NOTES on the HISTORY of PORNOGRAPHY

Child Porn

During the 1970s sex shops from New York to Los Angeles offered explicit materials featuring bestiality, rape and children.

In 1977, Dr. Judianne Densen-Gerber told a U.S. Congressional Panel probing the sexual exploitation of children that, "We are dealing with organized crime, the same group of people who filled this country with narcotics..." Dr Densen-Gerber said "kiddie porno was started...in Seattle, Washington, by a man named Tony Eboli, who headed the Genovese family." The doctor apparently refers to Tommy Eboli, also called Tommy Ryan, who was shot to death from ambush as he left the Brooklyn apartment of his mistress. He had fallen out of favor with fellow Mob leaders who invested in a heroin smuggling scheme he engineered that went sour and cost millions. Eboli briefly shared leadership of the Vito Genovese Mafia family with Gerado Catena after Genovese was sent to prison.

Most of the child pornography traded in the late '60s to 1977 was photographed in Europe, Asia, and North Africa. Many photos depicted erotic nudity rather than sex, and about 10-20% of photos in child porn magazines were pirated from nudist magazines, showing children playing innocently.

A number of experts who have observed the child pornography industry from its beginnings to its demise agree that the number of minors shown in commercial child pornography magazines and films did not exceed 5,000 - 7,000 worldwide. Few of the children were runaways, prostitutes or drug addicts. Most came from middle-class homes and knew the adults for whom they posed. Most were between the ages of seven and fourteen. Instances of infants being molested and photographed simultaneously are rare if they've occurred at all.

Claims of child auctions in Amsterdam, toll-free numbers and mail-order houses for ordering child prostitutes, child "snuff" films, satanic molestation rituals in which animals are dismembered, "chains of [American] brothels and bordellos...where children are kept...under lock and key," and motorcycle gang rapes are touted by anti-pornography activists, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, politicians, and others without presenting persuading evidence of such occurences. (Law Professor Lawrence A. Stanley)

Holland, Denmark and Germany produced kiddie porn magazines and films during the late '60s to mid '70s. Few such productions were made in the United States. The approximate number of commercial child pornography magazines produced in the United States and Europe from the late 1960s onward consist of: less than 550 magazines depicting children having sex with other children or adults,; 460 magazines depicting boys nude and less than 100 magazines depicting girls nude.

"Yes, we did publish a couple of child porn mags in the mid'70s," says Rupert James, who works for Peter Theander's Rodox corporation based in Copenhagen, Denmark. "We also did animal-sex mags and films. I suppose that we must have started about 1974 or so and it was all over 1978. One of them was called Children Love, and it went about 30 issues. The original idea was that everybody else was doing it, and in any case, it was supposed to be the softer, affectionate kind of child sex - not rape and brutality...

"Why did we stop? We didn't like the nature of the material coming in. Originally we published stuff mostly from enthusiasts. But, of course, we were publishing it commercially as was everyone else at that time. That encouraged people to actually make the photos and films commercially. That meant we were commercially encouraging the abuse of children. That couldn't go on.

"In my opinion we shouldn't have started. That was irresponsible. And we still have problems as a result. For example, the French customs and police always give us a bad time because we are down in their files as child pornographers. They don't listen when we sat that all stopped a long time ago, they don't care." (Porn Gold, published in London in 1988 by Faber & Faber)

Some magazines publicized as child pornography contained no sex or "lascivious exhibition of the genitals". Moppets, for example, was one of the better-known titles which does not qualify as child pornography despite testimony before Congress by such mendacious sources as Lloyd Martin of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Bill Margold remembers receiving regular visits from Martin. "One day I queried him about snuff films and if he'd ever seen one. 'There are no such things,' was his response. 'We've created that myth to make you industry look even worse than it is. The only ways we can get the public to believe that you are really rotten is to make them believe that you make snuff films and do kiddie porn'."

In 1975, Houston police found a warehouse full of child porn, including 15,000 slides of boys engaging in gay sex. In 1976, Los Angeles Police found over 260 magazines in adult bookstores that dealt with child sex.

In New York City, Father Bruce Ritter, a Franciscan priest who started Covenant House, reported that "Of the 12,000 kids under 21 who come to...Covenant House for help, fully 60% have been involved in prostitution or pornography."

Some of the boys who came to Covenant House for help in the 1970s featured in magazines such as Lollitots, which showed girls eight to fourteen and Moppits which supposedly showed children three to twelve.

Robin Lloyd, author of the book For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America, claimed in the '70s that there were 300,000 boys, aged eight to sixteen, in the pornography and prostitution rackets. Dr. Judianne Densen-Gerber, whose efforts helped persuade Congress in 1977 to pass the first Sexual Exploitation of Minors Act, noted that Lloyd spoke only of boys, which led her to believe "that if there are 300,000 boys, there must be a like number of girls, but no one has bothered to count them. Lloyd postulated but cannot substantiate that only half the true number of these children is known. "That would put the figure closer to 1,200,000 nationwide - a figure that is not improbable... How many ways are there for a twelve-year-old to support himself?"

LA Police Chief Daryl F. Gates told a Congressional panel that organized crime ran the child porn business. "Possibly because of fear of public outrage, they operate through intermediaries, making it difficult to directly connect them with the sale and distribution of pornography involving children." Gates said the use of children in pornography appeared to have initially been the province of child molesters turned pornographers. "However, given the enormous potential for profit and any lessening of vigorous enforcement, it can be predicted that organized crime will become more deeply involved in child pornography."

Soon after child pornography appeared on the shelves of adult bookstores around the country in the mid '70s, "self-appointed moral crusaders and some feminists began storming the country to decry the shameful exploitation of children by child pornographers and adults who engage or desire to engage in sexual activity with children.

Articles and editorials appeared in nearly every newspaper in the United States calling for a stop to child pornography. Within a year or two, in the face of mounting public pressure, distributors and retailers of adult pornography had removed child pornography from their stocks and shelves. The federal government and state legislatures responded by enacting legislation proscribing the production and sale of child pornography and by funding law enforcement efforts to combat it. By the time the first federal child pornography law took effect in February, 1978, the production and commercial distribution of child pornography in the United States had been virtually eliminated." (Law Professor Lawrence A. Stanley in the Cardoza Arts and Entertainment Law Review, 1989, pg. 295.)

Commercially child pornography was virtually eliminated by 1978 though the traffic continued on a small scale. Roland Bouldreault and Larry Nelson ran Le Salon Distributors out of San Francisco - a major shipper of child pornography along with All American Studios, also of the Bay Area. Bare Boys was one of Salon's offerings featuring children as young as eight.

Joseph Jesse Espinoza, who owned distributor J-E Enterprises as well as several Los Angeles area adult book stores, was convicted in 1981 (641 F.2d 153) for trafficking in child pornography.

On March 2nd, 1981, the owner of a Manhattan adult bookstore, Paul Ira Ferber, sold two films devoted to young boy masturbating to an undercover police officer. The first film shows a naked boy lying face down on a bed, rubbing against the bed. He then turns on his back and masturbates twice to ejaculation. Next, lying on his side, he places a dildo between his buttocks as if to insert it into his anus. The second film shows other naked boys, some seven and eight years old, masturbating themselves and each other. At the end of the second film, the main child performer dresses slowly, then picks up some money and holds it towards the camera. (NY v Ferber)

Commercial child pornography ceased in Denmark in 1980 when Danish laws against it were passed. The last child pornography magazines out of Holland appeared in 1982. As in the U.S., videos and photos showing boys and girls have been made in Europe in recent years, but not for commercial distribution.

Still, for all intents and purposes, commercial trafficking in child pornography ceased by 1978 and has played virtually no role since in the mainstream adult industry. "Despite this, the child pornography issue continued to be exploited nationwide by law enforcement officials, moral crusaders and the media. What may have begun as a legitimate concern for the well-being of children quickly turned into a "moral panic" which swept the nation. Currently, child pornography slide shows and "teach-ins" continue to be given by law enforcement personnel, religious groups, Women Against Pornography, and other groups professing the danger that child pornography poses to children and society. Thousands of news articles, exposes, editorials, books, and television programs still proliferate at an astonishing rate, warning parents and children about kidnapping or sexual advances from strangers, neighbors, and, occasionally, relatives.

