Contents
Preface vii
1 Background: Sexual Desire and Fantasy
1
2 Background: Sex and Values 11
[Back]
3 Common Charges Against Sexual
Explicitness 25
4 Pornography and Women 40
5 Portrayals of Violence
58
6 Degrading Content
71
7
Alleged Ill Effects from Use
86
8 Sex and Psychological Health 102
9 Elicitation of Violence: The
Theories 114
10 Elicitation of Violence: The Evidence 126
11 Portrayed Violence and Real
Aggression
139
[From so
large a mis-statement (and other things), it is clear: she didn't recall the
first thing she'd read.] [Back]
12 Sexual Repressiveness and Violence 147
13 Pornography and the Law 154
Notes
166
Bibliography
177
Index 184
(p.
2)
To
judge from the cross-cultural evidence, the production of pornography is a very
common thing for humans to engage in.
From all around the world have come reliable reports of this: sexually
explicit pictures and sculptures, legends and stories, songs and dances. Of
course, most human societies haven’t had our technology of mass production; but
that difference is reflected in everything from phonograph records to silk
hats. In old
(P.
13)
The idea that
nature’s goals are always good is a variation
on the wider belief that whatever is natural is good. One has only to reflect
on such natural occurrences as earthquakes, epidemics and drought, and on the
fact that every species can survive only through the suffering and death of
others, to realize that the latter is false. A more
restricted claim, that whatever is natural for humans to do is good, is also
false. After all, the biological tendencies we are programmed with include such
unlovely ones as selfishness, aggression, and spite. Even so, what is
natural is most certainly relevant to what is of value. Being natural is
evidence for being healthy, and that is a very important kind of good. Nature can definitely be improved upon; but
as biologists have long realized, most of the ways in which a given organism’s
behavior might diverge from the natural are harmful. The belatedly realized
harms of our modern diet and low‑exercise lifestyle provide a familiar
example. Some natural tendencies can be
changed or repressed fairly easily; others, only at a heavy cost.2 [Back]
(p.
16)
The exact way in which sexual aversion is learned in
this culture, and how our
socialization differs from that of those in which
children are raised to view sex
more positively, is a complex subject. But a couple
of illustrations can be given.
Even among those parents who don't 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.
[As the
continuing passage above and below make clear, this is not about teaching
children
"appropriate
times and places", but about nonverbal actions that send the message
"bad".] [Next]
The sex organs are studiously avoided in
conversation--except in connection with
the pollution of waste‑elimination, that is.
And of course, there is 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. The unnaturally high degree of sexual
privacy in which modern
children are raised is another factor in all this.
Through the long prehistory of
human evolution, the norm was for large families to
live together in a single
enclosure, where children could observe nudity,
sexual activity and childbirth
from their earliest years.3 That our practice of
shielding children from such
things is a contributor both to an increased sense
of "modesty" and to a
heightened
male interest in nudity is virtually certain.
(p. 20) [In the conditions under which all humans lived until 10,000 years
ago--the "most natural" state--privacy was scarce; children were
exposed to sexuality from
infancy. A comment elsewhere in the book:]
Some also opine that children naturally experience distress on seeing sexual (or even just affectionate) activity. On the basis of current information, these possibilities cannot be ruled out. But this much can be said: if such tendencies exist, they are mild compared to the antisexual feelings our society has built on top of them. Sexual sights do not possess the highly negative emotional impact in most cultures that they have in this one. In many cultures, for example, one who encounters or occupies the same shelter as a copulating couple is expected to avert his or her eyes and ignore them; but the experience is hardly traumatic for anyone involved. Moreover, there is certainly no natural tendency to have feelings of shame or disgust over mere nudity or over one’s own sexual behavior per se. [Back]
(p.
49)
The foregoing discussion has led us to an ironic
conclusion. Not only is it
false that pornography per se is sexist; but as has
begun to be revealed,
the shoe is on the other foot. The anti‑pornography
campaign itself
represents a pernicious sort of intolerance against
persons with certain types
of sexual needs and desires--the great majority of
whom are males.
