PORNOGRAPHY: Does it lead to sex killings?

On the eve of serial killer Ted Bundy's execution in Florida's electric chair, he was interviewed by anti-pornography crusader, Dr. James Dobson who was the head of the evangelical Christian organization ‘Focus on the Family’ in California. He was asked about what he thought pornography did to his life. Bundy made a very interesting comment which cannot be totally ignored. He said in part;

“I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me. And without exception, without question, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography.”

When Bundy was asked what he thought his life would be like had he not been deeply influenced by his addiction to pornography, he replied;

“It would have been a lot better for me and a lot of other people. It would have been a life---I am absolutely certain, without that kind of violence that I have committed.”

During the interview, Bundy made repeated claims as to the pornographic 'roots' behind his sexually driven violence. He stated that, while pornography didn't cause him to commit his crimes, the consumption of violent pornography helped ‘shape and mold’ his violence into ‘behavior too terrible to describe.’ He said that he felt that violence in the media, particularly sexualized violence, ‘sent boys down the road to being Ted Bundys’. In the same interview, hours before his execution, Bundy stated;

“You are going to kill me, and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that.”

The kind of violence he committed was to murder over 20 women and perhaps as many as 50. He was executed in the electric chair for the murder of a 12-year-old girl in Florida.

As an interesting aside, the only thing Bundy and I had in common was that we be both sat in that same electric chair. He was executed in 1989 strapped in that chair whereas I only sat in it in 1981 while I was discussing capital punishment with a prison official during my visit to Florida to study the prison system in that state.

The question as to whether or not pornography is harmful was a central mission for the American AAttorney General's Commission on Pornography which published its report in 1986. The Report made reference to the 'secondary' harm that pornography might cause to the American people. It said in part;

"......the alleged harm is secondary..... in the sense that the concern is not with what the act is, but where it will lead."

The Commission was concerned about what was depicted in pornography but even more so about the possibility that that which was depicted in pornography would have an adverse effect on the minds of those reading it.

The Report said that if it can be proven that sexually explicit material of some variety is casually related to, or increases the incidence of some behaviour that is harmful, then it is safe to conclude that the material is harmful.

The Report of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, (hereinafter referred to as the Fraser Committee) commissioned by the Canadian Minister of Justice, published its report in February 1985 and said in part about the harmful effects of pornography;

“It is thought unlikely that an adult looking at one pornographic magazine or video would be harmed irretrievably, whereas, an adult, seeing this material to the virtual exclusion of all other forms of entertainment will develope a corrupted view of human relations. Somewhere between these two extremes, it is assumed that the average Canadian is likely to be harmed when the quantity of material used crosses the threshold between not being harmful and being harmful.”

The paramount question facing us is; 'at what point of pornographic saturation does the human mind turn from normalcy to that of a sex killer?' Unfortunately, that question cannot be answered because what may have a harmful influence on one person can have no effect on another. Because no two persons are alike, the saturation point cannot be universally determined.

A national survey in Canada showed that 11% of Canadians over 18 years old (somewhat over two million individuals) each year bought at least one 'adult entertainment magazine (such as Playboy or Playgirl) which have explicit pictures of nude men and women and 12% of Canadians over 18 rented 'adults only' video tapes showing explicit sexual scenes. Presuming that three-quarters of the purchasers were men, such purchases and rentals have not resulted in a million and a half men becoming sex killers.

I think it is safe to say that adults are not going to be adversly effected by seeing nudes or explicit sex scenes in magazines or videotapes. By 'adversely' I mean permanently damaged. There are some adults whose minds are so warped however, that any picture of a nude woman may very well turn them into a rapist, but then merely watching a woman walk down a dark street will turn some of them into rapists.

There are some who will say that scenes of consensual sex as seen in videos is harmful to anyone watching it. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto said in its report to the Fraser Committee;

“....consensual sex, as portrayed in the media, can be destructive of Canadian societal values….Depictions of explicit, consensual sex would lead to the expectations that any woman will consent, leading further to coercion in real man-woman relationships. Even depictions of loving, indeed, marital, sexual intimacy in full, explicit detail, ultimately dehumanizes sexuality itself.”

I find this a bit simplistic and flawed because teenagers particpate in these 'intimate sexual relationships' and they are not dehumanized because of it. A good sexual relationship between a man and a woman is not a dehumanizing experience although I don't think teenagers should indulge in sexual intercourse unless they are emotionally and financially able to cope with what will follow if they haven't taken precautions.

The Ontario Advisory Council on the Status of Women came closer to bringing to the fore what pornography is really all about. It said in its report to the Fraser Committee;

“Pornography is unacceptable not because it portrays explicit sex, but because it promotes hatred, violence, degradation and dehumanization.”