"School programs aimed at teaching children about "good" touch and "bad" touch have been developed and implemented. Professionals and volunteers who work with children, particularly teachers of young children, day care workers, Big Brothers, and scout leaders, are literally terrified of touching or being alone with a child, lest they be accused of abuse. Widespread fear about sexual abuse has led frantic parents, social workers, and others who work with children to look to sexual abuse as the cause of any difficulties which a child may have in growing up...

"In this climate of acute social paranoia and suspicion, claims of child sexual abuse have reached epidemic proportions. Many innocent individuals...have been falsely accused of crimes involving children. Such alleged crimes include sex rings with dozens of children, animal sacrifices, satanic rituals, gang rapes, child pornography, child prostitution and child murder. Many of the accused are convicted on little or no evidence. Many are acquitted, but are left bankrupt by the costs of defending the charges against them. Often they are unable to find jobs and are left socially and emotionally ruined." (Law Professor Lawrence A. Stanley)

Back in 1983, American Enterprise Institute director Douglas Besharov reported that up to 65% of all child abuse reports in the United States "may be unfounded." That percentage has probably increased.

The activities of law enforcement agencies against "kiddie porn" also grew exponentially during the 1980s. United States Customs, the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and state and local law enforcement and social service agencies established special units to combat the child pornography industry, which hasn't existed since 1978.

Two persons largely caused the explosion of the kiddie porn myth into national hysteria - Sergeant Lloyd Martin of the LAPD and Judianne Densen-Gerber, the founder of the multi-national drug rehabilitation organization Odyssey House. Martin told Congress that child porn was "worse than homicide." An investigator for the LAPD, Barbara Pruitt, claimed that "the children who die, they are the lucky ones." Densen-Gerber mailed child pornography to members of Congress and toured the country with stories of forced prostitution, drug addiction, kidnapping and murder. She made numerous unsubstantiated claims, such as one in 1979 that "by recent count...there were 264 child pornography magazines being produced monthly and sold in adult bookstores across the country."

In 1977, the Illinois House of Representatives appointed the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission (ILIC) to look into child pornography.

There is no evidence...that 300,000 or more children have ever been involved in these exploitative activities; that very few parents ever  have offered their children to pornographers as models...that there never was a nation-wide movement of children for sexual purposes...

Martin admitted that he had no firm statistics upon which to base his estimate and that, further, such statistics simply do not exist...

Our investigator then spoke with Robin Lloyd... He stated that he had "thrown out" a figure of 300,000 as an estimate to see how law enforcement officials would react....

Though Lloyd's book contains numerous factual references, he appends neither footnotes nor bibliography; thus, it is impossible to check the veracity of anything he says.

Martin's and Densen-Gerber's crusading ended in 1982, but others swiftly replaced them. A social worker with Children's Institute International in California, Kee MacFarlane, told the following to Congress in 1984 without providing any evidence to support her theories.

"I believe we're dealing with an organized operation of child predators designed to prevent detection... The preschool, in such a case, serves as a ruse for a larger, unthinkable network of crimes against children. If such an operation involves child pornography or the selling of children, as is frequently alleged, it may have greater financial, legal and community resources at its disposal than those attempting to expose it."

Kee McWilliams and Children's Institute International (CII) drove the hysterical McMartin Preschool molestation case which turned out to be a fraud. In the last 20 years, far more people have been hurt by the hysteria generated by such radical feminists as McWilliams, C.I.I. and Densen-Gerber than by child pornography.

"...Frantic parents, an overeager social worker, an overzealous prosecutorial force and a gullible and complicitous news media combined to make life a living hell for innocent little children and the entire staff of the McMartin school. In the end - after two trials based on the most lurid, heinous charges imaginable - not one person was convicted. But the frenzy ignited by McMartin triggered similar child-molestation scares across the country." (David Shaw)

In January 1982, New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams accused Densen-Gerber of using public monies targeted to Odyssey House for her personal use. Other charges against the crusader included that she forced an inmate to kneel and wash her feet; that

she forced a black man to sit in a chair while white women spat on him; and that once when an inmate died at Odyssey House, she ordered other inmates to dance around the deceased while singing Jinging Bells. A federal team analyzed Densen-Gerber's Odyssey operation and cited her program for its "punitive and coercive orientation" and "misuse" of children. The crusader against child abuse turned out to be an abuser.

According to journalist Lucy Komisar, "a member of New York City's police runaway unit said he stopped taking young prostitutes to Odyssey. 'I'm afraid I would have only negative things to say,'...said Detective Warren McGinniss of the Youth Aid division. 'Every kid we put in there walked right back out'."

Densen-Gerber used humiliation as a treatment tactic. Residents who committed infractions were forced to wear costumes with paper ears and tails. "If you act like a jackass, you might as well look like a jackass," they were told.

Judianne's husband is the former Chief Medical Officer of New York - Dr. Michael Baden. He testified at the O.J. trial. Both are friends with political extremist Lyndon LaRouche.

One of America's most popular magazines, the Ladies Home Journal, claimed in its April 1983 issue that child pornography generates between 500 million dollars and one billion dollars annually, exploiting several million children. The Albany Times Union

reported that child pornography is a "$46 billion national industry - a loose network involving 2.4 million youngsters, according to federal statistics." In 1988, Senator Dennis De Concini told Congress that "child pornography has become a highly organized multimillion-dollar industry..." These sources offered no evidence to back up their sensational claims.

In the 1980s, as fear over child pornography merged with the "missing children" scare, public hysteria reached new heights. Child pornography and the deeds of "pedophiles" were claimed to be directly responsible for the disappearance of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of children, despite the fact that the FBI, in 1985, reported that there were a total of 67 cases of children abducted by strangers.

An August 1984 NBC documentary The Silent Shame repeated many of the lies listed above, and added their own, such as the existence of extensive child pornography exports from Denmark. After the documentary aired, Danish officials conducted a thorough investigation. Berl Kutchinsky, Professor of Criminology at the University of Copenhagen, and Denmark's leading expert on porn, reported in 1985 that: "allegations of a large export of child pornography from Denmark to the United States caused great alarm in Denmark... When the two NBC reporters came back to Denmark to give evidence about their under-cover sessions with Danish porn dealers, they also handed over specimens of what they claimed to be Danish produced child pornography. Examination of these specimens showed, however, that no children were involved..."

Kurchinsky also noted that none of the addresses supplied by American law enforcement personnel to Danish investigators belonged to businesses engaged in child pornography. But as with the coming scare over heterosexual AIDS, facts proved irrelevant through the 1980s and 1990s to those with ideological agendas greater than truth.

The biggest domestic trafficker in child pornography is federal government sting operations, which encourage suspects to place ads seeking child porn. These government-created publications are the only publications in the U.S. today which solicit, advertise, sell or offer to purchase or exchange child porn. Government agents also operate "confidential" film laboratories which claim to provide confidential developing services. The Postal Inspection Service and Customs have solicited thousands of people who've bought from them child pornography videos, magazines and photos. These activities have resulted in few arrests. Four targets of a 1987 sting - Thomas

Cleasby, Roger Brase, Dale Riva and Gary Benson - committed suicide.

A person seeking child sex through magazines will probably only find a vast network of postal inspectors and police. There are no sexually oriented publications in the U.S. today which contain ads for child porn. There are no toll-free numbers to order child prostitutes. There are no large networks of individuals, other than public authorities, exchanging child pornography.

A world expert on pedophilia and incest, Dr. Ron Langevin, has been researching sex offenders for 20 years. He says the rate of association between consumption of pornography of any type including

child pornography and the commission of sex offenses is low.

"I have recently tabulated the frequency of pornography use among sex offenders seen in our clinic... We did so a few years ago and decided to abandon the question because of the low incidence of such behavior, i.e. it seemed unimportant. In light of the current popular debate on the role of pornography in sexual offenses we started to collect the data again. The results are essentially the same... To predict a predisposition to pedophilia or to the commission of child abuse based on the possession of pornography would be a futile effort."

Many of the politicians, law enforcement officials, and anti-pornography groups who have myths about child pornography found the 1986 Attorney General's Commmission on Pornography receptive to their goals of suppressing sexually oriented materials. The Commission said that "The sexual exploitation of children is the basis for the production and distribution of child pornography... The U.S. is the largest consumer of internationally produced child pornography."