Though the movement's focus is on media expressions
of those feelings, the
broader message is inevitable: "Your needs and
emotions are evil, and so
must be repressed." One cannot rationally say
that sexual portrayals degrade
women without holding that typical male feelings do
the same thing; whether
he uses sexual substitutes or not, a man is being
told that an inherent part of
himself is bad. Coming from women who don't share
that nature (more shortly
on men who say such things), these charges are
blatant sexism. For what is
the core of sexism, racism and other forms of
bigotry, after all? It is the
attitude, "You're different from me, therefore
you're inferior".
Once again, the opposition to pornography is only
one manifestation of a wider
set of attitudes. Though ours is a pluralistic society,
and has changed its views
about sex somewhat in recent decades, it still
contains powerful antisexual currents.
These hurt both males and females, to be sure; the
"double standard" has included
a double dose of sexual guilt for many women. But they
are apt to cause the most
pain to those whose erotic desires are strongest.
Moreover, females aren't raised
with the tradition that their natural feelings
toward the opposite sex are
exploitive and objectifying. Yet from the time a boy
is very small he is sent the
message that his desires toward a female's body are
nasty and degrading to her,
and that in any sort of sexual encounter he would be
an offender, she his victim.
Most women don't seem to appreciate what this can be
like. (Women often
congratulate themselves on being more sensitive than
men. Perhaps so--and perhaps,
like people in general, they are mostly just more
aware of sorrows like the ones they
themselves have to face.) Incredibly, in fact, some
go about talking as if sexual
guilt were directed only at females.
One marvelous exception to this rule is
of insights into male feelings. She describes such a
young boy, "angry and forlorn in
the knowledge that [his sexuality] is unacceptable to
women. ...Women have placed
his body at war with his soul. Only when he gets out
of the house, only when he
discovers that other little boys are just like
himself, does he get enough reinforcement
to bear being bad...."
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. But in addition,
the
author of
this essay can report the effect such exposure had on his self‑image as a
little
boy: aside
from satisfying some powerful yearnings that had been denied, it gave him
the
reassuring feeling that at least some people didn't regard him as evil for
having
those
desires. [The exposure in my case--this was the very early 1950s--was
to photographs from nudist camps, which included naked children. Such items
were hidden and passed around by some boys I knew.]
Of course, not all males have consciously felt this
pain or realized its source, any
more than all females have been aware of suffering
from the discrimination toward
them. The former have historically failed to recognize
the sexism against them for
basically the same reasons as the latter once did,
and need to experience the same
sort of "consciousness raising" to do so.
The sad fact is that both sexes are very
largely the puppets of our culture's attitudes:
codes of propriety and honor and
morality that they have not created but merely
inherited, and which are very often
contrary to their interests and their real desires.
It has already been stressed that
people can be socialized into accepting almost
anything; most males (also females,
of course) have just accepted and internalized the
sexual guilt thrust upon them.
To see in further detail why men have traditionally
acquiesced or even participated
in condemnations of their sexuality, let us look at some special influences.
(P.
54)
One branch of
the feminist movement, the one that has been most
strident in attacking pornography, is in a category by itself in this regard.
These feminists can only be described as blatant sexists, and are sometimes
simply vicious. They make such charges as that all men consciously use the
threat of rape to control women, that all men feel rage at women and desire to
degrade them, that all men are inclined to be child molesters, that all men are
by nature violent...the sickening list goes on. 5 [For me to
consider false accusations of child molestation "sickening" is
clearly to regard adult-child sex itself as
seriously bad.] [Next]
(p.
73)
One thing that helps to reveal this fact is the very
different attitude found in many
other cultures. Regarding the matter of readiness to
have "casual" sex, for instance,
it has been standard among the single people of many
times and places; such
behavior is perfectly
healthy and wholesome for human beings. Among the
Mbuti,
for just one
example, work expeditions of young people frequently turn into happy
orgies on the trail. [As my book notes elsewhere, such behavior can be wrongful under external conditions where disease or unprepared pregnancy is a serious danger.] [Next]
(p.
89)
Of
course, that a belief is held for bad reasons does not mean there are no good
reasons for it. Nonetheless, it can be said without hesitation that the
evidence available is strongly against the “domino theory” of character. One has only to consider the cross-cultural picture to
begin to realize this, say, the promiscuous children
and youth of Mangaia or the
(P.
