Analyst Warns of Cultural Trend Toward Pedophilia

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 7/11/02 | Lawrence Morahan

[kattracks]

Washington (CNSNews.com) - A trend toward normalizing pedophilia is the latest manifestation of a dangerous understanding of human sexuality that has come to be more widely held over the last 30 years, a leading analyst of cultural trends said Wednesday.

To reverse the trend, which poses a serious challenge to contemporary cultural conservatism, Americans must return to conservative sexual mores, Carson Holloway, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska, said at a symposium entitled "From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Children's Sexual Exploitation," hosted by the Family Research Council.

In a relatively short time, American has gone from a society that Alexis de Tocqueville, speaking 150 years ago, said observed stricter sexual standards than any other country, to one in which casual sex is depicted with approval in prime time television.

A great gulf now separates pre-1960s Tocquevillian America from the present sexually liberationist ethos, Holloway said.

The change in sexual thinking and behavior was brought about by sexual liberationists' rhetorical emphasis on the autonomy of "consenting adults," and the triumph of the notion that anything sexual is morally permissible so long as it takes place between consenting adults, Holloway said.

By insisting that there can be nothing objectionable about any sexual act that takes place between consenting adults, sexual liberationists deny there is a moral nature of sex, he said.

Similarly, the defense of pedophilia is repeatedly made on the basis that relations can be voluntary and that the young, who are more worldly-wise than previous generations, can in some cases be the instigators of sexual activity with adults, Holloway said.

These social and cultural trends also are reflected in landmark legal decisions, he said.

In April, the Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited the distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears to depict real children.

"Reading the court's opinion, I was struck by the extent to which the members of the majority at least don't seem to live in the same moral universe as many of the rest of us," Holloway said.

"We learn, for example, there's a distinction between the indecent and the obscene, that pornography is not necessarily obscene and indeed that child pornography is not necessarily obscenity," he added.

With its decision, the court put materials that foster pedophile fantasies in the realm of constitutionally protected speech, Holloway noted.

The federal statute, which was enacted in 1996, had banned a range of techniques, including computer-generated images and the use of youthful-looking adults, which were designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The court ruled, however, that non-obscene child pornography can be banned if it's produced using real children. Such material, the court holds, does not have constitutional protection because of the state's compelling interest in preventing the harm to children caused by their sexual exploitation, Holloway said.

"Thus the court seems to share the conventional view that the introduction of minors to sexual intercourse is wrong or abusive," Holloway said.

The justices also made it almost impossible to punish anything as obscenity, Holloway noted. The court ruled that the federal statute prohibiting virtual child pornography didn't take into account that for something to be considered obscene, it has to appeal primarily to the prurient interest, violate community standards, and be void of social, scientific, political or cultural value.

"What that comes down to is, if anything has the slightest sliver of culturally or socially redeeming value, then it can't be judged obscene, even if it's pure pornography from start to finish. And I think that's effectively emasculating any kind of laws against obscenity," Holloway said.

"It seems to me that any pornographic movie in which there's even one line of conversation could be redeemed on that basis," he added.


The cultural reaction to the behavior of President Clinton, who had sex with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, also demonstrated a change in Americans' attitudes toward sex, and a trend towards more promiscuous sexual activity among young people, analysts at the seminar noted.

"Clearly Americans disapproved of what Bill Clinton had done, but they didn't disapprove of it enough to want to get rid of him," Holloway said, in response to questions.

People objected to Clinton's lying and tampering with the administration of justice, but not to his sexual behavior, he said.

Holloway said there was a connection between the legitimization of homosexuality and the acceptance of President Clinton's sexual behavior. Interviews with "the man on the street" revealed that people believed Clinton did "what any man would have done."

"Well, if that's your moral attitude toward sex, then there's nothing wrong with anything any homosexual does either. It's hard to see a principled objection to what homosexuals do if what Bill Clinton does is just okay," he said.

E-mail a news tip to Lawrence Morahan.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

 

[GreenEggsHam]

caveat: I have done a quick search on google and came up with a few sites that would back my position. I have not had time to look into the political views of these sites. I tried to keep it to parenting/medicine and stayed away from government, agriculture and environmental.

http://www.babyreference.com/EarlyPuberty.htm

http://medicine.tufts.edu/oit/news090199.html

http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/bcerf/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

[GreenEggsHam]

There are lots of people who try to 'pretend' they are conservative on this board, who squeeze in their liberal biases and try to pass off as conservative. Maybe you are a conservative with lots of questions.
+++
Well everything being relative, some of my points of view would definitely be considered "liberal" on certain issues, when compared to others' on this board. And some of my points of view would definitely be considered "conservative" when compared to others'. I have read several threads, and some I agree with, some I don't. I'm more of an issues person, I guess. And I don't march in lockstep with anyone.
+++
It all ties to the bottom line... Liberals want to have a socialist/communist/fascist government, cradle to grave, and the few in charge want to be in total control, robbing what is left of our liberities and freedoms.
+++
See even this statement above sounds to me just like the kind of "Ashcroft and Bush are fascists and want to take over the world oil market with the help of the G8 and WTO" stuff you hear repeated all the time these days. I think our system of government and the way policies end up being formed are a little more complex than that...but that's probably another subject... :)

[elfman2]

" I've always wondered if a better tactic would have been to set a minimum $100 per picture / tape TAX per sale for child porn. That way, you could get the IRS to go after these guys for tax evasion."

