Air Force Staff Sergeant Stripped of Duties after Playboy Shoot
Friday, 12 January, 2007 by ballyblog
SAN ANTONIO - An Air Force staff sergeant who posed nude for Playboy magazine has been relieved of her duties while the military investigates.
In February’s issue, hitting newsstands this week, Michelle Manhart is photographed in uniform yelling and holding weapons under the headline “Tough Love.” The following pages show her partially clothed, wearing her dog tags while working out, as well as completely nude.
“This staff sergeant’s alleged action does not meet the high standards we expect of our airmen, nor does it comply with the Air Force’s core values of integrity, service before self, and excellence in all we do,” Oscar Balladares, spokesman for Lackland Air Force Base, said in a statement released Thursday.
Manhart told Playboy that she considers herself as standing up for her rights.
“Of what I did, nothing is wrong, so I didn’t anticipate anything, of course,” Manhart, 30, told The Associated Press. “I didn’t do anything wrong, so I didn’t think it would be a major issue.”
Manhart, who is married with two children, joined the Air Force in 1994, spending time in Kuwait in 2002. She trains airmen at Lackland.
Manhart just wants attention. There are always some folks that want to be part of a group or organization, but do want to abide by the rules. This has nothing to do with your body belonging to the Military.This ia a trashy move, she should have waited until her tour of duty is over to bare her all, it’s called morals & respect. Manhart save it.
If you’ve got it flaunt it…
can u write me a leter..lol
Im an active cadet in Air Force Junior ROTC at my high school, and I look up too the men and women that serve our country. Its not easy being a girl in a military enviorment, and younger cadets tend to look too women in the military as thier role models. In our corps, we remember that all of us are in leadership positions and need to live up too our code of honor as well as our corps values because someone is always watching, someone is always looking too you for for thier next move. What are the young girls that look up to women in Ms. Manhart’s position going to think now? that its okay to bring discredit upon one’s self? Ms. Manhart’s everyday actions, as well as anyone else’s in the military are a direct reflection of the service thier in. This is why we have corps values in the first place, so we uderstand that we do set examples for everyone that looks up too us. Our military is the best of the best, it protects our rights as well as our freedom to do as we choose. Playboy disploits women, Ms. Manhart should have thought about how shes representing the strength and courage that it takes too protect our country. I dont care what anyone says, playboy is trashy! especially for impresionable teen girls, its not the sort of thing that Ms. Manhart should be potraying. Her body does/did belong to the U.S. Air Force because she along with every other member of the military represent the service that they are in.
Dear AFJROTC Girl,
If you are representing “the best of the best”, perhaps you should check your spelling an grammar.
Im (I’m) an active cadet in Air Force Junior ROTC at my high school, and I look up too (to) the men and women that (who) serve our country. Its (It’s) not easy being a girl in a military enviorment (environment), and younger cadets tend to look too (to) women in the military as thier (their) role models. In our corps, we remember that all of us are in leadership positions and need to live up too (to) our code of honor as well as our corps values because someone is always watching, someone is always looking too (to) you for for thier (their) next move. What are the young girls that (who) look up to women in Ms. Manhart’s position going to think now? (,) that its okay to bring discredit upon one’s self? Ms. Manhart’s everyday actions, as well as anyone else’s in the military (,) are a direct reflection of the service thier (they’re) in. This is why we have corps values in the first place, so we uderstand (understand) that we do set examples for everyone that (who) looks up too (to) us. Our military is the best of the best, it protects our rights as well as our freedom to do as we choose. Playboy disploits (exploits) women, Ms. Manhart should have thought about how shes (she’s) representing the strength and courage that it takes too – to protect our country. I dont (don’t) care what anyone says, playboy (Playboy) is trashy! especially (Especially) for impresionable (impressionable) teen girls, its not the sort of thing that Ms. Manhart should be potraying (portraying). Her body does/did belong to the U.S. Air Force because she (,) along with every other member of the military (,) represent (represents) the service that they are in.