100)
A related
problem that needs comment here is that of unmarried
pregnancy among juveniles. Teenagers in
this culture are generally unprepared, emotionally and otherwise, to cope with
pregnancy and childbirth. This is
largely the result of modern technology and social structure: under the type of
society in which humans evolved, “adolescents” did the same work as adults, and
had extended families or the whole tribe to help care for their children. For
us, by contrast, teenage pregnancy is a serious problem. [Back] For reasons similar to those already cited,
however, it is unlikely that pornography has a significant effect in promoting
adolescent sexuality. Aside from the
fact that other media and social institutions are much more influential, to
make young men and women find sex desirable does not require such materials.
Indeed, it is romance novels and magazines that most stimulate the sexual
feelings of teenage girls. 12
Should
we nonetheless try to keep young people from acting on those desires by
preventing positive messages about sex from reaching them? Absolutely not. The
sexual ignorance and guilt traditionally imposed on adolescents are harmful in
countless ways. (More on this as we
continue.) In fact, they are highly counterproductive; they are what prevent
large numbers of teenagers from using adequate contraception. For one thing, to take such precautions means
admitting in advance—to others and to
themselves—that they have sexual plans, rather than having the excuse of being
carried away by the passion of the moment.
(“Nice girls don’t use birth control.”) Other industrialized countries
with greater acceptance of adolescent sexuality have a much lower level of
unwed pregnancy. In the permissive
(P.
106)
[This discussion here of damage to the mind clearly implies
that paraphilias are something bad:] --->
To counter
irrational fears on this subject, it will be
worthwhile to say a little about what is known concerning the causation of
paraphilias. There are two main proposed
explanations, both of which have some clinical support—perhaps both etiologies
are at work, in different cases or some of the same ones. The compensatory
account suggests that the perversion is a defense mechanism, the subconscious
mind’s way of maintaining sexual desire in spite of traumatic events that
threaten to destroy it. The “imprinting”
theory holds that salient features of the circumstances of sexual arousal in
early life become a permanent part of the paraphile’s mental “lovemap”. It
posits a kind of one‑shot conditioning that is perhaps reinforced through
time. (Some writers still talk as if ordinary “classical” conditioning could explain paraphilias, but its effects are too weak to
account for the data. For example, sexual perversions have a strong resistance
to “extinction”.) Either way, the damage is done
by important events early in life, when the person is first experiencing sexual
reactions—though neither theory can claim to know for sure what other factors,
such as high suggestibility or a fragile ego, make one particularly
vulnerable. Finally, in a certain
category of cases the cause of the distorted sexuality is brain damage or chemical imbalance in the
brain.[pedophilia is a paraphilia]--->
All this raises the question of whether pornography that is itself
deviant (depicting fetishes, sadomasochism, and so on) might produce actual
paraphilias. But here, too, many absurd claims have been made. For example, the fact that many pedophiles make sexual photographs of children is
frequently presented as evidence that such photos produce sexual interest in
children in the first place—even though they were clearly made after the
interest existed. Obviously, those with nonstandard sexual desires will have
fantasies to match, and hence an interest in the corresponding type of
pornography.
So we must have more than that
correspondence to argue that the pornography might cause the interest. Is there
any such evidence? Certain psychologists have hypothesized that deviant
depictions of sex might be able to produce actual paraphilias, at least in
sexually inexperienced young men. The data so far weigh against so easy an origin,
however: no actual case with such a cause has ever been identified.5 Now, some clinicians do believe that deviant
pornography can help to maintain deviant desires, once they exist. But there is
not any clear evidence of that; and even if it should be so, the paraphile’s
own imagination is quite adequate to do the same thing. Here again, those who
register such fears tend not to make the parallel suggestion that young people
be allowed to have “straight” pornography, or real sex, in order to pre‑empt
the possibility that they will succumb to whatever it is that does produce
deviant desires. [Terminological point: Despite
the widespread usage by non-specialists, 'pedophile' does not refer to all
persons who have sexual contact with children; it refers to individuals with a
sexual preference for children. Many who have such contact aren't pedophiles,
and some pedophiles refrain from that contact throughout their lives.] [Next]
(p.