Certainly seeing pictures in magazines of women in bondage being tortured, is not what teenagers nor anyone else for that matter should be looking at.

In the report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, there was some mention of the concern of some who sent their opinions to the Commission that permitting people to see explicit sex on videos would lead to rampant promiscuity, homosexualism, and sexual practices other than vaginal intercourse and that this is bad. I think if anything will lead to these sexual activities, it is the spoken word. A whisper in the ear by the right person at the right moment will do far more towards leading people to do these things the purists would prohibit, than magazines or videos openly displaying human genitalia.

Young people turn to pornography---both soft and hard core, in search of information about their developing sexuality because sex education at home is almost non existent and their schools are not telling them like it is---and of course, young people will be more inclined to believe that anal or oral intercourse is acceptable if they see examples of it in hard core pornography. That form of sexual activity is no longer illegal unless of course it is done as a form of sexual assault.

I think that censorship of all books, magazines and videos describing or illustrating the sex act is censorship to an extreme. The popular book, Joys of Sex would be prohibited if the purists had their way and yet I am forced to wonder if this book would be readily available in our better bookstores if the pictures of the couple making love were photographs in graphic colour rather than the line drawings they are. Are these drawings of a couple making love the way many couples make love, any worse or better than the pictures of nude men and women one finds in magazines such as Playboy, Hustler and Penthouse? As an interesting aside, the famed sexologist and television personality, Dr. Ruth Wesheimer had her book, Guide to Sex seized by New Zealand officials in March 1989 on the basis that the book may be pornographic. That wouldn’t happen nowadays unless she tried to bring her book in a Middle Eastern country like Saudi Arabia.

I think what we have here is erotica. Canadian writer Margaret Laurence defined 'erotica' as, "the portrayal of sexual expression between two people who desire each other and who have entered this relationship with mutual agreement."

Since two people can enjoying a sexual relationship between one another, it hardly seems appropriate to suggest that publishing pictures of a man and woman enjoying a sexual relationship is offensive, notwithstanding the fact that such pictures implying simulated sex in magazines found in corner stores are of course acted out rather than being photographs of the real thing.

Mr. Justice Shannon of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in R.v. Wagner (16 January 1985) refused to adjudge that the material the accused had was obscene because he said that 'sexually explicit erotica' is material which portrays 'positive and effectionate human interaction' .

Accordingly, I cannot honestly concluded in my own mind that sexually explicit photographs showing genitalia or photographs showing sexual relationships between adults, be it depicting conduct that is heterosexualism, lesbianism, homosexualism, or indulging in fellatio, cunnilingus or anal sex, is morally or legally wrong. We are in an era where we shouldn't be shocked at seeing pictures of what many members of society might otherwise be doing in the privacy of their bedrooms.

On the other hand, I feel that pictures showing a man ejaculating, or someone defacating or urinating on someone else is absolutely disgusting and is of no interest to the majority of people who would otherwise purchase magazines or watch videos that are erotic in nature. It is interesting to note that in the United States, there was a case in which the accused was charged with possessing an erotic video showing defecation and urination, amongst other things. They found him not guilty of possessing an erotic video because they concluded that no normal person watching that filthy video could possibly be erotically aroused. Actually, that isn’t quite true. Adolph Hitler was sexually aroused when women urinated on his face but people like him are rather rare.

What society is really concerned about is hard core ponography that is likely to offend and/or encourage those reading or watching it, to emulate what they are seeing. But more important, society is deeply concerned about the cost in human suffering when persons being photographed or videotaped are coerced into performing the sexual acts.

What is real hard core pornography? One of the best definitions I have found is in a bylaw in the City of Indianapolis which was written to control pornography. It defined pornography as;

"The sexually explicit subordination of women, graphically depicted, whether in pictures or words, that includes one or more of the following;

1. women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or
2. women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or
3. women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or dismembered truncated, fragmented or severed into body parts; or
4. women are presented as being penetrated (raped) by objects or animals; or
5. women are presented in scenerios of degradation, injury, abasement, torture, shown as filthy and inferior, bleeding or bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.

Well, there goes some of the readings we will get from the Holy Bible.

I think that the definition of hard core pornography should also include men and children who are presented as sexual objects for the aforementioned reasons.

The operative word here is 'sexual' because there are many times that stories are written and movies are made that depict these things happening to human beings and their inclusion doesn't necessarily make them pornographic.