Commissioner, anti-porn activist and Franciscan friar Bruce Ritter received laudatory press coverage for years, including this 11/27/85 article in the Chicago Tribune, headlined "Haven From The Hell Of New York Streets."

In more innocent times, the worst of the furies that awaited a youngster abandoned to cruel big-city streets were hunger, loneliness, crime, and freezing weather…

Now, a deadlier predator is abroad, one that Father Bruce Ritter, founder of New York City`s Covenant House, says is growing fat upon ready prey. The predator is the pimp with the videotape camera, and his prey are the 500,000 children a year who have run or been driven from their homes.

Ritter`s Covenant House is a fortress island in the polluted sea of sleaze that is New York`s Times Square, where hookers hawk their wares to visiting businessmen and Triple-X theaters compete with ``adult`` video outlets to excite and titillate the jaded. As many as 13,000 youngsters seek asylum from that urban hell every year at Covenant House, and Ritter said many of them, already conditioned to the lure of sex for cash, have been its ready victims.

``In the last 20 years,`` Ritter said. ``we`ve seen the development of an enormous multi-multi-multi-billion-dollar sex industry. We live in a sex-for-sale society that shows kids it`s okay to become sexual objects; it`s okay to become the merchandise in the sex industry, of which we are the patrons.

``Everybody who watches a hardcore porno film has to know that they`re part of the problem,`` he said. ``They are just as responsible for the moral murder of the people who make that film… If you`re buying these hardcore porno films, you`re part of that chain of corruption and violence and lust and prostitution..."

During the late '80s and early '90s, numerous boys testified that the good father had loved them too deeply. After a flurry of embarrassing revelations about his molestations, Father Ritter resigned from Covenant House and disappeared from public view.

Sorting out the truth of recent reports about child porn is difficult. Child porn activists, like many anti-porn activists, routinely exaggerate and lie to induce people to follow their hatred of sexual entertainment in general and male sexuality in particular. Law enforcement has a mixed record telling the truth about porn.

But this can be relied upon - At the end of the 20th century there is no commercial child pornography industry in America and probably the world - if children are defined as being under the age of 13. Japan and other countries do traffic in explicit materials featuring teens.

The increasing use of the internet has made it easier for consumers of child porn to swap material. While the industry was stamped out in America by 1978, pictures from that era are being scanned or digitized and re-released via the net.

"The ability to mass market child pornography with little or no overhead to huge populations has created an environment where pressures for new material exist," Kevin V. Di Gregory, deputy assistant attorney general in the United States Justice Department, testified before Congress in June, 1996. "This demand is being met by new material from sources which include the Pacific Rim countries..."

A popular practice on the net is to splice children's pictures (or pictures of famous people) into a pornographic image to create a fictional scene.

Under President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno has frequently fought against tougher prosecution of child porn. In the case of Knox v. the United States, the Justice Department argued that tapes of girls clothed in bathing suits and panties, spreading their legs in lascivious ways, were not pornographic. Reno tried to narrow and weaken interpretation of the 1984 Child Protection Act but the federal appeals court in Philadelphia, in the Knox case, disagreed, ruling that "the child is treated as a sexual object, and the permanent record of this embarrassing and humiliating experiences produces the same detrimental effects to the mental health of the child as a nude portrayal."

Disturbing trends about child porn include the following: According to a 1991 study done by the frequently mendacious Los Angeles Police Department, child molestors used pornography to seduce their victims in two-thirds of the Department's child molestation cases over a ten-year period.

London, Ontario has been called the "kiddie porn capital" of Canada. In June 1994, 30 men were charged with more than 1300 counts of sexual crimes against 50 boys. The pedophiles include social workers, school teachers and a politician. Some of the victims were as young as eight years old. Police confiscated more than 1200 homemade videos and hundreds of Polaroid photos and child-porn magazines.

In the summer of 1996, San Bernadino County Sheriff's deputies arrested two convicted sex offenders for molesting as many as 100 children. Investigators said they seized "hundreds of thousands" of pornographic photographs and about 800 pornographic videos and films, many of which show the two men, Don Stephenson, 52, and Donald Collins, 48, have sex with kids.

Sergeant R. P. Tyler is one of five investigators who track child porn for the San Bernadino County Sheriff's department. He says that the Japanese child pornography market is the largest in the world. The quantity of teen porn available in Japan far exceeds the amount produced by Europeans during their peak years in the 1970s. Made-in-Japan schoolgirl material is available internationally on the Internet. Tyler says that most on-line discussion of where to get such porn focuses on Japan. The country has no laws against child porn. Japanese police say there are about 1,200 commercial child pornography Internet sites in Japan.

In April 1997, the Christian Science Monitor printed its latest investigation into the worldwide sexual exploitation of children. It said that Japanese convenience stores and bookshops sell pornographic magazines, comic books and novels featuring teenagers. Porn shops sell picture books, videos and novels featuring children of all ages. Girls are depicted more often than boys.

Alice Club, a bimonthly magazine whose title refers to the works of Lewis Carroll who enjoyed shooting pictures of naked girls, devotes itself to the sexual appreciation of prepubescent girls. Alice Club sells about 50,000 copies of each issue.

The Monitor says that child porn in Japan was initially imported from the West and did not gain popularity until the early 1980s. At the time Japanese police enforced obscenity laws by banning all displays of pubic hair, but pornography publishers discovered that explicit pictures of prepubescent children could be sold without punishment.

Like most pioneering visual pornography, child porn in Japan first appeared in art books.

Japanese sex shops frequently devote space to "Lolita" videos, a label inspired by Vladimir Nabokov's book of the same name. Japanese law does not prohibit individuals from owning or buying child porn. One popular video, Teenage Story, features a man raping a ten year old girl.

History helps explain Japan's lack of specific laws against child porn. The militarists who ruled the country through the Second World War strictly controlled expression, so freedom of speech today is prized.

The Japanese generally don't object to the publishing of nude pictures of foreign girls. Because the Asian country lacks religious notions of sexual sin, it has a free attitude about physical pleasure.

The Japanese feel comfortable with child sexuality. Until the end of WWII, girls were given or sold into marriage at the age of 12 and 13. Japan's penal code, passed into law in 1908, puts the age of sexual consent at 13, even though Japanese must be 20 to vote and 18 to drive a car.

In 1988 and 1989, a printing plant employee, Tsutomo Miyazaki, raped and killed four girls aged between four and seven. In his apartment, police and reporters found thousands of videotape, many of which included child porn.

Hong Kong's 1997 campaign against child porn brought about 100 arrests and seizures of about 10,000 obscene articles including videotapes and CD ROMs.

Many child porn videos and photographs that circulate on the internet come from Mexico City and Guadalajara. Two U.S. pornographers who ran the "International Male" group recruited 300 Mexican children from 7-11 to appear in their explicit productions. Some of the children are still missing.

Russia remains on the fringes of the electronic child pornography trade because the Internet is not accessible to most Russians. Fewer than 1% of the country's 150 million person population can go on line. Still, the Interior Ministry has a child porn investigation squad that works with the FBI.

A British TV documentary, "The Boy Business" says a British pedophile ring in Hoofddorp, Holland, made a series of child snuff movies in the early 1990s. The ring supposedly abducted homeless teenage boys from Britain and Eastern Europe and literally fucked them to death on videotape. Dutch police can't confirm the allegations.

"From the steamy brothels of Bangkok and Bombay to the beaches of Cartagena, the sidewalks of Manila and the dingy train stations of Moscow, the world is teaming with children who have been kidnapped, sold, lured or forced to become the sex objects of unscrupulous adults," said Time International 9/2/96.

"The child-sex trade has traditionally been identified with underdeveloped countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, where cheap prices, the ready availability of underage prostitutes and the lax law enforcement have attracted Western sex tourists. Not that local customers are lacking: many men in Thailand, for example, are accustomed to visiting prostitutes, including anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000 young ones.

"Along with Thailand, other popular Asian destinations for sex tourists are Cambodia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines - countries where widespread poverty pushes youths to sell their bodies, often at their parents prodding, to help support their families."

According to an official with the group Save the Children, "Europe is the heart of the problem. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism have brought the development of a market in Eastern Europe, but also in Russian and in the Baltic republics."

In Moscow alone there are about 1000 child prostitutes. Hundreds more ply the trade in Warsaw, Prague, Bucharest, Budapest and the Baltic capitals. The child sex trade booms in Eastern Europe because of severe poverty, the power of organized crime and the death of organized religion.