108)
It may even be that our general
mental health has been adversely influenced by negative sexual
feelings. Malinowski reported that his Trobriand
Islanders were psychologically very healthy; it was only among the nearby Mailu
and Amphlett Islanders, so similar to the Trobrianders in race and custom but
authoritarian and sexually repressive, that he found nervousness, obsessions
and deranged violence.8 Similar claims
have been made by others who spent years living in sexually permissive
cultures. As Danielsson remarked, "Most of
the well‑known complexes and maladjustments from which our children
suffer are still unknown in
Sex and Young People (Pp. 109-113)
The
preceding discussion has skirted the edge of one of the most explosive
issues
surrounding pornography and sexuality in general: that involving
minors. For it is in childhood and adolescence that
basic sexual
attitudes
are formed, and in those years that the foundations are laid for
psychological
health or maladjustment. For example,
the great majority of
paraphilias
appear then, and the others seem traceable to that period.
But
it is in regard to sexuality during those years that public attitudes
were
changed least by the "sexual revolution"; the prevailing feeling
still
is one of great apprehension or aversion toward nonadult eroticism.
Minors
these days have more sexual information (and more misinformation),
and
they engage in much more sexual activity than in earlier decades, but they
still
suffer from high levels of guilt and ambivalence. 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
emotionally 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
at
all.
The
latter is a perfect example of rationalization and ideologically
induced
blindness. It seems clearly motivated by
our traditional
sex-negative
views: "Sexual feelings are tainted, but children are pure;
therefore
they couldn't have such feelings."
And it is flatly false.
Even though children learn at an early age to hide and repress their
sexual desires in this culture, the
fact that they have them could be
discovered by anyone. (No, their sexual explorations aren't just
"curiosity"—the standard
euphemism for childhood lust.) [The
reader needn't pause
to examine more of my book's words
at this point; the key section is presented for an in-depth
look at a later point in My Case's
discussion, and other parts are linked later as needed.] [Back]
Moreover,
in cultures where they are not prevented from doing so, they
begin
sexual activity, sometimes even coitus itself, at a very early age.9
In
fact, such activity long before puberty is nearly universal among
primates
and very common in other mammals. The
idea that it is only
because
of "overstimulation" by sexual images around them that children
have
sexual thoughts is a myth. Exposure to
nudity or sex does not create
such
feelings in young people, though of course it can trigger them; it
is
their biological nature that does that.
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 otherwise
naturally
engage.
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, other than
those involving unwanted pregnancy,
coercion or disease, lie in the
accompanying social attitudes. [Back]Ironically, in
fact, it is the very fear
and
guilt that children are taught to keep them from being sexual that
cause
the problems. Countless stories of
adults who waited till marriage
for
sexual contact and then found it traumatic can also be told. This is
especially
true of earlier times, when women were advised that the way to
minimize
the unpleasantness of marital sex was to "lie still and think of
Breaking
any serious social taboo can have a
devastating
psychological
impact on those who do so. But the
sexual anxiety that is
standard
in varying degrees in this culture is unknown in those where
people
get only positive messages involving sex in childhood and youth.
So the idea that sex is bad for young
people is at best another
self-fulfilling prophecy. To illustrate how easily mistaken such social
traditions can be, consider the
long-standing Western belief that babies
should not be picked up every time they
cry. "They will be spoiled",
it
is piously alleged, "always
expecting instant gratification. They
won't
grow up independent and
strong." In recent years it has
been realized,
partly through becoming aware of other
cultures' practices, that the truth
is just the reverse. At that helpless age,
evidently, children need such
reassurance and security. It is those whose needs are not
met who are apt to grow up anxious and
dependent, unable to delay
gratification for fear it will not come later.10 Minors certainly do
need guidance and discipline, especially with all the dangers in the
modern world, such as drug abuse. But when blind dogma makes us try to
fight
biology in such ways, the results are often tragic. [Note: mention of the
value of being able to delay
gratification implies that self-discipline
is important. Note also that
this passage is from the section of
my book which the reporter specifically wrote about.] [Back]
As
the foregoing parallel suggests, the truth in regard to young people's
emotional
health may well be just the opposite of the common claim.
Among
other primates, early sexual activity, like play in general, is a
kind
of "rehearsal" for their adult roles.
And in at least some species,
such
sex-play is known to be required for later sexual adequacy. That
something
similar is the case for humans has been suggested by sex
researchers. (See John Money's book Love and Love Sickness. Dr.
