|
Children and the “Danger” of Internet Pornography
Why pornography is not damaging to kids; Why the alarming need to "protect our children" is the result of political games and media hype
by David Mills
(Chapter 8 from Science Shams & Bible Bloopers - 1.16meg PDF file)
Perhaps I’m unsophisticated or culturally deprived. But I’m not the least bit interested in the history of French ballet. I know absolutely nothing about the subject, and I don’t want to know anything about it. A list of my favorite ten-thousand subjects would contain no reference at all to the history of French ballet. In fact, I’d much rather lie down and take a nap than to read about the history of French ballet. I respect and appreciate those artists and scholars who find the topic fascinating. But as for me, forget it. I’m just not interested.
What I am interested in, among other things, is computers. I bought my first computer in the early 1980’s, when the machines were first introduced for home use. My first computer, purchased at Radio Shack, had all of 4K memory — not 4 megs mind you — I mean 4K (4096 bytes). I marveled at this enormous RAM and was awe-struck by the machine’s incredible CPU speed, which was slightly less than 1MHz. In its most powerful graphics mode, my first computer could simultaneously display four different colors!
The internet back then was almost exclusively the province of a few elite universities and research centers. No one ever heard of Netscape, Windows Internet Explorer, or Bill Gates. The World Wide Web was a decade into the future. The internet then was a text-only medium, requiring the manual entry of painfully-intricate address codes to navigate the system. My first modem occasionally achieved a blazing 300 baud, though most of the time I had to settle for 150. Since those days — which don’t seem that long ago — computers and the internet have changed unimaginably, becoming exponentially more powerful and (perhaps) a little easier to use.
During the 1980’s and 1990’s, I logged onto the internet thousands of times, connecting to tens-of-thousands of sites around the globe. In all those years of net surfing, however, I never — not even once — connected to a site referencing the history of French ballet. I’m confident that many such references exist on the internet. But I have never bothered to search for them, because I don’t give a damn about the subject. Even if I knew exactly where to look, I would not look. * * * During the 1980’s, I never heard a single negative comment voiced about the internet. Sure, internet users themselves were constantly complaining that the system was slow and difficult to navigate. But no one ever suggested that the internet was a bad thing or an evil force. Starting in the early 1990’s, however, Fundamentalist Christians — and sensation-seeking news media — began portraying the internet as a mortal danger to humanity.
For a few years, we heard frightening stories about terrorists’ allegedly using the internet to pilfer plans for building a nuclear bomb. The internet, it seemed, was literally going to destroy the planet. Never mind that the same nuclear technology was also available in any college textbook. Because the internet was the messenger, all these conspiracy stories seemed far more ominous, and more likely to result in Armageddon. The internet was little understood by the average citizen, who feared what he didn’t understand.
The next horror-story circulated about the internet was that millions of murderers, kidnappers, and pedophiles were lying in wait behind their computer terminals, ready to attack any member of your family who went online. Supposedly, these violent predators were all computer geniuses, who could decipher your home address simply by viewing your E-mail address. Using this cryptic information, these internet stalkers could break into your home and slit your throat as you lay sleeping. Ironically, those voicing such fears of internet stalking voiced no objection whatever to publishing a City Phone Directory, which provides full names and home addresses of practically everyone in town. (note 1)
But fear of internet-inspired nuclear bombs and internet-savvy criminals has currently taken a back seat to the gravest threat of all: the horrifying possibility that someone — perhaps even an “underage” teenage male — may use the internet to view photographs of nude women!
Motivated by campaign contributions from Christian conservatives, the US Congress in 1995 passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA sought to “protect minors” from the “threat” of internet pornography. Moreover, software publishers and internet service providers began offering tools to block out selected internet sites deemed “harmful to minors.” Programs such as Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, Cybersitter, Internet Filter, and Surfwatch sold hundreds of thousands of copies to parents concerned about their children’s unsupervised computer usage. Thousands of sexually-oriented web sites began using Adult Check, an age-verification system to deny entrance to minors. Donna Rice Hughes, who thought nothing of sleeping with any married man “destined for the White House,” became spokeswoman for Enough is Enough, a group of born-again Christians striving to “protect our children from the dangers of internet pornography.” * * * Is there truly a problem of children’s accessing pornography on the internet? And if there is, shouldn’t we, as adults, strive mightily to prevent impressionable children from viewing sexually-oriented material intended solely for adults?
