Message-ID: <005101c0ac9b$ff38e140$>

From: Louise <>

To: donna laframboise <>

Subject: Fw: the book memo send#1

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:32:36 -0400

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)

Content-Type: text/plain;



Hey babe,   [Back]


Here is the first installment.



----- Original Message -----

From: Louise <> 

To: Walter H. Schneider <> 

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 5:24 PM

Subject: Re: the book memo




Ok Walter, here is about 4 hours of work.


pg 14 first para - "The main point of the first chapter of this book is that

pornography, together with the desires that underlie it, is natural and

healthy." No distinctions here for sex and porn involving kids, just blanket

statements that all sex and porn are good.


pg 15, 2nd para - "Turning more specifically to sexual attitudes, we again

find some remarkable variations across time and space - good evidence that

they are only the product of training, nor moral truths obvious to anyone.

(Basically, Ferrel argues that the variations in moral beliefs in the world

makes these values illegitimate - unlike most of us, who believe that sexual

mores are present in society for a reason, like protecting the vulnerable).

Even though they do change over time and place, as Ferrel describes on this

page, that does not mean the morals are less legitimate for that reason. 


pg 16, para 2 - Here Ferrel describes in derrogatory fashion the limits

parents place on child sexuality.  "Even among parents who do not overtly

punish their children's expressions of eroticism (which many do, physically

or psychologically) the message is sent in subtle ways.  If a child is

playing with its genitals, the hand is pushed away...Of course, there is

also the perpetual anxious avoidance of nudity and of sex talk around

children.  The message is subliminal but clear: there is something sinister

about sexuality and certain parts of the body." 


What is sinister, in my view, is Ferrel's belief that we should encourage

childhood sexuality, making them vulnerable prey to the pedophiles who just

look for such children.  That is why children who have been abused are more

likely to be abused again, because once sexualized, the pedophile's zoom

into the child with their radar for such things.  Ferrel's views would make

children completely vulnerable to adults who want to have sex with them.

You want experts on this, I will give them to you.



pg 17, 2nd para - As for our own western culture.... In this paragraph,

Ferrel argues that since change has already occurred, it proves "the utter

madness" of assuming our society's moral standards have already been

perfected.  Ferrel seems to want to open the debate up about sexual morals,

and yet, these things are never decided by anyone - they evolve naturally

over time in response to society's need for order and safety for its weaker

members.  Sexual morals attempt to achieve that, though imperfectly.  As

Ferrel notes, there continues to be debate on those sexual activities that

occur between two consenting adults, but it is not utter madness to protect

vulnerable people from the excesses of sexuality.  Again, Ferrel makes the

blanket statement covering all sexuality, with no distinction for harmful or

child-involved behaviours.  In some ways, Ferrel's book is revealing for

what he does not say, and I have found this throughout the book.


page 20 - 3rd para end, Similarly, this culture's traditional aversion to

sexuality is not adequately accounted for by real threats to well-being;

there is something profoundly irrational about it.  Ferrel's penchant for

overstating here, disguises the fact that once again, most of our moral

beliefs are predicate upon the harm caused by unfettered sexual expression.

Who will sacrifice their children to give them up to those adults who desire

sex with them.  Why is it irrational to Ferrel that this is so.  Ferrel on

page 21, second para, believes that values "must be based on needs", not the

protection of the weak or the needs of society, a rather hedonistic view of

morals that is not supported in the evidence. 


Page 22, para2 - "...things which are not in one's power to control are not

morally creditable or blameworthy."

Page 22, 3rd para - "The point about things one is not responsible for is

also significant for our purposes, since we don not have ultimate control

over our most basic capacities and needs."  The "I can't help it so I must

not be held accountable for it" argument.


Page 23, 1st para - is here submitted that sexual feelings are neither

more nor less noble, intrinsically, then any other basic needs.  The desire

to share sex with another person is no more degrading to that person than is

the desire, for example, to share companionship.  And presentations that

arouse or vicariously satisfy sexual desires are no more to be despised that

those that arouse or satisfy the desire for friendship, love, or self

respect."  Again, no distinctions made as to unwanted desires, or child

sexual congress.


In the same para, Ferrel equates the revulsion to pornography to be the same

as the feelings a racist has towards a mixed race couple. is the

racist's response that is morally evil....the intolerance traditionally

heaped upon those who feel a need for such fantasies is itself morally

wrong."  "Irrational attitudes toward sexuality have caused, and continue to

cause, vast amounts of human sorrow."  The penalties for sexual deviance

cause more pain to the deviant, then does the behaviour the deviant submits

some to.  Ferrel expands on this theme at page 27, 1st para, "Yet surely one

who says "you're different from me, so you're just an animal" in matters of

sexual needs and feelings is no less a bigot than one who reacts similarly

in matters of race."  Here Ferrel clarifies his belief that societal outrage

towards certain sexual behaviour is biggoted no less than the bias of race.


pg 33, poor ferrel gets a little apoplectic when he deals with the criticism

that those who view porn don't care about the persons portrayed in the porn.