Money
is possibly the world's foremost authority on sexual development in
childhood
and youth.) One of the reasons for
distorted or inadequate
erotic
feelings may well be that, in vulnerable individuals, healthy
sexual
knowledge or experiences are not available during the crucial years
in
which nature intended sexual mental structures to be developing.
Prevented
from having natural erotic stimulation, the mind may find it in
unnatural
things, or become obsessed with it, or perhaps never find it
adequately
at all. For one possible instance of
this, there is a strong
statistical
tendency for men imprisoned for "peeping" to have been late in
learning
about sex, and late specifically in seeing the genitals of the
opposite
sex.11 (They also tend to have had no younger sisters, which
could
help explain the latter statistic.)
However
all this may be, the important point for our purposes is that
sexual
awareness in itself is not harmful to young people. That fact
brings
us back to the issue of pornography. Of
the arguments standardly
used
against it, one of the most influential has always been that of
protecting
children from exposure to sex. Once it
is realized that such
exposure
in itself is not harmful, yet another objection to erotic
portrayals
is seen to be without merit. It
may even be the case, as
various 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 deprives them
of the exposure to nudity and sexuality
they would have in a more
natural environment. This does not apply, of course, to depictions of
deviant sex. Though it is doubtful they
cause actual paraphilias, they
still might
send very inappropriate messages. [Next] But healthy, happy
sexual
depictions or descriptions are no more inappropriate for them than
is
the case for those involving other kinds of healthy human behavior.
To be sure,
recreational portrayals of sex by themselves
are no substitute
for a well-rounded sex education. If pornography is the only source of sexual
knowledge young people can get, they
can be misled in various ways.
But if they are denied reliable
sources, as is so often the case, they
will go on getting it from questionable
ones. It is a real tragedy. [Back]
Despite
the great importance of sexuality in human life, this society
continues
to keep youth in the dark about it. The
"official"
information
they do get, moreover, tends to be all negative, about the perils of
disease
or molestation, never about the joy of being sexual. The
inevitable
result is a society in which the adults
are, in spite
of
what they assume, both miserably ignorant about and filled with
superstitious
fear concerning their own bodies and feelings. They raise
their
children the same way they were raised, and the cycle continues.
One
currently popular argument against pornography involves its use by
child
molesters as "bait" to entice children into sex with them. Now,
banning
the sale of such materials certainly would not stop this practice,
since
it is easy enough for such people to make their own, or to employ
other
lures such as candy. In fact, this and
similar tactics by pedophiles
are
possible because young people are prevented from having the
sexual
knowledge, and the sexual contact with peers, that they naturally
desire. (Many of the current efforts to protect
children from sexual
exploitation
are equally counterproductive and terribly harmful — though
that
is a whole new story.) As for the case
where minors are sexually
attacked
or coerced into sexual activity, note this well: the best
protection
against psychological harm from such assault is a healthy and
positive
prior attitude toward sex, not ignorance and shame. In fact,
given
all the harms that (as we'll continue to see) result from teaching
sexual
guilt to children, it would be very appropriate to regard such
teachings
as a form of child sex abuse.
Finally,
what about that special category of pornography that has caused so much alarm
in recent years, that which itself portrays children? This is another topic that needs far more
treatment than can be given here, but a few things can be said. Once more, there is no evidence that such
materials cause a sexual interest in
children—any more than seeing homosexual pornography produces a homosexual
orientation. As for those who already
are sexually aroused by children, for reasons that have also been discussed,
banning it does not prevent them from being so aroused. Even something as innocuous as the little
girl in the old Coppertone ads has been reported by numerous pedophiles to be
highly sexually stimulating. Note also
that in most of the world throughout history, children have gone naked until
the age at which they begin to internalize their culture’s taboos. This is often the case in modern
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. However, there is the special argument that depictions of sex between adults and
children can be used to give children the impression that such behavior is
socially acceptable. [As noted earlier, this is the second argument I endorsed
against legality for child pornography.] [Back] More importantly, there is a serious problem in
regard to the photographic making of such materials. 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 distressing or even
psychologically damaging is a serious concern (though it is potentially no more
so, once again, than the practice of coercing them not to act sexually.) That being so, a case for the legal
prohibition of this type of pornography can be made.