The answers to these questions are: (1) There is no problem, and (2), We should not strive to “child-proof ” the internet.
When I assert that we should not child-proof the internet, I am not attempting to raise a 1st-Amendment or Constitutionally-rooted objection to government censorship. Although I enthusiastically applauded the Supreme Court’s declaration that the CDA was unconstitutional, I wish to argue on completely different grounds why I believe that internet censorship is both unnecessary and quite counterproductive in shielding our children from imaginary “harm.” * * * The crucial, relevant — and invariably overlooked — fact about children and pornography is that children have no libido. In other words, children have as much attraction to sexually-oriented websites as I have to French ballet websites: None. For this reason, any thunderous public effort to shield children from internet pornography is likely to be iatrogenic. “Iatrogenic” is an obscure term denoting a disease caused entirely by the attending physician and his prescribed “remedy.”
To the tiny extent that adult websites attract children, the attraction is not one of lust, but of curiosity — curiosity generated by our endless discussion and public hand-wringing over the issue. Morally-crusading adults awaken in children an attraction to websites that, naturally, children do not possess. Experts on child psychology — including both Sigmund Freud and Jean Piaget — demonstrated decades ago that all children experience a prolonged period of sexual latency, during which they have no lustful inclinations whatever. This period of sexual latency ends with the onset of puberty in the early-to-mid teens.
That children have no sexual urges or erotic fantasies is almost impossible for adults, particularly male adults, to comprehend or accept. The average adult male is obsessed with sexual imagery. So he tends to project his own psychological framework and habits onto others, including children. It is difficult for adults to really believe that children spend literally no time engaging in erotic fantasy. Precisely because sexual imagery does not occur naturally during the childhood latency period, most — not all, but most — children’s accounts of sexual abuse by adults are probably true. Unless spoon-fed these fantasies by an incompetent psychotherapist or social worker, sexual imagery and desire are totally absent within children until puberty begins. A desire to download sexually-stimulating computer images is likewise wholly absent within pre-adolescent children. Let’s firmly keep in mind that websites, regardless of their content, must be actively selected by the computer user. The only things that appear on your monitor uninvited are advertisements and error messages.
I mentioned earlier that, during my two decades of internet use, I never accessed a single website referencing the history of French ballet, even though such sites certainly exist. No law of Congress prohibited my viewing such material. No “blocking” software or Adult Check screened me out. And no political or religious group tried to deter me from entering. My own intrinsic lack of interest was by far the best “safeguard” against exposure to the ballet.
Suppose, however, that Congress passed a law called the French Ballet Decency Act. I think that my curiosity would suddenly awaken. Suppose also that software companies and internet service providers were working feverishly to guarantee that I never learned the secrets of the ballet. And imagine that the commentators and religious activists were endlessly preaching about the “dangers” of my accessing French ballet websites. I think that I would probably lie awake at night wondering what all the commotion was about. The next time that I logged onto the internet, what sites do you think I would search for? Again, any alleged “problem” of children’s accessing internet pornography is entirely iatrogenic, caused by the guardian physicians of morality.
We can easily think of numerous examples in which the moralistic “cure” caused the “disease.” One of my favorite television programs of all time was Married With Children, whose every episode was admittedly filled with sexual innuendo and unabashed lusting, though never for the characters’ own spouses. When FOX Television first aired Married With Children in 1987, its ratings were abysmal. Nobody watched the show, and FOX planned to cancel the program.
Then a woman, whose name, alas, I do not know, began to publicly voice her outrage at the show’s raunchiness. She wrote letters. She tried to persuade the show’s sponsors to discontinue their advertising. She organized protests. The result was that public attention began to focus on Married With Children. The show’s ratings went up instantly and dramatically. And the program continued to run for ten seasons! If I only possessed the name of this blessed woman, I would certainly send her a thank-you card for her indispensable contribution to keeping my favorite program on the air.
Another example: I live in a rather small town in the heart of Appalachia. In 1997 the local Ku Klux Klan announced that it was planning a demonstration in a local park. Such a demonstration, far from any residential or populated area, would have involved five or six semi-literate racists garbed in their white costumes. No one in town would have paid the slightest attention to these kooks, let alone be influenced by their message of hatred.