Interesting proposal coming from someone by the name of "taxcontrol". But I don't see a benefit from it being that child porn already is and should be illegal.

[USMMA_83]

That's a funny discussion you both are having. It's been fun reading both your posts. I think WIMom is somehow involved in the diary or meat business. Just a guess, mind you.

As an aside, I'm a former navy officer, most of my friends are from the medical branchs of the various armed forces. A majority of them avoid beef and milk products. Not, that I do...but it's something I've noticed.

[Bill Davis FR]

muslims support pedophlia and they are 20% of the population...

[mv1]

Don't go to Europe, they have nude beaches.
We have tough laws against child abuse, heavy federal felonies. This author is full of cr-p.

[Eowyn-of-Rohan]

There is literature (to use the term loosely) to support just about every stance possible on this issue. Common sense and observation tells me that there are many people out there who don't have a clear cut view of their sexual orientation and boundaries like you and other well-realized adults do. Many out there, including the immature, sexually or emotionally abused, confused, rejected, and horny, who are looking for love, power, a sense of belonging, or just an outlet for their horniness, seem to get caught up in certain situations and let their lust override their better judgment. All those who abuse kids might not be turned on by kids in general...and what I say is also true--read today's newspaper and you will find at least 1 example of this happening.

[GreenEggsHam]

That's a funny discussion you both are having. It's been fun reading both your posts. I think WIMom is somehow involved in the diary or meat business. Just a guess, mind you.
As an aside, I'm a former navy officer, most of my friends are from the medical branchs of the various armed forces. A majority of them avoid beef and milk products. Not, that I do...but it's something I've noticed.
+++++
Well funnily enough, I think the state of industrial agriculture today borders on the closest thing to global socialism we're likely to see in our lifetime. Very few companies produce the majority of food consumed, with the onset of biotechnology, the power grows (and don't tell me that power doesn't reach into the branches of government, because I wouldn't believe you) and things like plants that produce sterile seeds are already being marketed so the agri companies can effectively deny people's right to grow their own food and they continue to sell seeds each year. I dunno...it all reeks of the kind of power I don't want to see any small group of people have!

[Eowyn-of-Rohan]

I think WIMom is involved in the dairy business, too, and she'd better not be passing off those growth hormones in MY milk and cheese!! What dairy does she sell to? I'll be sure not to buy...I also know many farm people who won't drink milk or eat dairy products.

[Frapster]

I realize exactly what I am saying. Do you realize you are asking cops to enforce your moral code? No problem with that?

It is also not just a problem of what laws are in Caesar's domain and which are left to a higher authority. The age of consent is state law. Tell me where in the Constitution the FedGov is permitted to lay its hands on such matters.

What I realize is that we've become so morally bankrupt that we're having to think about putting laws on the books today that were not necessary yesterday because this was not an issue of State Laws vs Federal meddling - it was an issue of what was unthinkable let alone unacceptable.

As for cops enforcing a moral code... I wonder why we have laws against murder and stealing. They are nothing more than moral codes and yet the cops enforce them every day. Are you saying that's bad? It seems to me that the "Higher Authority" speaks more clearly on murder and stealing then He does on child pornography laws and yet we seem to have no problem with Caeser legislating laws in regards to murder. What's the hangup with laws protecting children from sexual perverts, deviants, miscreants, scum... choose your poison.

As for the constitutional issue - if states want to inact a kiddie porn law then I'm all for it. And I agree the Federal government should stay out of it. But that's highly unlikely. In fact, I would certainly not argue against a Federal law preventing kiddie porn and anything that imitates it. What's so horrible about leaning towards a moral and defensible position?

Of course we all know that this is really a freedom of speech issue and under the first amendment depictions of pretend teens and pre-teens in sex acts should be protected. Bull corn! Our founding fathers had no intention of protecting morally degenerate people. Of course in a purely "objective" and amoral zeitgeist we certainly can't discriminate against perversion and those who practice it. No, that would not be right. Instead we spend federal and state dollar defending their right to be perverts, attending to the damage done to families and individuals as a result of practising those rights as well as even promoting such behavior as "alternative" lifestyles!

My apologies, eno_, for sounding like I'm ranting at you. Unfortunately your post has caught me at a time when I'm particularly fed up with relative approaches to morality. I've had 2 friends in the past month commit suicide. One because we learned that he'd been sexually abusing his children for the past 15 years and was finally caught. He was kicked out of the house, about to be arrested and put in jail, lost access to his kids and grand children so he decided to kill himself with a gun in his friends backyard. My niece had been dating a young man for several years. They lived a pretty "modern" lifestyle and he was heavily involved in drug trafficking. He had apparently been arrested some months back with a major load of drugs but somehow got off after 3 months with probation. It was pretty obvious he had turned in some names as part of a plea bargain and we suspect a contract had been put out on him. He spent a week saying his goodbyes (over the 4th of July) and then this past Thursday he hung himself in his shed. According to the forensic evidence his first attempt failed but his second one did not. The funeral was today.