"Pedophiles are generally not violent aggressors," says a specialist for Interpol, the international police organization. "They are charmers, good fathers, people above all suspicion. They are more likely to be consumers of child pornography than rapists."

The Belgium monster Marc Dutroux shocked the world in mid 1996 when his rape, torture and murder of several young children became known. Marc videotaped his captives.

Dutroux financed the construction of secret prisons for his captives through the sale of guns and pornography. Marc owned a huge porn collection.

According to the Berlin daily Bild, a video showing the mass rape of young girls during the war in Bosnia has become the most expensive tape on the German market, with a price tag of $10,000.

Possession of child porn is legal in such countries as Sweden, Mexico, Japan and Hungary. Advertising that borders on child porn pervades America and much of the world.

In 1988, fashion designer Calvin Klein told Vogue magazine that "I've done everything [in my ads] I could do in a provocative sense without being arrested."

One of Calvin's favorite models is Kate Moss, born about 1974. The emaciated girl's vacant stare, unsmiling lips and nude 105-pound body appear in dozens of magazines and billboards. Flirting with themes of bestiality, incest and violence, her photos suggest a compliant child, stripped for sexual use. One Obsession Ad shows her bare-breasted, with bruised eyes, holding her hand over her mouth and looking upset.

In response to concern about child porn, the U.S. Congress since 1978 has passed four separate bills banning it.

Pat Riley writes on RAME about the 1996 Child Protection Bill that passed Congress: "…Overall, the only change to the mainstream porno industry seems to be the necessity for some discretion in the advertising and box [see more about this in (2)], which may be annoying but by no means the end of the world as we know it."

Bob Martin: "Unfortunately, overzealous FBI agents always will be with us. And the Supreme Court isn't in the business of taking up an issue without a

test case. For the sake of those poor beleaguered producers, let's hope some computer idiot (the law is, after all, primarily aimed at computer transmissions of those pictures) offers questionable snaps or videos first to some law enforcement official and the judicial process rolls on its merry way.

"…This language will cause problems for porn magazines, videos, and (particularly) adult stories where "kids," "boys," "sons," "daughters," "girls," etc., are mentioned and (particularly in stories) where there is frequently an outright statement that sex involves a minor.

"…In the past… this has been more a matter of truth in advertising than of child pornography, and I agree with his assessment that this law (at least while it's on the books) ought to scare the jerks away from

their silly tricks (Catholic "high school girls" who've been around the block a number of times acting naughty, long-in-the-tooth "cub scouts" on overnight hikes discovering the joys of gay sex, and the

like).

"The porn industry -- het and gay -- has benefited substantially from the First Amendment, as it should. But whether we want to admit it or not, the First Amendment has its limitations; it's all a balancing act. We can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I hope no one would argue that "snuff" films should enjoy the Constitution's free-speech protection.

"Safeguarding innocent children from sexual and other abuse strikes me as more important than some character's "right" to put McCauley Culkin's (or Alicia Silverstone's pre-18-year-old) head on one of the of-legal-age bodies engaged in a sexually explicit act.

"And if that's really your thing, while the new law makes it illegal in all likelihood if you choose to do it in the privacy of your own home, on your own computer (or VHS player), and you don't share it, sell it, or trade it, more than likely you can enjoy it without a jail term.

"I take issue with Patrick's comment that "any move which tries to censor anything is wrong and calls out for condemnation...." I'll accept, grudgingly, opposing views on WHETHER child pornography is all

that bad because everyone has the right to his own opinion. But a society built on laws has to "censor" some things -- murder, rape, grand theft auto, what have you. How those items are determined is sometimes fuzzy, and sometimes politically motivated, but IMHO the Supreme Court has done a fairly good job separating worthwhile laws from those that infringe on individual rights (which are not, arguments to the contrary, limitless).

"From a purely practical standpoint, now that it has been ruled constitutional when the porno industry starts taking stands it ought to do so where (1) it can do some good, and (2) where there might be

more mainstream support likely to develop.

"Regardless of orientation or political affiliation, you're going to have trouble getting people (certainly a majority of the people) to sign a petition to ease child pornography laws.

"And while it is appropriately high-toned, please spare me the "They came for communists and I stood by silently" argument, unless you care to make the case that communists and child pornographers are one and

the same. We've all got to draw our own lines in the sand; for me (and for most people), child pornographers aren't going to get across that line, while Lenin and Stalin probably will.

"We've all seen as nasty pedophiles trying to lure

prepubescent teens into our beds, cars, tents, etc. So the more the video industry -- mainstream, het, or gay -- shies away from picturing gays as going after "kids," the better off we are.

"Patrick indicates that "merging a child into the picture of two adults copulating ... doesn't appear to affect the porno industry at all." Patrick, have you forgotten that computer graphics allow us to do some amazing things these days. While most porn producers won't pay the price to do it, soon enough the technology will become cheap enough (it all does, and it may be there now for all I know) that Forest Gump shaking hands with any number of presidents could become Shirley Temple performing nasty acts on Richard Nixon.

"And while I may risk some groans here, the simple fact is that small children are very impressionable (as the bill points out in its findings). Showing Little Johnny a computer-morphed picture (or

video) of Little Ray across the street having sex with a big girl, a big guy, or a big dog gives Little Johnny an idea he might not have had yet. It's the old, "Just because your friends want to jump off

the Brooklyn Bridge, do you want to, too?" question. Sorry folks, but frequently the answer is "Yes." I am also aware of cases where children were lured into porno rings (for pictures and flicks) by being shown fake pictures of other children "performing" similar acts (can't you hear it now; "Doesn't that look like fun?!")."

Brad Williams: "You described exactly why the porno industry is always getting beat up by the law. Certain companies and powers-that-be long ago decided to FUCK OVER THEIR CUSTOMERS BY LYING TO THEM!

"So and so is in this movie" NOT! "So and so's first X-rated performance" NOT! "Hot new release" Hmm-a comp tape NOT! "Full-length feature" 40 minutes...NOT. Gee, why don't these customers come rushing to defend the porn industry's "rights"?

"It ISN'T something I'm going to get bent out of shape over, because you can only raise hell and support so many causes at one time. If the new law is as inconsequential as it appears, I'll sit this one out. If it's inconvenient to some distributors operating in the "gray area" that Patrick mentioned, tough! That's the cost of doing business in the porn-world when you try to screw people out of their money. I can see the industry now: "Gee, we may only be able to release 7,000 new titles this year now due to this new law.....by the way, why are our wholesale prices so low I wonder?"

"Here's the exception, The Evil Angel Empire. Seen their wholesale prices? They are HIGH, and always have been higher than most. Could it be because they put out a QUALITY product more often than not, the

people who buy that product will buy more, and they don't release several hundred new titles a year? Could it be because they know what they are doing?

"While we're on the censorship issue, Nick's right that the people have to stand up and condemn censorship. This is especially true with the porn industry because they are too STUPID to help themselves at all. What's the lobbying arm of porn, the Free Speech Coalition? That's a pathetic joke. They are more worried about covering up a positive HIV test than they are about influencing politics. Seen their *fund raisers*? A bunch of performers who raise a whopping $2,000 or so, and get busted in the process because they take an "in your face" approach. How about Bill Margold? He fancies himself as some sort of spokesman for porn, and he likes getting busted too. This really helps influence the average Joe and Jane a lot, it makes me want to dig into that paycheck and contribute NOW!

"Let's sum it up why the porn industry gets beat up on and doesn't have an out-pouring of support from the very people who buy their product:

"1) There's several thousand titles in the US alone made every year. Most suck. Some are outright fraudulent in advertising and boxcovers. People don't like to support people who swindle them, even for a

higher purpose..

"2) Who's the torch-bearer for porn and a positive portrayal? Let's see, we've got John Holmes dead of AIDS-related causes, known junkie, and convicted felon. Linda Lovelace swears she was abused and coerced into porn. Larry Flynt and his "guarantee to offend everybody at least once" approach. Brandy Alexandre getting shredded on the Gordon Elliot talk-show. Annabel Chong on the talk-circuit unable to form a coherent thought as she rambles like a stoned Valley Girl about having 250 men attempt to fuck her. VCA's tiresome opener that is pure fast-forward material. Nina Hartley has to carry the load all by herself. Anton LaVey, the founder and head boogeyman of the Church of Satan did the talk-show circuit several times because he was rational, intelligent, and articulate and hence disarmed the audiences that naturally wanted to hate his guts. He provided interesting material, so all the talk shows wanted him back. Porn can't even manage that.