Local politicians, however, were determined to thwart plans for the Klan rally. First, local officials tried to challenge the constitutionality of such a gathering. When that failed, they sought to organize a massive counter-demonstration across the park from the Klan rally. The result was that, for months, each day’s newspaper carried banner headlines detailing the battle over the proposed Klan rally. And, sadly, Klan membership grew as never before. Millions of dollars could not have purchased the newspaper and television coverage given freely to the Klan, courtesy of local politicians. The point here is that you shouldn’t direct the public’s attention toward an issue that you want overlooked. * * * Even if one concedes that children do not lust for erotic materials — and that anti-porn campaigns only provoke children to investigate — the question still remains: “What about post-adolescent teenagers? Don’t they actively seek out internet pornography of their own accord?”
The answer here depends entirely upon the gender of the teenager. Females, whether teenage or adult, are very rarely aroused by visual pornography. Men may fantasize that millions of women surf the net in search of penis portraits. But such a belief reflects basic unfamiliarity with female psychology. Visual pornography is almost exclusively a male pastime.
So if we leave aside the supposed “problem” of women and children’s lusting over internet porn, then the remaining demographic group is the post-adolescent teenage male. This group includes males from approximately 13 to 17 years of age, having experienced puberty and sexual maturity, but who are still legally “underage.” Are these males “endangered” by girly pictures on the net?
When viewed in historical perspective, it is difficult to believe that teenage males are genuinely harmed by sexual images. Let us recall that throughout 99 percent of human history, males began copulating as soon as they reached sexual maturity in their early to mid teens. All other animal species likewise engage in sexual activity as soon as they are physically capable. In earlier times, teenagers commonly married, reared children, held jobs, operated businesses and occasionally ruled nations. The World Book Encyclopedia says, “Most teenagers mature psychologically at the rate set by their society.” The reason why we, today, gasp in horror at the thought of teenagers’ copulating is that the Industrial Revolution necessitated formal education throughout the teen years. Today we correctly view as foolhardy any teenage couple dropping out of high school to marry or to have children. The Industrial Revolution demanded that marriage and children be postponed until formal education ended at age 18.
During the last quarter century, economic and technological advancement have required education beyond mere high school. Thus the median age of marriage rose well above 18. And, again, we viewed as foolish any couple marrying or having children before finishing college at age 22. As advanced degrees become more and more necessary in tomorrow’s economy, the median marital age will likely continue to rise.
So economic reality, more than anything else, has crafted our perception that teenage males are “harmed” by sexual preoccupation. Today’s male faces a frustrating gap of approximately ten years between the onset of his sexual maturity and the median marital age. Genetically and hormonally, however, today’s teenage male is unchanged from the day when teenage copulation was the accepted norm. During this extended gap between puberty and marriage, all teenage males masturbate frequently; and the overwhelming majority of them view pornography as well.
Again I pose the question: If, throughout the entirety of human history, teenage males were not “endangered” by full penile-vaginal intercourse with their teenage partners, how then are today’s teenage males “endangered” by mere photographs of women?
No credible sociological or psychological study of this question has discerned any harmful effects whatever of a teenage male’s viewing photos of nude women or of adult copulation. When all the religious and moralistic blathering is dismissed, opponents of internet porn have failed utterly to document any empirical “harm” to teenage males, who simply use porn as a masturbatory stimulant. In the end, arguments against net porn are identical to arguments voiced against masturbation itself: it grieves the Holy Ghost; it corrupts the soul; it transmutates males into monstrous criminals. * * * Religious conservatives often quote a report issued by the Meese Commission to “substantiate” their contention that pornography leads to crime (note 2) — especially violent crime against women. So let’s open-mindedly examine the Meese Commission, its charter and background, and the report it issued in 1986:
During the election campaign of 1980, Ronald Reagan courted and won the support of America’s Fundamentalist Christian community. Historically, this voting bloc had supported Democratic candidates in Presidential elections. But by 1980, Fundamentalists were fed up with “sinful” Jimmy Carter, who had supported the “satanic” Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution. The rejection of Carter by the Fundamentalists was particularly ironic because Jimmy Carter was unquestionably a devoutly religious man, who openly professed to having been “born again.” Reagan’s religious views, by contrast, were transparently scripted by pollsters and speech writers.