You should read the entire section from page 109 to 113, as this is the

short section where he attempts to deal with sex and children.  My favorite

here is, "Although to do this subject justice would require an entire book,

it is essential here to say a few words about one thing: the common idea

that there is something inherently emotionaly unhealthful about children, or

even adolescents, having sexual knowledge or sexual activity.  It is widely

averred, for example, that they are not "emotionally ready" for such things.

Or, in regard to children, that it is not natural for them to have sexual

feelings.  The latter is a perfect example of rationalization and

ideologically induced blindness."  Here is a man who has never had a child,

or been close to one, but assumes a great deal about childhood sexuality.

Who is doing the rationalizing here?


page 34, para 1,  "...pornography exploits the people it portrays, or sex

itself, no differently than a television program such as The Waltons

exploits families or family life."  Exploitation in porn would not be

equated by most of us as equal to portrayals of family life in the Waltons,

especially when children are used in its production.


pg 50. para 2 "A commonly expressed fear from the antipornography camp is

that little girls may suffer distress and damage to their self-image from

the sight of the naked women in pornography.  The real source of any such

reaction would be the sex-negative emotions they have previously been

conditioned to have....the author of this book can report the effect such

exposure had on his self-image as a little boy: aside from statisfying some

powerful yearnings that had been denied, it gave him the reassuring feeling

that at least some people did not regard him as evil for having those

desires."  I guess, society should just do as Ferrel says and expose

children to sex and porn, since after all, his own childhood should be

dictating to the rest of us what our morals and values ought to be.




Here's a good one, pg 110, "What evidently is true is that for many

individuals, owing in part to a greater dependency on genital friction for

arousal, sexual "awakening" can be long delayed by preventing the youthful

experimentation in which they would othersie naturally engage."  So kids

would have orgasms much sooner, if only we would let them.


Here is another, same 2nd para - "As for the common idea that sexual

awareness and exploration are harmful to children or adolescents, it is no

less biologically false.  Stories of emotional distress from early sexual

experience are often told in this society; but it is clear that the real

sources of such trauma...lie in the accompanying social attitudes."  In

other words, children are not harmed by sexual behaviour, it is only our

response to it which creates trauma in them.  I guess that's why sex abuse

victims are more likely to become prostitutes, addicts, drunks, have sexual

problems in adulthood, have psychological problems and commit suicide.  It's

not the sex, it's what we think of it that harms children.  I guess if we

accept the idea of children having sex, then they wouldn't get hurt,

according to Ferrel.


pg 111 - 3rd para. "It may even be the case, as various (unnamed)

researchers have suggested, that there is a valuable place for erotically

explicit materials in the education of children, especially given the fact

that our society's high degree of privacy deprves them of the exposure to

nudity and sexuality they would have in a more natural environment."  Now,

peds tell us that this is how they groom children for sex, so I wonder which

"researchers" are actually advocacting this in the main stream.  See, for

example, "


Elliott, Michele (1995) Child sexual abuse prevention: what offenders tell

us. Child Abuse and Neglect. 19:5. Pp 579-594.


On page 112, Ferrel believes that children are vulnerable to pedophiles

because they are not exposed to sexually explicit porn.  He in the same

breath suggests that eliminating the porn materials would not stop the

pedophile from making his own "to use as "bait" to entice children into sex

with them."   The idea is in 2nd para, One currently...that they naturally


So here, Ferrel acknowledged that pedophiles use born to bait children, but

nevertheless things society should provide this "education" to children.

The porn is used to break down a child's resistance to sex, but we should

provide it to kids en masse.  Is this as weird to you as it is to me?


I just can't say anything about paragraph 3, it is just entirely

indefensible, so you check it out.


Ooh, here Ferrel makes a concession.  "there is something to the idea that

if "kidporn" were legal, it would send the message to pedophiles that their

desires are socially acceptable.  Even that is unlikely, perhaps, in a

society where they are often despised more than murderers."


pg 113, Given that children are particularly vulnerable to coercion,

protecting them from being pressured or forced into something which, in

present social conditions, can be highly a serious concern

(though it is potentially no more so than the practice of coercing them not

to act sexually).  Here Ferrel equates the pressure to force children into

sex as no more evil then the pressure he claims children experience from

being told not to have sex.  Only forced or coerced sex with children  is a

problem for Ferrel, because in his view, children want to have sex, only we

force them not to.


para 2, 113 - Ferrel asserts that those who campaign against child porn,

"...are constantly alleging, on the basis of no evidence whatever, that

pornography in general encourages child molestation."  The truth is, it

almost axiomatic that a child molester who is caught will frequently have a

fine collection of porn, so that is evidence enough for most of us.  In

spite of this, Ferrel claims on page 129, para two, that "many

psychiatrists...believe that pornography often has the effect of preventing

sexual violence."  Dr. Money (Ferrel calls him the foremost expert on

childhood sexuality), he claims, says that "persons requesting help in a sex

offender clinic "commonly disclose in the course of counseling therapy that

pornography helps them contain their abnormal sexuality within imagination

only, as a fantasy."  If so many sexual offenders are caught with porn, it

is obvious that the fantasy was not enough all the time, making porn the

instigator which feeds the fantasy to bring it to action.




I haven't read pages 130-164, but I will read those pages now, and get back

to you if I find anything else.