The
topic under discussion is admittedly laden with emotion, but that is
precisely
the reason why it must be approached with cool heads and correct
factual
information. We know only too well the evils to which hysteria
leads. Our strong concern for the welfare of
children has been exploited
shamelessly
by the antipornography movement. For
example, although strict
laws
have made it virtually impossible to buy child pornography for some
years,
these people continue to claim it is rampant, a billion-dollar
industry.13
They have been collecting and parading such materials
before
the public in an attempt to associate them with adult sexual
materials
in people’s minds, and they are constantly alleging, on the
basis
of no evidence whatever, that pornography in general encourages
child
molestation. Once again, a major source
of all this irrational fear
is
our culture’s misguided attitudes about sex and children. Until they
are
revised, our efforts to protect young people will continue to do more
harm than good, to everyone.14
(p.
129-131) [The book's discussion in these
passages treats pedophilia as a clinical illness.] --->
Quite apart from such doubts, however, there is positive evidence on the other side.
For one
thing, this survey result conflicts with those of others who have interviewed
sex criminals extensively. From their questioning of convicted rapists and pedophiles, for example, Goldstein and
Kant concluded that "few if any" had been appreciably influenced by
pornography. Instead, they decided, real persons in the environment "are
far more potent sexual stimuli" for the sex criminal. In fact, many
psychiatrists who have worked with sexually disturbed
patients believe that pornography often has the effect of preventing
sexual violence. And many sex offenders themselves report that that is the
case.6 According to Dr. Money, 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". In fact, in the
questionnaire just discussed, 39% of the convicts also agreed that it
"provides a safety valve for antisocial impulses". All things
considered, this type of evidence provides at least as much reason to believe
sexually explicit materials prevent violence as that they incite it. ---->
***
Another way
to get evidence regarding the influence of pornography would be to compare the
frequency of sex crimes committed by offenders who use pornography
with the number committed by sex offenders who use none, to see if there is any difference. One clinical study of this type, involving rapists and child molesters, has been conducted in recent years, and it found no such difference.8 (Though even if it had, that might have been the result of some other common factor, such as a higher sex drive among those that committed more offences--see more on this point below.) Any new result requires further corroboration, but this too is evidence against the correlation needed by the hypothesis that pornography promotes sexual crimes. Though concerned that violent or paraphilic portrayals might reinforce deviant desires, the authors of this study felt there was no good reason to suspect ordinary sexual materials caused harm. Quite the reverse is generally believed by clinicians who treat sex criminals, in fact: ordinary pornography is standardly used by therapists in an attempt to replace the offenders' perverted desires and fantasies with normal ones. [Next]
(P.
133) [The relevant point is at the bottom of the
second paragraph here.] ----->
The Danish experience with legalizing pornography is
particularly noteworthy in this
regard.14 Denmark’s homogeneous
population, together with the careful gathering of data by the social
scientists involved, make one reasonably confident of the statistics. That the increase in availability of erotic
materials was so large and so sudden, occurring under fairly stable social
conditions, eliminates from consideration a lot of other variables that might
conceivably have had a causal role. As
is widely known, the rate of reported sex crimes of various types dropped greatly
while that increase was taking place. By
questioning people about their feelings, the researchers determined that the
decline in reports of milder offenses (e.g., exhibitionism) could plausibly be
accounted for by a general softening of attitudes regarding their seriousness,
rather than by a change in the frequency of the offenses themselves. That is,
the milder offenses were simply not reported to the police as often as they had
been. ----->
Yet
they found no comparable change in feelings about “peeping” (still regarded as
a frightening invasion of privacy) or adult‑child sex, even though
reports of both had declined drastically—by 80 percent and 69 percent,
respectively—thus indicating a genuine decrease in their occurrence. Lacking
any other plausible explanation for such a result, the researchers found it
reasonable to conclude that it was brought about by the sudden high
availability of sexually explicit performances and materials. In fact, it is known that both of these
offenses are often committed by socially inadequate individuals as substitutes
for socially acceptable sex; so it is quite plausible that the new availability
of erotic materials simply provided a legally safe substitute. [Note that these individuals are in a very different category
from pedophiles, in psychological terminology.] Whatever the explanation, given that so much of today’s
concern over pornography stems from fears for children’s safety and women’s
peace of mind, these statistics are highly significant. [Back]
(p.