Once Reagan won the election and assumed the throne, his Fundamentalist worshipers expected the new President to wholeheartedly push their extremist agenda (i.e., an end to all abortions, returning prayer to public schools, requiring high school biology courses to include creation “science”). Whenever the Reagan Administration occasionally showed signs of slight moderation or pragmatism on social issues, the Fundamentalists openly chastised the President for “forgetting his electoral base.”
So to throw a bone to this gaggle of religious malcontents, Reagan instructed Edwin Meese in 1986 to form a commission to attest the evils of pornography, a longstanding thorn in the flesh of Protestant Fundamentalists.
Edwin Meese was Reagan’s ruthless, scandal-ridden, political hatchet man, who was given the job of US Attorney General as a blatant political payoff. Meese was deeply entangled in the Iran-Contra scandal, the Wedtech scandal and half a dozen other sleazy affairs. But, now, Meese was to sit in moral judgment on “depraved” publications such as Playboy and Penthouse.
Meese carefully selected his cohorts for the Inquisition. Foremost among them was radio and television evangelist James Dobson, whose Focus on the Family broadcast was legendary for its stridently conservative, anti-porn sentiment. Other members of the Commission, though not household names like Dobson, were similarly predisposed to reflect the Meesian viewpoint. So the Commission launched its quest to discover the real truth about pornography in the United States.
Since the stated goal of the Commission was to link pornography to crime, many observers expected the members to carefully examine crime statistics and to consult with outside experts on the psychology and background of criminal offenders. The Commission, however, had other ideas. Instead of trying to discern the underlying causes of crime, Commission members decided that, before anything else, they wanted to see a little pornography for themselves. So a literal truckload of material was delivered for the Commission’s close inspection.
The members began by looking at 25 hardcore pornographic films. (One might speculate that the viewing of 25 such “movies” would have provided the Commission with a graphically clear impression of the subject matter. But no.) The Meese Commission decided that they needed to study more porno films. So they examined more — and more — and more — and more. The Commission also ordered a massive shipment of pornographic magazines, examining each one thoroughly and meticulously. By the time the Inquisition was finished, the Commission had reviewed no fewer than 2,370 hardcore films, 2,323 magazines, and 725 books — proving that, for right-wing conservatives at least, pornography appeared to be addictive!
The Commission then published a 300-page summary of the pornography it had examined. Among the summarized movie dialogue was: “I want to taste your cum. I want you to cum in my mouth. I want to feel your hot cum squirt in my mouth.” The Commission’s summary contained innumerable such references and was itself one of the most pornographic documents ever compiled, setting a new milestone for government publications! (note 3)
The conclusion reached by Commission members was that they alone should be allowed to view such material, whereas everyone else should be restricted by law from access. The stated rationale for such a conclusion was that “pornography causes crime.” Yet the Meese Commission presented no evidence whatever to substantiate their dubious conclusion, which had been scripted and preordained from day one. The Commission’s goal, however, had been achieved: the Fundamentalist “electoral base” had been pacified — temporarily at least.
Hypocritically, members of the Meese Commission never expressed fear that they themselves might become criminals after viewing such huge volumes of pornography! They did not consider themselves poorer husbands or fathers. Nor did they consider themselves greater threats to neighborhood safety. In their defense, however, I should point out that no Commission member resorted thereafter to a life of crime — the lone exception being Meese himself. Conservatives who declare — “Guns don’t kill. People kill.” — are the same conservatives who instantly blame pornography, rather than individual choice, for every crime imaginable. Were it consistent, true conservatism would demand less government restriction of pornography and the internet. * * * I don’t mean to suggest that all members of the Reagan Administration were as biased and closed-minded as Edwin Meese. Reagan’s Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, was in ways the quintessence of scientific objectivity. Despite his vehement anti-abortion views, for example, Dr. Koop refused to sign a statement prepared by Fundamentalists declaring that abortion caused women permanent psychological damage. Koop said that, despite his personal distaste for abortion, no evidence supported the assertion of psychological injury.