There is more here to clean up here, but I hope you get the point. In your words, “we set examples.”
jq
I’ve been out of the Air Force for 17 years and spent 6 years active duty. It was WIDELY KNOWN then and STILL WIDELY KNOWN in the Air Force anyway, that if any MAN or WOMAN bares it so that the public can view it…newspaper or magazine, and now the internet. You will be punished under Uniform Code of Military Justice, receiving an Article 15 and up to and including discharge from active duty. She probably wanted out of the military and had a service commitment to finish. Go out with a bang, early retirement, and a little money from Hugh Hefner!
And please leave the young lady above alone.
I think she’s gorgeous and representative of strong, empowered women. If you’re going to do a photoshoot, it might as well be for a magazine that glorifies and adores the female form. She has good taste and if all women officers looked like her, maybe conventional weapons wouldn’t be necessary!!
This is just one more reason why women should not be allowed in the armed forces, at least not in combat positions, and certainly they should not be put in positions of “command” where they will be bossing around the men. Radical feminism and gender-bending role reversals are turning American men into a bunch of wussy wimps and women into a bunch of repugnant, aggressive glamazons. Good riddance to this nitwit. Now, if they would only do the right thing and kick all the other girls out too. If they must serve in the military, they can do so in some kind of women’s auxiliary unit as nurses or whatever, and leave the real military stuff — combat and command and strategy — to the real men.
And while we’re at it — what in the heck is wrong with American males today, that they would think it’s “sexy” for a woman to be parading around like a combat soldier, with a gun, and being in “command”? That is the very opposite of sexy. Men are sexy when they’re big, strong, powerful and dominant. Women are sexy when they’re small, weak, fragile and submissive.
That’s how Nature works — the males are sexually dominant, the females are sexually submissive. It’s Nature, not just a “social construction.” A bull is a very different animal from a cow, and it’s not just because of their “cultural conditioning.” Has all this radical feminist PC bullpucky messed people up so badly that they’ve forgotten what it’s like to be natural men and women? Maybe so. Maybe that’s why so many boys today never grow up to be men. They end up as mere “guys” — never knowing the glory and strength and pride and power of true, heroic, manhood. Pity, that.
Any guy who thinks women are “sexy” when they’re “strong” and “commanding” and “dominant” is one sickly, submissive, wimpish little sissy. And there’s more of them every year, it seems. As a woman, it makes me feel like retching. Give me a strong, proud, dominant alpha male any day. One who knows how to take a woman in hand and put her firmly in her place. Now *that* is sexy.
As for SSgt. Michelle Crossmanhart’s words (because that is her REAL name) pertaining to her posing nude for Playboy… If she thinks of her posing nude as “art,” then why doesn’t she do it in front of the young men and women she WAS training out at Lackland AFB? I’ll tell you why: because she knows that the under-sexed and under-stimulated boys and girls whom she’s training will NOT be looking at her nude form as “art.” They’re either going to see a slab of meat, ready to be devoured, or a woman whose authority is suspect, at best. Now, which group will be see her as which? I’ll make it easy for you. The guys will see her as a slut who is ripe for the taking, and the girls will either see her as a slut or a lesbian (because, in basic, girls see lots of lesbian activity).
As a trainee who served under our Sgt Show-All while in basic training, I was infuriated by the actions of SSgt Crossmanhart. I remember the briefings we had on military image and bearing, and I remember how Crossmanhart would harangue us concerning such. She knows/knew the meaning of the regulations which she contractually agreed to follow, upon joining the military. She knew EXACTLY how her actions would be viewed by her military superiors and peers. Any statements by her which seem to indicate otherwise are simply her trying to extend her relatevely short-lived fame.
As for picking on the grammar of someone who’s simply posting their opinion on a stupid blog, I think we’re all better than that. The only reason I can see why someone would do that, is because they don’t like what the person is saying in the first place and they’re trying to shut them up. Well, the use of insulting remarks or degrading statements to “win” and argument or drive home a point is childish, at best. Let’s all play nice, please?