For example, in times of Nero, it was a common practice by those in charge of the exhibitions in the Roman Colosseum to have Christian women penetrated by animals and anyone writing a novel about those times can justifiably write about those incidents. In my opinion, it is not wrong to include such vignettes in such a novel because incidents like that really happened. But to include it in a story of modern day Canada would be a fiction and therefore such an inclusion of such a scene would be gratuitous. And showing such a vignette in film or videos is carrying authenticity too far. The movie or video could imply without having to actually show the scene.

On the matter of showing explicit violence, I refer you to the first of a series of similar-like movies called Death Wish, which starred Charles Bronson. The initial scene showed the raping of two woman. These two near naked women were presented in a scenerio that showed them being subjected to degradation, torture and pain and all in the ontext of a sexual assault. And yet, it was paramount to the story because without it, it would have been difficult for the moviegoers to fully appreciate the hatred Bronson would have for the perpetrators of the crime.

The same could be said about another Bronson film. I am speaking of the film, The Evil Men Do. In the first few minutes of that film, a naked man is trussed up and electrodes are attached to his genitals and his anus and then the audience is subjected to a minute or so of this man being hideously tortured to death. The scene is undoubtably violent and gross but for a good reason. The creators of the film want the moviegoers to hate the doctor who is enjoying himself torturing his victim to death. With so much hate penned up inside those watching the movie, they wait with great anticipation as Bronson hunts down the evil doctor to do him in.

Undoubtably, scenes like these are extremely violent and grossly horrific but these events are not fiction. In our era, rape occurrences such as in Death Wish and torture such as in The Evil Men Do happens all too often in countries around the world and writing about these occurrences and making movies about them, doesn't make them obscene anymore than recreating the scenes showing the survivors eating the remains of dead comrades in the movie, Alive. This event in real life happened in the Andes mountains and the film was done---if you will forgive the pun---tastefully.

What I am trying to say is that in order for film makers to bring authenticity to their work, they must sometimes go considerable lengths to illustrate graphically what is really happening in real life. I did not permit my two children to watch the initial scenes from Death Wish and The Evil Men Do because I think that these scenes are simply too close to real life.

It's funny when you think of it---we don't stop our children from watching horrific movies such as Halloween even when the victims in the films die in such offbeat ways such as decapitation, impaling, eye gouging ad finitum, but we draw the line with the two Bronson films. This is probably because we know that our children know that the scenes in the movie series Halloween are pure fiction whereas if they watched the initial scenes in the two Bronson films, they would be shocked at the reality of life.

There is another part of the Indianapolis bylaw that was passed that I don't actually agree with. It said that it found it offensive to show only specific body parts such as breasts, vaginas, and buttocks. I think to put a restriction to that length as to what can be shown in a photograph is bordering on puritism. Unless society is prepared to state categorically that a woman's breasts, vagina and buttocks are obscene, it is best to leave things as they are in the magazines. On the other hand, I don't think many of us will feel comfortable seeing a woman's vagina, or for that matter a man's genitalia being displayed in a movie or video-at least before the end of this century.

Pornography is harmful if it causes some people to commit acts of sexual violence, or to encourage promiscuity or worse yet, to lead men into thinking that women exist soley for the sexual gratification of men. There can be no doubt that some men who read pornography or watch pornographic movies will commit acts of sexual violence et cettera. But their numbers are not as high as the general public is inclined to believe. Even serial sex killer Bundy finally admitted that pornography wasn't totally the cause of him going bad. In the interview he had just prior to his execution, he said about his addiction to pornography;

“I'm not blaming pornography. I'm not saying that it caused me to go out and do certain things, and I take full responsibility for whatever I've done.....”

Dr. Gene Abel, a psychiatrist who appeared on the Oprah Winfrey television show on February 7, 1989 after watching the video tape of Bundy talking about pornography, was asked by Ms. Winfrey as to whether he thought that many women were raped because of pornography. He replied;

“We don't think so. That is, when we talk to sadists like Bundy, rapists, child molesters, what we find is that there isn't a relationship---a direct relationship between the use of pornography and the numbers of crimes they commit, the amount of violence they do during those crimes, the number of victims that they have.”

I think Bundy was trying to blame some of his problems on pornography because he didn’t want people to think he was totally evil.

The U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography concluded the same thing by implying that rapists will place the blame on pornography for their evil deeds. The Commission said in part;

“Much research supports the tendency of people to externalize their own problems by looking too easily for some external source beyond their own control. As with more extensive studies based on self-reports of sex offenders, evidence relying on what an offender thought caused his problems is likely to overstate the external and so understate the internal as to be of less value to us than other value.”