151-2)
[This paragraph is from a section speculating on how
emotional pain might help cause sexual pathologies.] This alienation from women has other possible consequences that are very
disturbing. Some people react to being shamed and rejected by
withdrawing rather than with anger and defiance. And something that is true of
male pedophiles in general--the great majority of whom are passive, non-violent
individuals--is that they feel threatened by women. This suggests that their
sexual interests are turned toward children precisely because of anxiety over
rejection and hostility from adult females. In other words, what makes children
sexually preferable to such persons is that they are accepting and
unthreatening. The extent to which this culture's negative attitudes toward
sexuality in general, and male sexuality in particular, might play a part in
this has not been adequately explored by psychologists. But the possibility
that they are partially to blame is very real. Unfortunately, a culture that reacts to emotional
deviance with vengeance rather than compassion is not likely to look in this direction
for solutions to the problem. [Interestingly, The
Post has published an article--by their columnist Barbara Kay--promoting
compassionate monitoring of pedophiles in ways designed to enable them to keep
their sexual tendencies under control.] [Back]
(p.
153)
A
terrible irony has emerged from the preceding paragraphs. Not
only
is there no good reason to believe that sexual explicitness per se
leads
to violence, but the antisexual attitudes that underlie the
antipornography
campaign are themselves a cause of violence.
The message
of
sexual aversion that is conveyed by opposition to erotic materials (and
by
many other means, of course) is to blame for some, perhaps much, of the
sexual
aggression and hostility that plague this society. Indeed, there
seems
to be a vicious circle of repressiveness and violence here. Each
time
a particularly heinous sex crime occurs, many say, "See how dangerous
sex
is? This proves it has to be
suppressed!" — which merely prepares
the
soil for more such acts. In George Washington's day, a respected
medical
tradition said disease was caused by "bad blood" and was cured by
letting
it out. To treat an illness,
when
instead his illness only grew worse, they frantically let even more blood out,
until
he finally died. Our tragically counterproductive attitudes about sex must
somehow
be changed; people must be educated to the evil that is being done.
Of
course, violent behavior has many sources.
If we are to do anything
significant
about all the aggression in this society, the remedy must
include
a lot of things, such as attacking its socioeconomic
roots.
It must also include simply doing a
better job of teaching morality to
children—real morality, that is: respect and concern for others, and
equal dignity for all. If guilt is to be taught (and it probably
must be),
let it be only over genuine evils like
aggression itself.
[Back]
(p.
172, end-notes for Ch. 8)
[This end-note from my book's section
"Sex and Young People" is the one about which the
reporter was asked in the passage from her
discovery hyperlinked two paragraphs back.
Certain other authoritative sources on child sexuality were
listed elsewhere in the book.]
9- The books by
Malinowski, Berndt and Berndt, Danielsson, and
Elwin
are good sources of information on this matter; see also Floyd
Martinson
in Benjamin Wolman's Handbook of Human
Sexuality, and
Chapter
10 of Milton Diamond and Arno Karlen's Sexual
Decisions.
[The first four sources are in-depth anthropological studies
(full references for all of them
were in the book's bibliography) of cultures where the
children behave highly sexually
from an early age; these books were chosen for listing here
owing to the rigorousness of
the research that produced them. The last two are chapters
specifically about children's
sexuality that are located in academic overviews of sexuality
research. Those first four
all compare the emotional health of the children of their
cultures with those in our own
and other societies, finding no evidence whatever of psychological
harm from the early
sexual behavior. Here is a relevant excerpt from my book's
Chapter 8: [Next]
***
(p. 173)
14- After years of
dismissing reports of child sex abuse
as too horrible to be true, in the 1980s this
society swung to the
opposite extreme of considering them too horrid to
be false.
A few of the more heartbreaking stories about the
hell millions of
innocent parents and
their children have since been put
through are chronicled in Paul and Shirley Eberle's
The Politics of Child Abuse. In a much
more insidious way, vast
psychological harm is being done by those programs
that tell children
"Don't
let anyone touch you there". Since they
want to touch each
other
sexually, the message of self‑hatred is being planted more fearfully
than ever. We can expect the next
generation to exhibit more sexual
dysfunction
and perversion than we have yet seen. [The
return to more liberal
sexual attitudes that began in
the early 1990s relieved much of my fear
in regard to this
problem. But as Levine's book
documents, it is still a very serious one.]
[Back]