    Clinton’s impeachment didn’t have anything to do with him lying to a grand jury or the potential implications of illegal campaign fund raising with China. It was all about sex right? Just like it this whole thing is somehow about this lady just posing nude… right?


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 4519 access attempts in the last 7 days.