"3) The political climate. You want to fight futile battles against redundant child-porno laws? GO waste your time, money, and efforts so that when REAL battles start you have nothing left. People in the USA

freak-out about child porn, and if the labeling hassles, the numerous statutes, and the harassment are some kind of surprise to folks, get with it! What politician is going to vote against "toughening up the

laws on child porn?" Who's going to work to get that politician defeated under the slogan "He voted to strengthen the child porn laws excessively and unfairly, and the bill might be shaky constitutionally?"

"Wake up and smell the coffee. Porn will destroy itself long before the politicians and religious-right kooks get a chance." (RAME)

Pat Riley: "Brad, you confuse "doing" in real life with the fictional "doing" we see in the movies. Although many of the items one sees in the movies may lead to an increase in actual real-life doing (the seventeen year old screwing the fifteen year old for example) others are prevented by other laws and/or the internal understanding that these things are non-desirable. I reject any and all externally imposed moral codes but I won't kill you because:

1) Something might go wrong and you'll kill me

2) It won't really benefit me enough to overcome the cost in time and effort.

3) I don't want to constantly watch my back so I pay society to do it for me but society won't do it for me and not you (equality).

"Most legal prohibitions fall into a similar scenario, thus "morals" are not necessary (I prefer to call them "practicalities") to prevent society's ills from becoming the norm. Most people who tout "morals" as a reason do so from either an imprinted belief usually acquired in childhood or from a desire to control others. The way to deal with the imprinting is to constantly ask the question "Why shouldn't I do this?" and if you can't come up with a good rational reason you're probably just marching in lockstep to an imprint you received (usually) as a child and you should reject it.

"Your response to the necrophilia question is a good example of imprinting. At some time you have accepted a prohibition against sex with the dead and although you swing wildly against it even bringing in the complications of incest and an orgy which were never mentioned in the original, you bring up no real reason against it, just a uneasy feeling of "It's wrong" (this is not your words but my interpretation of your response). Regardless of your feelings however on necrophilia, there are people who get off on the idea and who would presumably like to see movies depicting such activity. One party does not have to be dead to create a fictional scene to satisfy this desire so in such a movie there is no actual transgression of your imprinted code nor of any practical code I can envisage. We are left with just a desire to control what other people think, a right you don't (or shouldn't) have in any reasonably free society.

"I don't agree with your contention that there aren't any snuff movies in existence but I can't prove it. But that's beside the point. If one gets off on watching someone being killed while having sex, is there some reason you have the right to say "You can't think like that". If someone is actually killed in making a movie on this subject we have more than adequate laws to deal with the murder (probably a copy of the videotape would be good evidence). And so on with your other "Ooops, pull back from this" because you don't approve of (conflicts with your imprinting) or it doesn't correspond with your sexual urges.

"The difference between males and females is precisely that: sex. Any remarks about the difference between males and females can always be labeled "sexist" but to do so is not an argument against the issues raised which I notice you don't address (perhaps correctly since they dwell on the reason for censorship rather than censorship itself).

"Dr. Otto's argument for maintaining censorship (in some form) was that it was necessary to preserve a civilized society. We have plenty of uncivilized activities presented in mainstream movies without a notable decrease (difficult to decide where one should draw the baseline however) in civilization and also that some activities that appear uncivilized to some and at certain times become part of the general mantle of civilization provided free speech is allowed. It's depressing to see such a lack of vigorous defense of free speech in a group that presumably likes watching something the mainstream majority regards as dirty and would quickly eliminate if they could.

"It may be that in the real world we have to settle for something less than a perfect censor-free environment but to accept up front that such a result is ideal is simply to play into the hands of the other side. As an aside, if you look at the beliefs of NAMBLA (not that I'm in agreement) as presented by them, you will (or at least I do) come to the conclusion that the organization bears little resemblance to the demonized mob of perverts that is portrayed by the hysterical gutterpress."

Child Sex: Anne Rice's position on the matter: "Today, by not acknowledging that teenagers have reached full physical maturity long before they reach legal maturity, we have created a class of young women of childbearing age who are encouraged to play at sex with young males of the same age who are by no stretch of the imagination ready to become fathers or husbands. This is a travesty. We must recognize that sexual maturity comes much earlier than in ages past and stand up for the rights of young people and reexamine outlaws..."

Pat Riley: "I wrote:>>Sure she's your daughter but as we know from experience girls don't die because of sex--it really doesn't harm them in any way and some might actually enjoy it. I'm not referring to some pre-puberty activities or getting laid with every junkie in town."

Roger:>I think his point is that he has a very young child, and he was referring to child molesters, not the boys she will date later in life. Or did you get that point are willing to say that if you had a six year old and some guy started diddling her, that you would NOT take the sharpest object you could find and start removing anatomical parts?

Pat: "Was that really his point? When questioned further Stern emphasized that he would beat up (or words to that effect) anybody who laid hands on his daughter ever. Robin pointed out that most girls eventually do get laid which caused Stern to lapse into silence and then change the subject.

"As to your second part Roger, we live in a rules-based society. Short of a breakdown in law and order of the nature of a riot where the police refused to do their duty (we've had a few of those) I don't believe individuals are EVER right in taking the law into their own hands or are EVER right in extracting vengeance. Certainly you have the right to defend yourself or another person with as much force as is necessary to stop the assault or whatever but when you seem to take such great pleasure in "start[ing] removing anatomical parts" that it seems you have allowed your emotions to overcome your undoubtedly normally civilized behavior.

"Every time Clinton opens his mouth these days he seems to mention the word "children". We have a whole slew of women's groups devoted to "save the children" and an attitude from them (females and various supporters) that not only borders on the paranoid but is specifically anti-male. Take a look at alt.true-crime on the Jon Benet killing. It seems every female on the net sees all men as child molesters--it's sufficient to be male to be guilty. Even when the autopsy and other disclosures by the Boulder Police Department seem to have ruled out any molestation around the time of death these women are not saying they're wrong but "The father must have molested her earlier". This attitude worries me.

"Your response (and Jeff's original) is not proportionate. If someone smashed your child's face in with a baseball bat requiring major reconstructive surgery and never getting the face back to its pre-assault condition, would you have the same reaction? The baseball bat would cause the child immense physical pain whereas some flasher exposing himself or even fondling your child's genitals causes little physical harm.

"Oh but it's the emotional pain, you argue. Except for this type of activity as a society we don't protect people against emotional harm--all those women who rejected me as a teenager should pay!--precisely because it's very difficult to assess what harm occurred. The reaction you evince here seems predicated on the notion that sex is an enormous horrible thing to be avoided at all costs, not just a normal part of life for most people and for the pre-puberty child, perhaps an unpleasant experience. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating screwing six-year-olds, just that we need to take a more balanced view and asking why you (or Jeff) can't.

"First the boys. Apart from the issue of working in porno movies which I would say should be the same as for the girls, any boy of any age who physically can, should get laid whenever and however and with whomever he can, subject only to the normal precautions of disease, birth control etc applicable at any age. Fourteen-year-old boys screwing their 30-year-old female teacher is fine by me. Good luck to him. Wish I'd have had half his luck at that age. I regard with horror a few recent cases of females being prosecuted for "raping" a high school boy; an unfortunate example of the law gone wrong. The rest of this only concerns girls.

"As far as working in porno movies, the age of 18 seems about right especially as it's the age at which most non-college bound people start their working life. I could be persuaded that 16 or 17 was OK too (but I'm not advocating it) and I could be persuaded that there was an exception for "emancipated children". [The concept of emancipated children currently exists and is particularly applied in the case of under 18 year-olds who work in the mainstream film business. Being declared an emancipated child allows them to enter into contracts and the like as though they were of age without having to get approval of parents etc. As I understand it, the court will take into consideration their ability to support themselves, where they live etc.]

