Why pornography is worth fighting

The Intelligencer recently took note of the efforts of a group that I lead to discourage patronage of pornography stores throughout southeastern Pennsylvania.  The editorial board also offered its advice on the activities of our organization in the form of an editorial on Aug. 9 (“Picky picketing”). I respect the editorial board's perspective and would like to offer some reflections on its suggestions.

The editorial begins by referencing the Supreme Court's decision in the 1964 case of Miller v. California.  In that decision, the court purported to announce a “standard” to govern a judicial body's discernment between what constitutes obscenity (which is not strictly protected speech) and what is speech protected by the First Amendment.  The lingering problem of the Miller decision is that its “standard” is no standard at all.  The “community standard” that empowers judges to make a decision based on an assessment of “knowing it [obscenity] when I see it” is far too fluid to constitute a benchmark.  I would suggest that a judge addicted to or at least exposed regularly to pornography has a different take on what constitutes obscenity and what does not.     

That aside, our focus is not jurisprudence.  However, one of the tools that we now have before us that had been lacking in 1964 is the benefit of hindsight.  Today we know that an estimated 70 percent of pornography ends up in the hands of children with potential long-term effects on their sexual development. Studies show that exposure to pornography can prompt kids to act sexually against younger, smaller and more vulnerable children. Eighty-six percent of all rapists admit to regular use of pornography, with 57 percent admitting actual imitation of pornographic scenes in commission of sex crimes.

The final report of the 1986 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography lists the testimony of victims whose assailants viewed pornography. The adverse effects range from physical harm (rape, torture, murder, sexually transmitted diseases) to psychological harm (suicidal thoughts, fear, shame, nightmares). Finally, Dr. Mary Anne Layden, a director of education at the University of Pennsylvania Health System who has been treating sexual violence victims and perpetrators for over a decade, stated that she “has not treated a single case of sexual violence that did not involve pornography.”  

The editorial board agrees with us that in an ideal world, pornography would be nonexistent, but then goes on to note that in an ideal world, men also would not “beat women, verbally abuse them, cheat on them or impregnate and abandon them.”  We agree.  Furthermore, because statistical evidence has shown that pornography is the root cause (or at least a contributing factor) in the increase in these horrible crimes, we will continue to attack the problem that serves as the multiplier for the social ills enumerated by the editorial board, as well as many others.  While we concede that there may be circumstances where the ideal lies outside our reach, we would propose that fighting the harm is preferable to being enslaved by it.   

In the final analysis, however, every man should keep in mind that the woman who serves as a momentary object of desire is somebody's daughter, mother, sister or friend.  We would hope that readers agree that there's something unsettling about that thought.   The editorial board's advice aside, for the sake of the direct victims, as well as the parents, children, siblings and friends of those willingly or unwillingly taken advantage of by pornography, we will continue our efforts. We invite you to join us.

The King's Men can be visited on the Web at http://www.thekingsmen.us/.

Mark Houck is the co-founder and president of The King's Men, a non-profit organization seeking to unite and build-up men as true leaders, protectors and providers in an effort to put an end to pornography in Pennsylvania. He lives in Quakertown.