But as I said earlier, there is some evidence that pornography which depicts women as victims of sexual assault will prompt some people to act out their fantasies. The Commission's report says this also;

“......there is a casual relationship between the exposure to sexually violent materials and an increase in aggressive behaviour directed towards women, and since we believe that an increase in agressive behaviour towards women will in a population increase the incidence of sexual violence in that population, we have reached the conclusion, unanimously and confidently, that the available evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that substantial exposure to sexually violent materials, bears a casual relationship to antisocial acts of sexual violence and for some subgroups, possibly to unlawful acts of sexual violence.”

The Fraser Committee recognized that many Canadians held strong views about the harm pornography causes. Many people expressed their concerns to the Committee, such concerns however being confined mainly to two main bones of contention---portraying people in an inhuman way and inviting consumers of pornography to imitate the inhuman behaviour portrayed.

The Fraser Committee, after reviewing all the reports and submissions, finally stated its position on the 'casual relationship' between pornography and sexual violent crime when it said in part;

“The Committee is not prepared to state soley on the basis of the evidence and research it has seen, that pornography is a significant casual factor in the commission of some forms of violent crime, (or) in the sexual abuse of children, or the disintegration of communities and society.”

What is commonly referred to as 'child pornography' is not so much a form of pornography as it is a form of sexual exploitation of children. Kiddie Porn is pornography that is illegal no matter where it is published or distributed. It is unacceptable in any form because of the obvious dangers of child abuse that accompanies it.

This extremely gross form of kiddie porn utilizes children whose ages range from one week to pre-teens. It is hard to conceive in one's mind that human beings actually molest babies on camera so that the photographs or videos can be sold to others who are so inclined but it happens all the time.

There is very little commercialized 'kiddie porn' created in the United States or Canada, but a fair amount is created in Europe. There are a great many photographs and videos taken by child abusers everywhere who want a photographic or videotaped record of their abuses of children so that they can refresh their memories of the events and in many cases, these photographs and videos of child abuse are circulated amongst other child abusers.

One of the worst aspects of child pornography involves parents who knowingly permit their children to be abused on film by other adults and in many cases, the parents themselves are the abusers. And they do this in order to get in on the lucrative kiddie porn market. Canada, like many other countries has laws that prohibit the making of kiddie porn because it has ample laws that prohibit sexual abuse of children and since any form of kiddie porn is sexual abuse, the film makers of such trash and those who act in the scenes with the children are guilty of sexual abuse in one form or another.

The best way to sum of the horror of kiddie porn is to quote one of the persons who testified before the U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. When you read the statement of this former participant of over one hundred porno films, you will really appreciate why anyone convicted of producing, filming, participating or selling kiddie porn should be jailed for many years. He said

“I have seen it totally destroy too many lives, but mostly the girls. It's a lot harder on young ladies. I have seen a lot of producers and directors and photographers, just to get out a product they have in mind, either badger or almost force the girls into doing things that they would rather not do. I, myself have been on a couple of sets where the young ladies have been forced to do even anal sex scenes with a guy which is rather large and I have seen them crying in pain and (it) just totally destroys their personality when they are forced to do things like that.”

The woman who starred as Linda Lovelace in the film Deep Throat, a gross film which was produced by her husband, later testified that she was forced at gunpoint by her husband to participate in fellatio with the male actors on the set. Her husband made millions from the sale and distribution of the film and she got next to nothing for doing these scenes.

In summary, I wish to briefly reiterate my thoughts on the subject of pornography.

What is bad and evil and harmful, are pictures, be they photographs, videos or even text which depict women enjoying being sexually assaulted. What is even worse, are pictures of people in bondage or being tortured and children participating in sex scenes.

Eroticism on the other hand is not bad nor is it evil. It is a fact of life. Millions of men and women are turned on by looking at pictures of nude women or men or both in provocative positions. If they weren't, magazines such as Playboy and Playgirl would have gone out of print long ago. These people lead normal lives. They do not, for the most part, turn into rapists, child molesters or killers. Those that do, generally would have become these monsters whether or not they were addicted to pornography.

What is outright stupid is leaving erotic magazines in your home where your small children will accidently find them and browes through them. I know. I accidently left a box of them about and my wife told me that it was me that would have to explain to our children why there were pictures of naked women in the magazines. That is not easy to do. I finally copped out by saying that I was conducting a study on pornography. They bought it. My wife didn't. When the girls grew up, they may have remembered my explanation, and if they did, they knew that their dad lied.

I don't have the magazines any longer. My wife placed them where I couldn’t get at them. They went out in the morning's garbage. Oh well. There was always the local tavern with the table dancers. Believe me, its was less painful explaining the table dancers to my wife than explaining nudes in magazines to my young daughters.