|
Part 1: Chapter 3
We are three women, who have, in varied ways, devoted our lives to the welfare of children and families: one as a specialist in the treatment of those who sexually abuse women and children, another as a journalist covering the diverse issues facing contemporary American women and the third as a specialist in the prevention and treatment of child abuse, neglect and molestation.
We share a deep concern about the effects of pornography on American women. Nevertheless, we found these issues troublesome because those women who testified before us were so deeply divided. Many condemned pornography as an ultimate offense against women, others opposed censorship categorically and defended women's rights to consume and perform in pornography. Although each of us has her own very strong negative, personal reactions to the various pornographic depictions, we believe our acceptance of service on this Commission carried with it the responsibility to enter this arena with an open mind, to weigh fairly the evidence presented to us and to set aside our personal biases in order to develop credible and balanced recommendations for the Federal Government regarding this extremely controversial subject.
We have, throughout the Commission's hearings, witnessed devastating testimony from women victimized in the production or forced consumption of pornography, and we have seen material that is offensive to the most permissive boundaries of our imaginations. Much of this material violates the very fabric of our own ethical and moral standards.
We wish to express our strong personal objections to the offensive and totally inaccurate materials that portray women as eager victims of abuse or as beings of less competence or value to society than men. We disapprove equally of media depictions that discriminate unfairly against men, or against specific races, cultures or those with physical or mental disabilities. After consideration of the evidence presented, we conclude that those who exploit women's vulnerability in the production or consumption of pornography are inflicting harm that profoundly violates the rights of women, damages the integrity of the American family and threatens the quality of life for all men and women.
We abhor the exploitation of vulnerable people and condemn those who profit from it. We respect, however, the rights of all citizens to participate in legal activities if their participation is truly voluntary. We reject any judgmental and condescending efforts to speak on women's behalf as though they were helpless, mindless children.
Our most profound desire is that the women of America be provided an environment that encourages their sense of selfworth, self-respect and their ability to make genuine choices. We consider both the limitation of choices and sexual exploitation to be degrading attacks on the basic value and dignity of women.
In accepting appointments to the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, we both believed that stimulation of a national dialogue and debate on this very controversial subject was well within the purview of the government and in the best interests of the country. To this challenging commitment we bring very different personal and professional expertise. Dr. Judith Becker is a behavioral scientist whose career has been devoted to evaluating and treating victims and perpetrators of sexual crimes. Mrs. Ellen Levine is a journalist and editor who has focused on women's news. Although our backgrounds are different, we have found throughout the hearings and Commission meetings that we share similar views about the nature of the testimony presented and alternative ways in which the issue of obscenity might be approached. We have, therefore, decided to submit this joint statement.
During its public hearings, the Commission has accomplished much, garnered some press attention, and, as anticipated, created a certain amount of controversy. Our hope is that the past year's work will not end with the publication of this report, but will begin a process of discovery and disciplined study of the complicated problems associated with this subject.
We would be remiss, however, if we did not point out the limitations inherent in the investigative process we have just finished, because in some serious ways, the Commission's methods themselves have hindered the adequate pursuit of information.
All meetings and hearings have been held as public forums, according to law, and although we do not suggest that it should have been otherwise, we must emphasize that such an open forum naturally inhibits a frank and full discussion of a subject as personal, private and emotionally volatile as the consumption of pornography. In collecting the testimony of victims, it was difficult enough to find witnesses willing to speak out about their intimate negative experiences with pornography. To find people willing to acknowledge their personal consumption of erotic and pornographic materials and comment favorably in public about their use has been nearly impossible. Since such material is selling to millions of apparently satisfied consumers, it seems obvious that the data gathered is not well balanced.
A number of factors directly affecting the Commission complicated its work and strained its abilities to work as thoroughly and effectively as it might have. Both the time and the money needed to work through these complications was lacking and hence they were largely unsolved.
Given the varied backgrounds of the commissioners, the depth and complications of the subject historically, and the variety of the materials available today, the Commission's most severe limitation was imposed by a lack of time and money to complete a thorough study.
Because it has been sixteen years since the last Commission on this topic met and it is likely to be years before another government group tangles with these questions, we believe it would have been reasonable to grant the group, if not more money, at least more time, as requested.
Because of the stunning change in the way in which people now receive erotic stimuli (a shift from print to video), we suggest that research be conducted to discover whether and to what extent video makes a greater or stronger impression on the vulnerable users, particularly children and adolescents, than does print.
We reiterate our strong belief that the paucity of certain types of testimony, including dissenting expert opinion and the haste and absence of significant debate with which other recommendations and their supporting arguments were prepared did not leave adequate time for full and fair discussions of many of the more restrictive and controversial proposals. Consequently, while we endorse many of these recommendations, we dissent on some, for reasons of critical policy differences, lack of clarity and more importantly, because evidence essential to a considered evaluation of the proposals was not presented.
For example, the concept of mandatory sentencing supported in several recommendations is a theory hotly debated by both law enforcement personnel and experts specializing in penal reform. Little testimony was heard on the merits or liabilities of this concept with the exception of pleas from understandably frustrated prosecutors discouraged by light sentencing. Without reasoned assessment of this problem, we cannot support the proposal for mandatory sentencing. Other specific recommendations with which we disagree will follow here.
We have limited our comments here to the relatively bias-free testimony and social-science data.
Our interpretation of the material presented is, consequently, somewhat different from that of other Commission members. It has led us to a different emphasis in priorities and recommendations.
The Commission sought to break down pornography into the various types of sexually explicit material available in our society. Unfortunately, social science research to date has not uniformly followed any such categorization (although we certainly suggest that future researchers consider this option), and the attempt to force the available social science data to fit the Commission's categories is fruitless. That is why in this statement the conclusions and interpretations of what the social science data says and does not say follow the research, not the Commission, categories.