"At the time of the Traci Lords problem, I believe one of the defenses for the producers that was touted was this question of emancipation and if you look at the early tapes of Traci, you'll see that maybe she was 15-16 chronologically but looked and acted like a 25 year old. The reasoning for support of 18 as the porno age of consent is that as a society we don't want children working--I'm also against the proliferation of part time jobs for teenagers outside of the porn industry--and performing in a porno movie is a step with far-reaching consequences, in time well beyond the day of the shoot or the initial sale of the tape, and in impact far more serious than just getting laid for money. Even turning a trick on the street or working in the local nudie bar have less importance. Videotape is forever. Look at the questions on this group about WEHT. Well, someone knows. That guy down the block who has just watched a twenty year old tape is going to start thinking "Isn't that woman next door?" Same ear. Same nose. Same way of tossing her head to make a point. Once a porno star, always a porno star. Forget about elective office. Forget about any job which would put you in contact with children or in the public limelight. And what about your relations with a later husband? Most guys don't expect their wives to be virgins these days but there's a big difference between private screwing and taking on the team in "The Gangbang Girl #99". Frankly, with all those negatives, I don't see why anyone at any age would want to become a porno star. There's also the issue of exploitation, meaning, in this case, the ability of the producer to rely on the ignorance (notice I'm not saying immaturity) of the girl of those factors (and probably others) I just listed. He waves a wad of money in her face and just talks about the current and obvious things. It's the same reason we make 18 a cut off for entering into contracts and it's reasonable to assume that below a certain age a person simply doesn't have sufficient knowledge to make a rational decision about these matters. When they can show they do we call them emancipated children (see above).

"So far I don't think I deviate much from the current system. Where I do have problems is with the penalties and with the current attempt to restrict dramatic license. Even though I waxed on above about the horrible things that would happen to a porno star in later life, let's also be realistic. Many porno stars are not exactly leading lives (other than porno) which would get them elected president. The impact on these girls of just that one thing (porno) is unlikely to make a horrendous difference hence the harm they suffer is fairly low and is balanced by (in most cases) a better-than-they-could-achieve-otherwise income. But it's still nothing we want to encourage. We also have to balance the "blame" to the producer. Did he know? How far below 18 was she? How emancipated was she? How exploitative was the deal? In the recent Ranz-disclosed Ali Moore question, presuming she was paid normal rate and the producer didn't know, Judge Riley would fine him a be-more-careful-next-time $100 plus court costs. The punishment should be proportionate to the damage caused (not much in most cases) and the likelihood of repetition by the person or others who might be tempted. What about the tape? Paying $100 for a gold mine; any producer would risk that. So you have to do something extra and here I have a real problem: you're punishing the use of an underage performer not the sale of a videotape but if you let the tape continue to make money the punishment becomes inadequate. I don't have an answer here but I do know that the current system of making possession illegal is offensive. Perhaps the answer is to make sale illegal and remove profit but giving it away or possessing it is fine. Of course you would have to confiscate any profits made to date by the producer. "The new law doesn't actually say you can't use an adult, portray them as underage, and have them engage in sex. It says you can't advertise, promote etc the movie as having underage sex and you must be able to prove that the performers are of age. (Sex in this case includes simulated Hollywood style sex but where the mainstream gets into trouble is that they're often using underage performers--Fast Times At Ridgemont High is an example.) The promotion part is where movies such as Cherry Poppers have a problem. But now we come to the more emotional question of real underage sex and that word "emotion" is probably a good place to start.

"Never have I seen such emotion as on this subject. Mug your grandmother for her social security and you'll see a far more balanced reaction even if grandma is languishing in hospital with broken bones and other injuries that will probably cripple her for the rest of her life. You're not rushing out to kill the perpetrator, whack off his arms, or stick a gun in his mouth. And yet on this subject you seek to outdo each other--IRA's imagery of frying the perpetrator's balls for his dog, for example. And this without even considering the physical damage to the girl--probably none. Definitely the Al Bundy syndrome and something you probably can't explain. Deep wired into your brains, I suppose, and the reason why we can't get any rational thought on this matter. Ah but you say it's not the physical injury but the emotional damage to the girl. Well, fathers of daughters (FOD), if there's any emotional damage that's your fault; you and this society.

"Sex is a short term physical activity, like eating. It's not love, it's not commitment, and above all, it's not for the purpose of making money in whatever shape or form. Like eating, after a good meal [screw] you lean back and say "Wow, that was great, let's eat here [do it] again sometime". What "emotional maturity" is necessary for a good meal? You FOD's and we society make far too much of sex; it's a recreational pleasure. [Disclaimer for the really pedantic: Sex should be loving, caring, and romantic as I've said in numerous posts in the past, not "take that, bitch" wham bam thank you ma'am. This doesn't deny its short term nature.] Moreover in what other area do we deal with protecting people from emotional damage? If we applied this to males, shouldn't we be punishing the females for the emotional harm they cause when theyreject them--often brutally? We've got some very twisted males on this NG who've doubtless been brutalized by their parents or their peers in their youth. Shouldn't someone be paying the price for that? Oh, no; they're males (not your darling little daughters) and undeserving of protection; they should just get over it. In practice it's nearly impossible to assess any emotional pain. In the case of the mugged grandmother some will get their house covered with bars, get an expensive security system, be terrified of leaving the house, and sleep (if they sleep) with a loaded gun; others will just shrug it off and go about their business. Is it the mugger's fault he chose the sensitive grandmother?

"Consent. Jeez, I thought I was a nitpicker. "He meant the dictionary definition;" "No, it was the legal definition;" or in Taylor's case, whether the guy said he'd call her in the morning and never did (I'm exaggerating). Or even "a girl under 18 can't give consent period"--i.e. no discussion is possible. Wrong. Not only is discussion possible, society's rules should continually be examined, discussed, dissected, and challenged. We should never take an attitude "It's the law and it can't be changed" and talking about it does serve the useful purpose of making people rethink their position even on such a touchy subject. Somewhere I seem to remember reading about the right of the people to petition the government. And how do they get to make those petitions? They assemble. And how do they know or want to assemble? They discuss the matter. Would that have something to do with free speech? But I do agree with IRA that there's no point in deliberately breaking the law unless you're prepared to pay the consequences and in this area disobedience is unlikely to result in anything other than a long prison term. Ineffectual way to cause change. So in my view, is a girl under 18 able to consent to sex? Of course, just as she can consent to a whole lot of other things: getting a punk hairdo, getting her ears pierced, going out with that yahoo with the motorcycle, chillin' at the mall instead of doing her homework. You (FOD's) might not like her doing these things but that's YOUR problem with HER. What constitutes consent (regardless of age)? [This is my opinion, not some legal definition; it's what I'd use if I was sitting on a jury hearing a rape case--screw the judge's instructions.] Basically that before the act, the girl agreed to have sex. Note, not after; whether the guy said she was a bitch and booted her out of bed afterwards is immaterial. It just indicates she made the wrong choice of male. Things that would make me think she didn't consent: - There was force applied or threat of force or someone in her position could reasonably anticipate she had no choice and would face physical compulsion or punishment if she refused to agree. She was covertly drugged or covertly made drunk or she couldn't reasonably be expected to understand the physical effects of a drug or alcohol and the guy was aware of her non-understanding. She couldn't reasonably be expected to understand the nature of what she was doing.

"This concerns the physical biology involved and the question of pain/pleasure--more than just a classroom lecture on the mechanics but not some touchie-feelie rubbish. Most post-puberty teenagers can be presumptively assumed to understand this but not so pre-puberty persons. The nature, place and circumstances of the act itself were such that it would be unlikely that any similarly situated and experienced female would agree. This has to do with the three guys and the doberman pinscher taking their turns, the gang bang by the football team, or anyone screwing Ron Jeremy. That she had no reasonable motive to have sex. I would like to say "she could not reasonably be expected to gain pleasure from the act" but sadly there are far too many females having sex for money, dates, prestige, or some other premium. Whether they collect the premium has no bearing on consent. They might have an action for theft of service though <g>. Her past history indicates she had not done this sort of thing before. Yeah, I know I wouldn't hear evidence on this due to the feminist pressure (and I'm sure they hate me for even raising it) but especially in the case of rape where consent hinges on the female's state of mind, it seems an important issue. The guy with the gun to the hooker's head still isn't going to get away with it. End of consent question.

