Op-Ed Columns

The other day my son, age 15 and all that entails, called me into the "man cave" to look at the new wallpaper he had put on his computer screen.

People download and display these things for all sorts of reasons, but mostly they seem to select images to soothe and settle them before their work begins.

The image my boy displayed was one of a young and very pretty actress, nude in bed but with the "naughty-bits" tastefully covered by a sheet. Honestly, I have seen more female flesh exposed at the beach. But still ... was it "appropriate"? That's the parental buzzword of today.

Anticipating my next question, he added, "Mama saw it."

Well, I concluded, if she did and if she did not demand he put up images of kittens and puppies instead, who was I to deny the boy something so simple to calm him after a hard day at school and before he starts playing World of Warcraft?

It works for mice.

You didn't hear about that?

It seems that scientists were studying a bunch of wounded mice. No, I don't know who wounded them or if the wounds were accidental or anything about that, so if any animal-rights folks are upset, go after the scientists, not me.

Anyway, these researchers noticed that male mice licked their wounds less when people were present — wound-licking has something to do with stress, the scientists say. So, like good scientists, they decided to get themselves out of the experiment. But to see if the sight of a human had any effect on the mice, they put a cardboard cutout of Paris Hilton in the room. And, no, I don't know why they picked Hilton; maybe that was the only cardboard cutout they had. (As for why a scientist would have one at all, let's not go there.)

And guess what: the male mice licked less, while female mice just kept on licking.

The conclusion, according to the scientists, was that "sexes react differently to stress."

The conclusion, according to the heading of the article, "Paris relieves pain."

I concluded that my boy and the mice have a lot in common.

Wouldn't you think that what works for mice and mine should work for others? Our generals and admirals do.

Right.

While mice were being soothed with the image of Paris Hilton, the Pentagon announced that it was lifting its decade-long ban on the sale of Playboy and Penthouse on military bases.

Back in 1996, in one of its moments of misguided moral fortitude, Congress passed the Honor and Decency Act (who names these things?), which prohibited "sexually explicit material" from being sold on post.

The religious right was pleased.

And it continued pleased until late last year when a military review board took a close look at these magazines (I bet they did) and concluded that so many advertisements and articles filled the pages that whatever might border on pornographic was lost in it all. Therefore, the board ruled, Playboy and Penthouse could be sold to soldiers without harm to them or the defense of the nation.

The religious right was unhappy.

So were antipornography organizations that consider such magazines to be degrading to women.

But efforts to get Congress to ratchet up the ban and get the Defense Department to go back to the way things were have not gotten very far — yet. Even though the Pentagon says it has not lowered its moral standards — some 67 percent of sexually explicit videos are still banned (who keeps up with this?) — groups like the American Family Association have not given up.

But folks, consider this. If Paris Hilton soothes the mice, if that wallpaper soothes my son, just think what Miss February will do for the troops after a hard day in the field? (Once the articles are read, of course.)

It would be as good, maybe better, than a trip to a bikini-filled beach.

My only concern is one of gender equality.

The last time I looked — which, I must admit, was some time ago — there weren't many men in Playboy and Penthouse.

So what about Playgirl? Did the Pentagon ban it? If so, was the ban lifted?

If not, why not?

Today, "this man's army" and all the other services are well populated with women who could use soothing as much as the men.

Come to think of it, why didn't those scientists bring in a cardboard cutout of Brad Pitt or Patrick Dempsey — who I am told is the hunk-de-jour?

Was it because all the researchers were men?

Was it because women researchers did not want to admit to having a cardboard cutout? Or not having one?

What did the female mice get out of this — other than well licked wounds?

Folks, I am beginning to wonder if there is not more here than meets the eye.

Maybe I should look into it.

On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't.