Koop was likewise personally opposed to pornography. But when questioned directly about the true harm of pornography, Koop responded that “only two reliable generalizations could be made about the impact of exposure to ‘degrading’ sexual material on its viewers: it caused them to think that a variety of sexual practices were more common than they had previously believed, and it caused them to more accurately estimate the prevalence of varied sexual practices.” In other words, pornography apparently caused no harm and was, in fact, moderately educational. This was the conclusion of an extraordinarily conservative Surgeon General, whose courageous adherence to the scientific method precluded his echoing the party line.
Individuals of religious persuasion have every right to trumpet their objections to pornography and masturbation. But their objections, we should realize, are rooted in religion rather than science. Be very skeptical of any religious spokesperson who claims that her objections to internet pornography have nothing to do with her religious beliefs. When this crusader claims that she is trying to protect children from the dangers of the internet, what she really means is that she is trying to save teenage “souls” from hell. Since the crusader cannot convincingly present a Scripture-based argument to a secular audience, she must concoct some fictitious “danger” that supposedly exists wholly independent of her religious convictions—i.e., photos of nude women increase the crime rate.
The best way, I have found, to “smoke out” the true motivations of anti-porn crusaders is to point out that many European nations have much lower crime rates than the United States, yet have far more liberal laws regarding pornography. Moreover, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and China, where pornography is punishable by death, violent crime against women is disgustingly common. So if crime rates are “directly linked” to pornography, then we should unhesitatingly truck more porn into the US to reduce crime as in Europe (note 4). In reality, however, the true motivation of anti-porn crusaders has nothing to do with “crime rates.” These Christian Fundamentalists simply want to impose their religious viewpoint on everyone else, like it or not, by force of Federal and State legislation.
There are many psychological parallels between Christian Fundamentalists and the Muslim Fundamentalists who brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power in Iran in 1979. Both Fundamentalist groups want their religious beliefs enshrined as the secular Law of the Land. Both groups are absolutely intolerant of democracy or opposing viewpoints, since only their opinions are “ordained of God.” Neither group of Fundamentalists would ever permit freedom of choice, allowing each person to choose for himself whether or not to view pornography. Instead, the “scourge” of pornography must be eradicated from the face of the earth, and all smut peddlers consigned to eternal damnation. If untempered by secular culture and by the historical and legal safeguards of our Constitution, many religious zealots would today be burning “witches” as did their spiritual forefathers.
A little known, yet well documented preparatory step in the burning of a witch was the close-up inspection of her vagina by the priests and ruling male authorities. With full erections, the men inserted their fingers into the “witch’s” vagina, spreading it apart in search of hidden satanic amulets. One of the reasons why witch burning continued for centuries in Europe, then later in Colonial America, was that the “inspectors” enjoyed the procedure so much. It is a shame that the Meese Commission was forced by circumstance to live in the 20th century. I have no doubt that, centuries ago, the Meese Commission would have joyously searched for witches and hidden amulets with unprecedented thoroughness.
Notes
1. Although not directly related to the internet, the entire Y2K frenzy was another classic illustration of groundless computer-related fear gone berserk!
2. Child pornography, in which children are forced to perform sexual acts with each other or with adults, is — and should be! — a crime. Since child pornography is by definition a crime, an increase in the volume of child pornography would directly raise the crime rate to that degree. So while every civilized person condemns child pornography, let us recognize that such illegal materials constitute only a minuscule fraction of 1 percent of the pornography in circulation. As an excuse for censoring the internet, anti-porn activists invariably bring up the hot-button issue of child pornography, which all sides condemn already, and against which we already have tough and strictly-enforced laws. The issue of child pornography is therefore a diversionary tactic used to distract attention from the real issue — the censorship of pornographic images of adults.
3. It was not until Ken Starr’s sexual Inquisition a decade later that Republicans trumped themselves, producing even more titillating government publications about Presidential cigars in Monica Lewinsky’s vagina.
4. X-rated movie theaters and strip clubs are indeed usually located in high-crime areas, but only because conservative politicians enact restrictive zoning ordinances forcing sex-related businesses into these areas. Try opening a strip bar next door to a Baptist church or elementary school! You’ll be forced elsewhere by a lynch mob.
|