"Some of the posts (particularly those from FOD's) seem to imply or state outright that they don't have a problem with a girl of sixteen or seventeen screwing some guy around the girl's own age but they do have a problem if the guy's over 18. I think the Director was most honest about this when he said that he might have a problem if the guy was Ron Jeremy. So let's take this slowly. These people have no problem with their (presuming age of consent is 18) underage daughter screwing in general; they just want to choose the male. Sorry guys, you can't. That went out with arranged marriages. But couldn't sex with the football jock be just as emotionally damaging as sex with Ron--let's stop using Ron as an example--an ugly 40ish fat male? Even more so because she expects more from the jock? Ah, but what about the exploitation angle? That forty year-old could get her for a candy cane? (Highly unlikely based on my albeit limited knowledge of 16 year-olds; they'd require at least a fur coat <g>.)Well, if he could get your daughter for anything--i.e. any material payment--you've raised a hooker, not very well if she'd sell herself so cheaply, and you want the state to step in and allow you to fix the price. But this is not real world. It's like letting the tail wag the dog to set public policy based on such exceptional circumstances. A more normal situation goes like the case a couple of years ago in NY State. A 24 year-old unmarried teacher was screwing a 15/16 year-old girl and her mother found out about it and objected, first I believe to the girl who said that no way was she giving up the relationship; she was in love with him <Riley raises eyes skyward>. The mother persisted and threatened to call the cops so the couple fled to Missouri (somewhere out there). The mother eventually did call the cops and complained of statutory rape of her daughter so the cops got in touch with the police in Missouri who located the couple who returned voluntarily (sure) to NY where the guy was thrown in jail. The girl, however, refused to testify and some feminist group took up her case. The last I heard the DA had refused to prosecute and the guy was released. Happy ending except for the mother who can fry in hell for all I care.

"I was trolling one of the police NG's about a year ago and I came across a police chief from some little town in (I think) Virginia talking about this very subject. His view was that most of these statutory rape arrests are sad cases and he hates dealing with them. According to him they are instigated by the father who finds out that some still young but over 18 guy has been screwing his daughter. There's no 40 year old dirty old man, no coercion, no candy cane, and no "emotional damage" other than that which must surely occur when these cases are brought to trial, not to mention the ruin of at least one person's life.

"So what should be the age of consent? I don't think there should be one. It's a lazy prosecutor's way of avoiding having to prove the lack of consent and the FOD's way of controlling their daughter's sexual activities without actually controlling the daughter. The sicko who can only get it up for the five year old--if he does anything about it--is going to get caught by lack of knowledge on the part of the girl, not to mention physical coercion. Every case should be treated individually; there's even a place for the old guy, young girl. I wouldn't convict a (must be) 60 year-old Bernie Confeld for screwing a then 17 year-old Heidi Fleiss--all that's allegedly of course. Nor Buttafucko (whatever the guy's name is) for poking 16 (I believe) year old Amy Fisher--another allegedly. In both these cases the girls knew what they were doing.

"No one says the girls should be getting pregnant and producing babies. In fact put me back on my proverbial jury and I'd say the absence of contraception was an indication that the girl didn't know what she was doing. I hope your 14 year-old is all contracepted-up <g>.

"And some factual information from the Merck Manual (15th Ed pg. 1681) as to puberty in females (mean age in parentheses): Breast bud (11) Onset of pubic hair (12) Growth spurt peak (12.25) Female body habitus (12.25)--I presume that's the .70 rule. Menarche (first menstruation) (12.5) Auxillary hair (12.5) Adult breast (14.25)." (RAME)

Washington Post, 1/20/77: THEY ARE in the usual explicit pornographic poses. And they are young - 11.9 years of age. Some appear younger.

These pre-pubescent girls, sometimes photographed with Teddy bears and other playthings of the young, appear in a magazine called Lollitots which can be purchased openly for $7.50 at "adult" book stores in the [Washington] District and across the country.

While Lollitots shocks the uninitiated, the magazine is, in fact, mild compared to the films projected in "adult" book store peep shows and to magazines which display children as young as 7 engaged in sex acts with other children and adults.

"Child molestation and exploitation, including prostitution, pornography, sex perversion and the furnishing of narcotics, are extensive in this city," a recent Los Angeles Police Department study concluded. "Children have become commodities and are bought, sold and traded for the financial gain of the involved adults. Every conceivable sexual act is committed upon these young people, including acts of sado-masochism."

During the investigation, pornographic materials - more than 3,000 photographs, 30 magazines and 120 amateur and commercial films - were seized. From information volunteered by suspects, victims and witnesses, the study concluded that more than 3,000 children under age 14 were being exploited sexually in and around Los Angeles. More than 25,000 juveniles 14 through 17 were being used sexually by approximately 15,000 adult males, the report stated.

Child pornography is not new, but the use of children - and at younger, pre-teen ages - has developed, with little controversy, in part because the public has been ignorant on the subject of child pornography and prostitution. Public outrage, often an effective exralegal weapon, has only recently begun to grow. Few of those citizens who would object are in the habit of frequenting "adult" book stores, and many newspapers still bury stories on the subject or are reluctant to run
them at all.

"The distributor should be put in jail, along with those producing the material," says Rep. Edward Koch (D-N.Y.) "This is simply a whole separate category - consenting adults can do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't involve children."

Koch toured a Times Square bookstore and recalls an automat-like experience in pornography. "Out of 50 of these peep show machines, 17 showed films of sexual acts between children, children and adults, children and animals. They describe what you are seeing alongside the machine: 'sex between brother and sister,' 'sex between adult and juvenile.' There were two boys about 10 and a girl about 12 in explicit acts of fellatio. People who want to see pornography, their taste escalates. What satisfied before no longer does."

For example, Kent Master, a New York distributor of "chicken films" - the vernacular for porn films involving children - advertises 10 films in its "Lollypops" series. The ads show cartoons of two nude, very young boys licking lollipops, the slogan "Chicken Films Come of Age" and graphic descriptions of sex acts, including "Ronnie, Bobby and Eddie - three pre-teens on a bed." The movies are 8 mm, in color, 200 feet and $20 apiece. There is an address, but directory assistance
has no phone listed. Undercover agents last week arrested the firm's owner, charging him with the misdemeanor of promoting obscenity.

EVEN if such charges are brought against distributors or bookstores, a labyrinth of fake publishers, fake addresses, murky juvenile and obscenity laws, porno dealers taking the Fifth Amendment - all protect the photographers, the recruiters of children and the people who make "chicken films" and magazines.

Take the case of Lollitots magazine.The masthead leads one to believe the magazine is a coast-to-coast operation - published by Delta Publishing Co. Inc. in Wilmington, Del., and distributed solely by Parliament News in Sun Valley, Calif., just outside Los Angeles. But according to Delaware authorities, Delta Publishing is a fictitious front. Parliament News, however, is for real.

The city of Los Angeles is prosecuting Parliament News and its president, Paul Wisner, 52, charging them with possession with intent to commercially disseminate obscene material.

This month, a number of District book sellers were picked up in a raid and charged with the misdemeanor of selling obscene material, Lollitots included. The case is pending trial.

"Under the D.C. obscenity code we could move on Lollitots - because a section prohibits the lewd exhibition of genitals of minors," says Robert Kendall, special assistant U.S. attorney for obscenity prosecution.

But enforcement officials trying to get a tougher federal case against Parliament or the still unknown publishers face problems.

Phil Wilens, chief of the Justice Department criminal division's government regulations and labor department, said he "almost retched" when he saw Lollitots. "But the only federal statute involved is in interstate transportation of the magazine. Posing, recruiting the girls, is all a state offense and how do you get back to the source? I haven't any idea."

Presumably, since Lollitots is distributed solely by Parliament News in California and was available over the counter at a 14th and H Streets NW "adult" bookstore, some interstate transportation took place. But Wilens says, "You have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Parliament indeed shipped that particular edition of that magazine - packaged and delivered it to a carrier and in fact carried and delivered it to an address in a particular state." Records of such shipments are hard to find. "We can make a case from time to time," Wilens said, "but it takes a
monumental effort, and resources are low."

In the California case, Parliament News' lawyer, Stanley Fleischman, of the Beverly Hills firm of Fleischman, Brown, Weston & Rhode, plans to argue that Lollitots is not obscene and therefore is covered by the First Amendment. "It is simple nudity, nothing more. For something to be obscene [in California, unlike the District] there has to be sexual activity."

Parliament News Inc. is no stranger to pornography indictments. It is part of a conglomerate of printing, publishing and distributing firms operating out of southern California.