I'm less inclined as a result to be so reluctant about beating the drum of moral responsibility and to scoff at anything that says morality is relative. I find it ironic the the constitution has become so sacred that the very thing it was designed to protect in the first place is slowly and willingly being given up in the name of so called freedom. Sexual perversion is not freedom. It's bondage.

[Black Agnes]

I've argued with it on other threads. It's a liberal IMHO.

[Black Agnes]

I would be more interested in a study that says that they have been proven not to cause early puberty.

Anybody (except a liberal apparently) knows that it is impossible to prove a negative. What you've stated is the Precautionary Principle, one of the divining rods of the Green Lefties. Since negatives can't be proven, and industry would have to do so to implement new technology, new technologies would never be implemented (perfect world according to the Green Lefties)

[GreenEggsHam]

I've argued with it on other threads. It's a liberal IMHO.
++++
*IT*?!?

My my...you guys sure know how to make a new member welcome dontcha'? Cheers babe.

In MY humble opinion, there are some on this board who are so insecure about their own beliefs that when someone disagrees, challenges or questions in any way, their only recourse and method of keeping their fragile ego intact is to make a personal attack. Kinda sounds like some stuff written recently in a popular book by Ann Coulter, no?

[murdoog]

To reverse the trend [towards normalization of pedophilia], which poses a serious challenge to contemporary cultural conservatism, Americans must return to conservative sexual mores,

Does this sentence (specifically the bold part) strike anyone else as odd? It's as if the author is saying "Hey we can't let people have sex with kindegartners, this could UNDERMINE CULTURAL CONSERVATIVISM!!."

[Black Agnes]

Er, YOU were the one that argued on the previous thread that Republicans were the evil wealthy and Democrats could be more trusted to monitor corporations. Who's the liberal again?

[GreenEggsHam]

I would be more interested in a study that says that they have been proven not to cause early puberty.

Anybody (except a liberal apparently) knows that it is impossible to prove a negative. What you've stated is the Precautionary Principle, one of the divining rods of the Green Lefties. Since negatives can't be proven, and industry would have to do so to implement new technology, new technologies would never be implemented (perfect world according to the Green Lefties)
+++++
Well you certainly have a point there, although that tack was only taken because WIMom was suggesting that because none of the studies could definitively state that it DOES then therefore it must NOT. They're not the same. And if you look at the way I carefully worded my statement, I was merely stating the type of study that I'd like to see - one that would put my mind to rest. I wasn't asking WIMom to prove the negative. I'm not against new technologies in any way whatsoever. I make my living on new technology. And technology (as well as some advances in agricultural methods) helps and saves lives the world over. And I'm aware that my personal opinion about food/agriculture might be also held by Green Lefties, however, some of my political beliefs might also be held by Reverend Moon - that doesn't mean we share the same religion. The *one* thing the Greens do have right is the saying: "Just because you are my enemy's enemy does not make you my friend."

[Black Agnes]

IT? Yes, It. Unless 'GreenEggsHam' has some sort of gender not apparent from the name? Until that time you will be an 'it'.

[eno_]

Two sad tales, but what does it all mean? Did pedophilia laws save what is left of these kids' childhoods? Good if they did, but did the Drug War rob the other guy of his life for little or no benefit to anyone else? To me, it seems to show that laws are not effective in treating moral decay. Theocracies don't work well. Maybe if churches and families worked better there would be less burden on the law to try to save us from things it is ill suited to handle. You should also give a little more credit to the Constitutionalists here: A lot of the rot in families and even in churches can be traced to overreaching government. Would more social workers have discovered that pedophilia case sooner? Or are government social workers more likely to be agents of sexual permissiveness? We are not so far apart on our goals as it may seem.

[GreenEggsHam]

Er, YOU were the one that argued on the previous thread that Republicans were the evil wealthy and Democrats could be more trusted to monitor corporations. Who's the liberal again?
+++++
Er, no I didn't. Just as WIMom was interested in seeing my sources I was interested in seeing the poster's source. The original post simply said "Dem voters are wealthy and Republican voters are the poor." I had rarely heard Conservatives voice that opinion and it was interesting to me so I asked more. There was no discussion about evil, and certainly no discussion about who should be trusted to monitor corporations whatsoever. Please brush up on your reading skills.

[Black Agnes]

But you did ask to prove a negative. There is NO way ANY study can EVER prove something doesn't have a cause/effect. NADA. Anybody with a *genuine* science/technology background would realize that immediately. Either you aren't a real scientist/technologist or your education was sub par. You can never prove a negative. Ever. Any wibbling on this subject makes me think you share more than a few ideals with the Green Lefties.