Child pornography has become the latest “crusade” of the Adult
Internet. Organizations have been set up so that grassroots crusaders
can report any child pornography they find some adult sites
even link out to these sites, as a good-will effort. But at the
same time, banners, buttons and digital placards condemning child
pornography are nestled beneath "teen" money shots at mainstream
porn sites, and legions of adult businesses "against child porn"
are cropping up everywhere. The problem is not the many adult
webmasters who take this very seriously, treat it thoughtfully,
and do understand the full scope of what being "against child
pornography" means. Those who do generally don't need buttons,
banners, and proclamations to make that clear. The problem is
that there are also many adult webmasters who may well abhor child
pornography in principle, but who consistently produce or are
supported by variants of it -- some of which are technically legal,
others of which are not -- or who figure that as long as all the
models in their “teen” shots and “virgin girl” spreads have the
requisite over-18 forms filed to satisfy legal requirements, then
all is within the letter of the law.
Sorry, but no. Much of the adult Internet seems quite content
to coat this particular poison apple with a nice coat of pretty
red gloss, and therein lies the real problem: the nexus of child
porn, the sexualization of the young or less powerful and purest
unrefined greed. If content providers and site owners are toeing
the legal line, and are putting up their “we’re all in this together”
anti-child-porn slogans and banners and buttons for the feel-good
factor, they get to feel that they themselves are blameless: it
is the “pedophiles” that are the problem.
Now, frankly, we think that this breeds some dangerous notions:
first, that certain groups of people are evil, bad, and deviant,
rather than ideas, motives, or actions. Second, that conscience
should be so easily placated, and greed so easily protected, by
enthusiastic, superficial performances of the anti-child-porn
cheer du jour.
But let’s come back to that later. For now, let’s look at the
issue at hand. Child pornography, by law, is: “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video,
picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether
made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of
sexually explicit conduct, where
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the
use
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging
in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified
to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in
sexually
explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented,
described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys
the impression that the material is or contains a
visual
depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct."
(U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2256)
Now then. Does it, in light of the law quoted above, seem odd
that it seems hypocritical, to say the least, of the site owner
when we arrive at a webpage which advertises "teen facials" --
and no, we aren't talking about the sort that are followed by
a shiatsu massage -- with a big "this site is against child porn"
sticker on it? Here we have something that may well be by definition
child porn, over-18 age affadavits or not, floating right there
in brilliant .jpeg neons, right over the rah-rah-we’re-so-ethical-spend-your-porn-dollars-with-us
anti-child-porn banner.
Frankly, we find that much of the mainstream adult industry is
the biggest pile of hypocrisy this side of the White House. The
sort of child pornography the banner-happy adult site owners are
being so “responsible” in rallying against is the sort that would
be more likely to land them in jail instead of making them money.
The particular kind of porn they are vehemently opposing just
so happens to be one of the few sorts of sexual material they cannot legally
sell or distribute. With porn where the models only appear to
be underaged or are painted as such, on the other hand, they can
make a boatload of cash. There’s not much difference between
a piece of pornography that features the images of actual fourteen
and sixteen year olds and a piece of pornography that features
the images of actual eighteen and nineteen year olds dressed,
posed, and captioned in ways to make them appear indeterminately
younger, except that the stuff with 18 year old models is much,
much lower on the prosecution priority list. We recognize that
it is murky, but it is nearly impossible to classify the differences
from one “teen” site’s approach to the other on this sort of a
scale because it has intentionally been presented as murky. That doesn’t make it any more excuseable.
It certainly doesn’t make it any more ethical. And it isn’t
always any more legal.
Honestly, we strongly suspect that if child pornography WERE legal,
some of the sites with the anti-child porn buttons there would
instead be advertising child porn sites and happily counting their
three cents a click without a care in the world. In fact, we
wouldn’t be a bit surprised if a few sites sporting such buttons
are only doing so to try and divert scrutiny from material on
their sites. There’s plenty out there that doesn’t fall under
the umbrella of what is strictly legal or which flirts with its
boundaries, and many adult webmasters are understandably a bit
nervous. They also know that a nice big shiny “against child
porn” button on the front page looks reassuring, that it is mighty
beneficial to smile nice and straighten your tie and point fingers
away from yourself when you don't want them pointed at you.
But really, is plopping a button up or reporting a site as proactive
as informing parents how to protect their children? Isn’t it
more proactive and positive to eschew the practice of selling
ANY sexual material which sexualizes a non-adult, whether he or
she truly is under the age of legal consent or is simply advertised,
bought, and sold as such?
It makes us wonder: is what makes child pornography so detestable
that it panders to pedophiles? Or is what makes child pornography
detestable the fact that it capitalizes upon and exploits pedophiles,
minors, and victimization? For instance, why is child pornography
criminal and detestable -- even when the subject is not a minor,
but merely portrayed as one -- while rape pornography is not,
despite the fact that both involve (overtly or implicitly) images
of nonconsensual sex and the sexual victimization of the powerless?