A man named Milton Luros was once described by a Los Angeles district attorney as "the biggest pornography publisher in Southern California and operator of a multi-million-dollar conglomerate." In a 1972 lawsuit, it was alleged that Luros operated companies under the names of American Art Enterprises (a publishing company), World News Inc., Seven Towers Inc., Academy Press, Socio
Library, London Press, OxF--d Bindery and (Lollitots') Parliament News Inc.

Although Paul Wisner is listed as president of Parliament, Luros is still active in the organization. Today, if you call Parliament News and ask to speak to Luros, the operator refers you to American Art Enterprises, the publishing house. The operator there informs you that "we go by several names." If you then ask Paul Wisner, she refers you back to Parliament News.

Helgeson said there is another seperate obscenity case pending against Parliament News. Asked if there were any convictions against Wisner, Fleischman replied, "Never one that stuck. The jury convicted and the trial judge dismissed."

Fleischman says American Art Enterprises is not Lollitots' publisher.

When told that the publisher listed on the masthead was a fake, Fleischman repeated that Parliament had nothing to do with the publisher. It was pointed out that any distributor has to pay some person or company supplying the printed material, who in turn knows the publisher. "What are you doing, hounding me?" he snapped.

Wisner, out on bail, said he did not know who published Lollitots. "It comes from overseas. It's published overseas." Reporter: "But the masthead states that it is published by Delta Publishing in Wilmington, Del." Wisner: "Yeah, that's who we deal with."

Reporter: "But that company does not and never did exist, according to Wilmington authorities." Wisner: "That's who we deal with." "But if it's nonexistent, how can you deal with them?" Wisner: "We deal with an agent." "In the United States?" Wisner: "Yes." "Then why do you say it is published overseas?" Wisner: "I'm not interested in any interpretation of that." He would not give the name of the agent.

Wisner was told that some people find the material in Lollitots objectionable, that they think the children are being sexually exploited and that they would like to find the publisher and photographers to prosecute them.

"That is not of any interest to me. I'm the distributor. If somebody's interested in that, that's their problem. That's not my problem."

In 1974, for example, federal charges were filed in California against a magazine called Moppets. The mother of one of the child subjects testified and identified the publisher and photographer as a man named Edmund Leja.

Edmund Leja, a nudist and still a Studio City, Calif., photographer, complains repeatedly that he is misunderstood.

"Nudists believe there's nothing wrong with the human body," he says. "We don't believe you should hide the genitalia. Children will grow up with a better understanding of their bodies and genitals because of my magazine." The magazine is available only in "adult" bookstores.

Leja contends most of his readers are nudists. "Sure we get a few perverts. They're all over. Did I invent pedaphilia?" he asks, throwing up his hands. "Those people were there before I came on the market and they'll be there after I'm gone."

Leja argues that his magazine is no more graphic than "Show Me!," a picture book described as an "aid to sexual enlightenment" and sold in legitimate bookstores across the country. "Show Me!" contains photographs of masturbation and children fondling their genitals.

"Show Me!," produced in West Germany, has been praised by some educators and physicians, decried by others. It defeated three obscenity charges on the grounds that, as a whole, it was not lacking in serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. And those attacking such magazines as Lollitot and Moppets argue that the content and intent of those magazines are quite different from those of "Show Me!"

RECENT YEARS have seen the surfacing of a number of pornography cases to which law enforcement officials point as evidence that the problem is growing geometrically:

In 1974 postal authorities in Texas arrested one Roy C. Ames and found four tons of magazines and films in a Houston warehouse. Ames was charged with recruiting children off the Houston streets and paying them $5 for posing for photos and $5 for sex acts. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment on federal charges of sending obscene material through the mails.

Ames had supplied 30 to 40 magazines around the country with pictures of children from age 8 to late teens involved in homosexual and heterosexual acts. Most of them were poor, and recruited their friends.

In 1975, a postal investigator purchased pictures of "Hard to Find Nymphets" advertised in a Hollywood underground newspaper. For $2 he received sample shots of "Sandy," aged 11, and a little doll." A set of 12 color photographs of her in a variety of "very interesting positions" cost $15. The pictures were mailed from California to Roswell, N.M. The photographers, Jacob James Dost and Thomas E. Kilfoyle, were convicted last summer of the federal crime of mailing obscene
matter. The case is on appeal.

From a conversation with porner Lynne Lopatin 10/19/99:

Lynne: "I remember Lollitots. I remember a story on TV... I thought it [Lollitots] was exclusively sold in Southern California.

"I remember going by Circus of Books in Hollywood and seeing child pornography for sale in the front door.

"I joined Parliament News in 1977. [Milton] Luros was not active in the sense of coming in and spending an eight hour day there. But he came in every few days. He looked at the books and picked up the receipts... He and his wife were in poor health."

Luke: Stanley Fleischman says that Parliament News was not Lollitots publisher.

Lynne: "Untrue. Actually, American Arts Enterprise was the graphic arts shop that built the magazine but Parliament News was its distributor. And American Art was owned by the same people who owned Parliament News even though they may have wives rather than husbands on the paperwork. That was my first job for Parliament News, shredding those photos [of child pornography]. Shredding all the 8x10s that were in the files because we were getting ready to move from Chatsworth to North Hollywood. And they had me shred thousands of photos. All the nudist photos [fo kids]. All the Lollitots photos. I saved a few at the time but I got rid of them by 1979."

Luke: So just in case there's any doubt, here's a small list of pornographers who created and distributed child pornography: Paul Wisner, Milton Luros, Reuben Sturman, Parliament News which morphed into Gourmet Video, Circus of Books and the list goes on and on and on. And folks like the revered late Stanley Fleischman led the charge defending child pornography and obfuscating the issue of child porn.

The only reason that pornographers do not create and sell child pornography today is that they can no longer get away with it.

Lynne: "As far as I remember from the news reports on TV at the time, it [Lollitots] was all shot here in Southern California and it was definitely printed on Parliament presses and it was definitely distributed by Parliament. And today I don't think you will find anybody to cop to it.

"I was 14 when I started having sex. And if you had told me then that I shouldn't have sex, I would've been really upset. So 14 is one thing, but Lollitots was people who were five and six [years of age]. And they cannot give consent. So what was happening was that the moms were giving consent and back then $500 was a lot of money."

Lynne: "When I was 17, in 1972, I was a runaway hanging out in Hollywood. And you could buy kiddie porn at any of the newsstands. And the kiddie porn I am referring to is Lollitots and Moppets [distributed by Paul Wisner's Parliament News]. And there were others, and most of them were from Mexico and most of them were from India. And then a couple of years later, when I went to work for the LA Star, I got a better handle on what was out there and what was available and what the attitude was toward it. And the first thing we noticed was a story on TV that there were five year old being paid to do these magazines. And it was all over the news.

"So they [Parliament News] were probably told to cease and desist. We were approached... Mickey Leblovik (Dr. Susan Block's husband) knows this stuff intimately. He was getting busted. They came to us and said stop. But I don't remember anybody being threatened or prosecutions..."

CHRONOLOGY
of Belgian child murder scandal

BRUSSELS, April 23 (Reuters) - The escape and swift recapture on Thursday of convicted Belgian child rapist Marc Dutroux provided the latest twist in a saga dating back to the a child sex scandal uncovered in 1996.

Dutroux, whom the interior ministry said was rearrested after escaping from custody, stands accused of murdering four children and an accomplice in a paedophile ring.

Following is a chronology of the child sex scandal which has rocked Belgium to its core.

August 1992: Nine-year-old Loubna Benaissa disappears on the way to a shop near her home in Brussels suburb of Ixelles.

June 1995: Eight-year-olds Julie Lejeune and Melissa Russo disappear while on a short walk by a motorway bridge near their home in Grace-Hollogne, near Liege in eastern Belgium.

Aug 22, 1995: An Marchal, 17, and Eefje Lambrecks 19, disappear in Ostend after seeing hypnotist's show while on holiday. Police visit convicted child rapist Marc Dutroux at house where it is later discovered that the girls are held.

Dec 1995: Police investigating theft visit Dutroux at home, hear children's' voices but find nothing. Dutroux later arrested on car theft and related charges, spends almost four months in jail. Dutroux was released from jail in 1992 after serving three years of a 13 year sentence for multiple child rape.