As pornography continues to make inroads in American culture, there is
a marked increase in the number of moral vigilantes and whistle blowers
who at times come across as more sex obsessed than the average porn
user.
Maybe they should focus their concerns on the local church. A
June 2007 survey by an online Christian internet community, ChristiaNet.com,
came up with some surprising statistics. The survey found that 50% of
men and 20% of women, characterized as 'regular church goers' admitted
to having a regular porn habit. Of course this isn't to suggest that Christians are more disposed to
porn viewing than others. The purpose of offering the stats is to
demonstrate that the appeal of pornography is pervasive and is even
accessed by those who for religious or other reasons may seem less
likely candidates.
Porn might be regarded as having
a positive influence, when considered from a statistician's
point-of-view. A decrease in rape rates is apparently a result of
increased internet access according to data analysis by
Anthony D'Amato of the Northwestern University School of Law.
D'Amato cites records from the US Dept of Justice that show there has
been an 85% reduction in sexual violence in the past 25 years. There
were 2.7 rapes for every 1,000 people in 1980, and by 2004 with vastly
increased internet access the rate had decreased to 0.4 per 1000 people
( a decline of 85%). Factors such as an increase in sex education and
improved 'rape proofing' of women can't get close to adequately
explaining this trend. D'Amato adds credibility to his claim that the
reason for the decrease in rapes was greater internet access, by
showing that the opposite was true statistically. In other words, when
internet access in a given state is low, rates of rape tend to increase.
Despite
positive findings of this sort, pornography is still viewed with
suspicion by many. A couple of stories illustrate the heated reactions
internet porn can whip up. In one case a wife freaked out and figured
her husband was a pedophile because she discovered a 'teen' site on his
computer toolbar. It turned out to be a legal soft porn site that
features models in the 18 to 24 age range. In another case a man was
teased mercilessly by co-workers who suspected him of being into whips
and leather, because the name of a porn site he visited was mildly
suggestive of S & M activities.
In many ways porn has
created a media driven comedy-of-errors with people trying to second
guess others preferences. Unfortunately the suspicions and paranoia can
do more harm than the actual porn viewing itself. Relationships have
broken up over porn. Rumors have damaged reputations, communications
and trust. These melt downs are frequently based on little more than
info gleaned by a spouse or employer spying on surfing activities.
Given
that the net is pretty much the cyber equivalent of the wild west,
there has been concern about the legal definitions. A site that appears
on regular porn lists and that posts up-front legal disclaimers
is as
'legal' as legal can be on the internet, irrespective how kinky the
name of the site happens to be. Bending the rules can prove costly for
operators. The Feds in the US spend lots of time and money going after
porn producers, many of whom get locked up. More of these sites are
also monitored by citizen watchdog groups and these days there is more
international cooperation on pornography related issues than existed in
the past. Regulation and controls on the internet suck, but what sucks
a lot more are the worst kinds of exploitive practices, many of them
impacting kids - both passively through exposure and actively as a
result of criminal abuse.
An example of user activity that crossed the line hit the news recently. The story involved Who
guitarist Pete Townsend.
He was incriminated when a credit card was traced. While acknowledging
his offense, Townsend claimed he only accessed the site (that offered
extreme content involving small children) for "educational reasons". A
more recent case in the UK involved the actor
Chris Langham, who has admitted to accessing child porn.
I
can't speak specifically to the Townsend case, since I don't have all
the information. But in my view there is absolutely no excuse for
paying to enter a site of this nature. There is nothing more abhorrent
than sites that exploit children for financial gain. Irrespective of
motive, anyone who is caught accessing such sites and supporting them
with custom and cash should experience the full force of the law.
People who surf kiddie porn and send porn to underage contacts over web
services are as bad as those who betray the trust of our children in
churches, schools, camps. Criminal activity of this sort betrays us
all, especially when the perpetrators are ministers, priests, teachers,
politicians or others in positions of trust.
Those who have
legitimate concerns about illegal online content should focus on web
activity that is demonstrably illegal. What we don't need is an
inquisitorial climate in which paranoia wins out over rational judgment
and common sense. We don't need the anti-porn McCarthyism evident in
the activities of vigilantes. What is required are better regulatory
standards that are enforced and efforts to improve standards in the
industry across the board. However this type of action requires a level
of commitment that has been woefully lacking.
The legal aspect
of soft core pornography has occasionally come into dispute. Sites that
claim to be using models no younger than 18 at times come under
suspicion when visitors to the sites complain that the models look
younger than 18. In some cases these claims have been vigorously
contested by site operators who have succeeded in proving that they are
compliant with the law. Models who look to be in their early teens have
in some cases turned out be in their late teens or twenties. The Feds
have gone some way toward tightening up this type of loophole with the
18 USC 2257 provision that requires producers to keep records on hand
to prove models are in fact 18 or older. However this law hasn't been
as vigorously enforced as it should have been. More recent regulations
also require that so-called "secondary" producers retain the same
records, which generally tightens up the legal requirements across the
board.
These laws are necessary in order to protect the user. A
porn surfer can't be expected to be the judge of whether or not a site
is maintaining standards in accordance with its disclaimer. That burden
shouldn't be placed upon the surfer. This is why the authorities should
absolutely demand compliance from the distributors. Moreover the Feds
should ensure that standards are being maintained through occasional
inspections of sites' records. This would send the message to other
producers that they risk consequences if they undercut legal
requirements.
Given that there is a criminal aspect to internet
pornography, there has been a tendency to go overboard and make hasty
judgments about behavior that is really nothing more than human nature
in action. The notion that older men are deviant if they have an eye
for attractive younger women in their late teens and twenties is way
off the mark. Throughout history older males routinely took young women
as wives. An objection to this preference would have evoked a yawn from
an Egyptian pharaoh or an Israelite king, maybe even a belly laugh.
Older guys who fancy themselves as hot stuff still have an eye for
younger babes. There is a Grand Canyon sized gulf though between that
type of legal surfing and the sinister underside of the internet
represented by child exploitation, snuff movies, rape movies,
bestiality and other deviant material.
Bottom line the porn
industry is huge in the US and generates more profits than all the
professional sports franchises combined. It's not going to go away.
However it needs to be more tightly regulated and greater efforts need
to be made to target producers and distributors of child pornography
and other illegal content, without introducing regulatory machinery
that becomes too intrusive. This effort of necessity has to include an
international dimension since many of the offending sites are located
in countries outside the US and Canada. Good luck on that though,
because even though there has been an increase in cross border
cooperation on porn, many nations are lax and simply don't have either
the funding or the resources.
Aidan Maconachy is a freelance writer and artist based in Ontario. You can visit his blog at http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com/