Before we go further, let us make something clear. We are not
personally convinced that all laws governing the depiction of
minors are necessarily a Good Idea, particularly in their current
formulation and in the ways in which they are interpreted and
enforced. These laws can, for instance, land a kid in a foster
home because his or her mother just wanted to take some pictures
of her kid playing with new bathtub toys and some do-gooder at
the local Fotomat decided to take the negatives to the Vice Squad.
The same laws let thousands of people pay the rent by promoting
"hot, juicy teens." These laws can put someone in jail who has
never even so much as approached a minor. Like most laws which
deal with sexual material, they often do not acknowledge the difference
between action and imagination, a highly complex issue, and one
difficult to address when dealing with such volatile issues as
the sexualization and sexual depiction of children.
Many of us who work in the adult web simply choose not to do anything
that borders on depicting the underaged. I know that for ourselves,
we are only comfortable doing what we do if the material which
we are publishing portrays things that are, in our opinion, consensual,
adult sexuality which in some way represents a healthy, respectful
and inclusive viewpoint about sex. We acknowledge that this is
our own judgment and our own decision, and we are not the only
ones with a right to choose what is best for ourselves and our
business. However, whatever we or anyone else may think is appropriate
and sound, we are also bound to certain restrictions of content
within the framework of the law.
That said, we are not lobbying here for censorship, nor are we
even lobbying for the eradication of this sort of material. What
we are lobbying against is hypocrisy. What we are lobbying for,
on the other hand, is honesty, accountability and compassion.
If you are against child pornography, you are likely not to be
real keen on pedophilia, since a pedophile is the most likely
consumer of child porn. It’s pretty ironic, then, that we find
so many pages that encourage the viewer to click to see "teen
girls suck,” and great big "against child porn" buttons on them
beaming out amidst images of women presented as teenage ingenues.
The prototypical argument on behalf of a site like this is that
teens "aren't children." However, teens are minors, and portraying
them as such is technically child pornography by United States
law. If there were no difference between teens and adults, no
one would be advertising that difference for profit. What a child
is, in this case, is not up to us, but up to the determinations
of the law. At the present time, what makes someone a minor --
and by that count, a child -- is being under 18 years of age.
Marketing adult women and men as adolescents in sexual material
does in fact constitute child pornography under the terms of
Title 18, and the law aside, is pretty darn murky in constituting
such in the eyes of a viewer. If no one intended it to be murky,
the phrase “barely legal” wouldn’t be a catch-all for an entire
genre of sexual material.
Who is really most guilty here, the "monsters" and "deviants"--
the pedophiles to whom the adult industry sells this sort of material,
simultaneously judging them so harshly or the adult webmasters
and pornographers who actively pander to pedophiles and to the
production of pedophilic or hebephilic imagery (over-18 models
or not), riding the lucrative coattails of sexualized adolescence?
We do not intend, nor are we qualified to place an overall judgment
on pedophiles or pedophilia. Different times and cultures have
different ways of dealing, socially, personally, and culturally,
with the sexuality of children and how it may or may not interact
with the sexuality of adults. We personally consider a compulsive
sexual attraction and/or sexual compulsion towards young men,
women and children in our culture to be unhealthy for both parties
on a multitude of levels. Because pedophilic sex acts clearly
traumatize and damage, we believe any protection we can enforce
or encourage by deed or by law both to perpetrators and victims
-- preventatively as well as after the fact -- should be extended.
Yes, we said both. Because a pedophile him/herself often is or has been on both
the perpetrator and the victim ends of child/adult sexuality,
and because pedophiles are often held guilty not only for actions
but for thoughts as well, we feel they need some protecting too.
It is safe to say that very few of us think that pedophilia is
healthy or constructive. We can say honestly that we, too, do
not. We can also saythat we feel strongly that any sexual act
or relationship which is nonconsensual or coercive is unhealthy,
and that our laws should protect any person from such acts or
relationships, regardless of whom they are with. However, to
treat the entire issue with vehemence, hate and vitriol is not
only unproductive and even more damaging to everyone involved,
it creates an atmosphere in which determining the cause of it,
helping others to deal with it, and figuring out how to handle
it become more, not less, difficult.
So, does a little silver button on a porn site help provide this
much-needed protection to children, to adults, or to anyone?
Not really. It’s an I Support The Fraternal Order of Police bumper sticker on the back of a bright red Porsche: sure, the
Porsche driver may never exceed the posted speed limit, but c’mon,
how many sportscar owners do you know who put a FOP bumpersticker
on their cars just because they really do love their local cops?
It’s a token. It’s passive, plastic, and superficial. Worst
of all, all too often it’s just plain old hypocritical, mere lip
service in a half-baked children’s crusade that is only heartfelt
as long as it doesn’t interfere with raking in those teen-porn
dollars.
The itchy-fingered greed and self-protective scrambling behind
adult webmasters’ piling onto the anti-child-porn bandwagon is
obvious. The Emperor is putting on his trousers again, this pair
made of a sheer and awfully flimsy fabric of “Title 18 compliant”
disclaimers and nice shiny anti-child-porn buttons and banners.
They don’t hide much, no, but hey… the Emperor’s over 18, and
you bet he’s got his own age verification on file.
Heather Corinna and Hanne Blank, Editors
scarletletters.com/scarleteen.com
Copyright 2000, Heather Corinna and Hanne Blank. All rights reserved. |