First, it is essential to state that the social science research has not been designed to evaluate the relationship between exposure to pornography and the commission of sexual crimes; therefore efforts to tease the current data into proof of a causal link between these acts simply cannot be accepted. Furthermore, social science does not speak to harm, on which this Commission report focuses. Social science research speaks of a relationship among variables or effects that can be positive or negative.
Research has evaluated adults rather than children, and it is the latter who are most likely to be influenced by pornography. Studies have relied almost exclusively on male college student volunteers, which means that the "generalizability" of this data is extremely limited. The only other category studied in depth is sex offenders. Information from the sex-offender population must be interpreted with care because it may be selfserving. The research conducted to date has been correlational and experimental. Despite these limitations, the research data can be interpreted to indicate the following:
We have been encouraged by testimony from federal, state, and local officials that those involved in the heinous crime of child pornography are being prosecuted vigorously and that this effort is a national priority. We applaud that action and believe that this prosecution should continue to be a number one priority in law enforcement resource allotments.
On the other hand, we have heard frequently that there is virtually no enforcement of adult obscenity laws. Our analysis of the data leads us to believe that the sexually violent material that is unquestionably obscene and described in the main report is of sufficient concern to warrant intensified prosecution. We are concerned about such material because the violence and the eroticization of that violence may indeed be a potentially explosive mix. Even in this category, however, social science research does not claim a casual link.
The social science data, however, provides even less basis for the claim of a causal link between non-violent degrading and humiliating pornography and sexual violence. One might assume that this material may teach offensive, though not necessarily criminal, behavior to certain vulnerable consumers.
Accordingly, in communities where standards so dictate, prosecution of non-violent degrading obscene materials may assume a lesser priority. It is in this area of non-violent degrading and humiliating pornographic images that the most controversy may arise. What is seen as degrading by one viewer may in fact not be so seen by another, much in the same way that one person's erotica is another's pornography. But this is one of the categories about which much needs to be learned. Perhaps there is a distinct difference between what men see as degrading to women and what women consider to be degrading.
As vital as this category of non-violent degrading material may be to the ultimate understanding of the effects of pornographic material in society, we caution against an overinclusive interpretation of it. The Report suggests that most of the pornographic material in circulation now belongs in this category. We have not been able to draw this conclusion based on evidence presented. As stated earlier, attempts to quantify the materials in circulation and the particular character of the content of that material remain only "guesstimates."
The most disturbing issue facing the panel this year was the concern about children and their exposure to child and adult pornography. Adolescents are acknowledged as an enormous market for pornographic materials, and despite legislative efforts to restrict access, this material remains easily available to youngsters.
In fact, from an early age American children are bombarded by very stimulating sexual messages, most of which are not pornographic but certainly are frightening. This year, for example, the AIDS epidemic has prompted health officials to broadcast urgent radio and television warnings against homosexual anal intercourse and group sex and pleas for the use of condoms.
Because children may have trouble with these very public messages, and because too many young people get too much of their sex education from pornographic magazines and films, we strongly support relevant school sex education programs. Appropriate and accurate information about loving sexual experiences can help inoculate children against the potential damage from early exposure to negative images. Furthermore, we urge parents to monitor carefully their own children's exposure to these materials.
There cannot be enough done to protect our children-both from people who would abuse and seduce them into the abhorrent world of child pornography and from the unwelcome intrusion of too many sexual messages. And we urge that child pornography prosecutions be given priority over all other forms of obscenity violations.
Why does pornography thrive and proliferate today? Is the demand for pornography a mirror or a beacon? Why do consumers support a multi-million dollar market for such a variety of products? Is lack of vigorous law enforcement to blame? Is society more tolerant of pornography than ever before? Is society's perception of what constitutes pornography changing? Do the production and increasing sophistication of sexually explicit materials in themselves stimulate more interest in pornographic magazines, films and videos? Or vice-versa? Or are other social forces chiefly to blame?
The most knowledgeable observers suggest that these are complex and difficult questions, ones that cannot be easily answered and which in our opinions this Commission did not adequately address.
Consider what has occurred during the past two decades. The birth control pill has become widely used, with an associated increase in sexual activity. The mobility of the population continues to increase, with a subsequent breakdown in community attachments for more and more people. The divorce rate has skyrocketed. We have a national drug abuse problem. The Vietnam war has taken its toll on the national psyche. Twenty-five million additional women have joined the work force. The so-called Sexual Revolution has come and gone (Time magazine on April 9, 1984, announced its demise). Has not each of these factors and others had a role to play in the growth of pornography?
After a year of forums and deliberations, it is tempting to join in offering simple solutions to complex problems, in the form of the Commission's Recommendations. But we are not persuaded to do so. We believe it would be seriously misleading to read this report and see a green light for prosecuting all pornographers. We still know too little about why many men and some women use and enjoy pornography; if and why women's and men's sexual arousal response patterns to porngraphy differ. We still have more questions than answers, and we stress the need for both non-governmental solutions and tolerance for the views of others.
The commission of sexual crimes, the degradation of women, and the abuse and mistreatment of children are terrible and pressing problems that concern us urgently. As we face up to the extensive public consumption even of certain types of extreme pornographic materials, a need for massive public reeducation about potential problems associated with them seems strongly indicated. We cannot tolerate messages of sexual humiliation directed to any group. But to make all pornography the scapegoat is not constructive. In the absence of significant social sanctions against pornography, the possibility of halting its use seems as slim as was the chance of halting the sales of liquor during Prohibition. In conclusion we repeat that we face a complex social and legal problem that requires extensive study before realistic remedies can be recommended.
|