Porn Culture and Children: CBC Documentary "Sex't Up Kids"

Tonight CBC television will feature a documentary called "Sex't Up" which looks at the growing sexualization of girl-children, the increase in young boy's access to hardcore pornography, and how it is all impacting young people's notions of sex and sexuality as well as their self-esteem, and self-worth.



One of the previews for the documentary summed it up pretty well. Featured was a mother and her daughter, watching of Katy Perry's "California Girls" music video. During the video, the mother said to her daughter, "how often do you see Bono humping cotton candy, half naked, in order to sell his music?"

I chuckled loudly, but realized how pathetically accurate this mother was. Why are women and girls taught that the only way they can get ahead in life or gain any respect is through performing sexuality - through appearing to be nothing more than a one-dimensional caricature of sexiness. Men can gain respect without gyrating, humping or taking their clothes off...

But I digress...

CBC's website provides some statistics from the film:

Pre-teen clothing market is worth an estimated 150 billion dollars a year.
A survey of 15 major pre-teen clothing sites found that 1/3 of apparel was considered 'sexualized'.
A recent survey showed that 22% of teenage girls report anal sex in the last 60 days.
It's estimated that 70-80% of teenage boys watch pornography.
Another survey showed that 1/3 of admits to sending a naked or near naked picture to their 'crush'

The documentary will be speaking to young children and teens about their own experiences navigating porn culture. So please, please check out this documentary tonight as it is airing on Doc Zone at 9 pm Eastern and Pacific time.




*** If you want to watch the film online, it is now available streaming here ***

Psychology, Pedophilia and Patriarchy - The Three P's of this Post

          ***TRIGGER WARNING FOR SEXUAL ABUSE***

This past May I wrote a blog called "DSM-V Presents "Paraphilic Coercive Disorder" which was basically a jargon-filled name for "Rapist Disorder." In the post, I expressed concern about the DSM V and its impact on victims of rape and violence and this concern has not been lost. There appears to be more controversial buzz surrounding the DSM V and it has left me with a sour gut. This time, however, the proposed revisions for the DSM V have ignited a reaction from a pedophile support group called B4U-ACT. This group is composed of people who claim to be "minor attracted people" rather than pedophiles and who do not actually rape or abuse children. They claim to be attracted to children and do not act out on their "impulses" and assert to help pedophiles avoid physically harming children. They feel the DSM V is being unfair with a proposed revision on pedophilia. 

Before getting started on the article that brought this all to my attention, I took it upon myself to go to the DSM V website and look at the revision list for pedophilia. This is what I found:

Pedohebephilic Disorder

A.    Over a period of at least six months, one or both of the following, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors:

(1)    recurrent and intense sexual arousal from prepubescent or pubescent children [5]

(2)   equal or greater arousal from such children than from physically mature individuals [6]

B.     One or more of the following signs or symptoms:

(1)   the person has clinically significant distress or impairment in important areas of functioning from sexual attraction to children

(2)   the person has sought sexual stimulation, on separate occasions, from either of the following:

(a)    two or more different children, if both are prepubescent

(b)   three or more different children, if one or more are pubescent [7]

(3)   repeated use of , and greater arousal from, pornography depicting prepubescent or pubescent children than from pornography depicting physically mature persons, for a period of six months or longer [8]

C.     The person is at least age 18 years and at least five years older than the children in Criterion A or Criterion B.

Specify type:

Pedophilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Prepubescent Children (Generally Younger than 11)

Hebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Pubescent Children (Generally Age 11 through 14)

Pedohebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:

In Remission (No Distress, Impairment, or Recurring Behavior and in an Uncontrolled Environment): State duration of remission in months: ____

In a Controlled Environment

***

Information obtained from http://www.dsm5.org 

All information belongs to the American Psychological Association, 2010

***

What follows will be the article from the Salon and my commentary added in bold. To read the article uninterrupted by my commentary, see here. 

We usually hear pedophilia talked about in terms of mental illness -- if not evil -- but Aug. 17 a motley crew of self-identified "minor-attracted persons" and mental health professionals have gathered in Boston to talk about it as a sexual identity. [This appears to be an example of "identity politics" and its merger with the psychology community] At hand is an issue deeply important to both groups: the revision of the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.

The sponsor of the event, B4U-ACT, a support group aimed at preventing pedophiles from acting on their attraction to children, hopes to influence the relevant entry in the upcoming revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. [I am glad people want to prevent pedophiles from raping kids but why are we viewing pedophilia as some legitimate "condition?" How can we assume that pedophilia is a naturally occuring disorder that some people are just "born" with? We must think critically about such things rather than passing them off as something inevitable or even natural. What does that say about our society? ] Understandably, the idea of pedophiles helping to define their own mental illness has some unnerved. [Obviously! When one thinks about the victims of child sexual abuse and how often they are silenced, one's mind does not then think about the poor pedophiles who don't actually rape kids but likely think about raping children. Why not give a voice to the victims of abuse instead of giving a voice to those who contribute to an oppressive society?] Earlier this week, the Daily Caller wrote about the event in a piece headlined, "Conference aims to normalize pedophilia." It's true that many in the community believe that attraction to pubescent or pre-pubescent children isn't a mental illness at all, but the symposium itself has the stated aim of raising awareness about fundamental problems with the proposed revision to the DSM's entry on pedophilia.

Richard Kramer, director of B4U-ACT, argues that the panel of experts responsible for the revision "represents only the narrow field of sex offender assessment and treatment." He believes it's important to also represent minor-attracted folks  who have not offended and would like to keep it that way: "[The panel] bases its work almost exclusively on assumptions about, and research on, sex offenders, who do not represent minor-attracted people in the general population," he wrote me in an email. "As a result, the DSM includes inaccurate and misleading information and ignores the existence of minor-attracted people who are law-abiding." 

[This proposed "title" of "Minor Attracted People" is incredibly offensive and degrading to the victims of childhood sexual abuse and to those who are exploited to facilitate the "fantasies" of pedophiles who may not physically harm a child. Regardless of whether or not they offend,  these people still consume children in one way or another because they, as adults - as mostly male adults - have that power. They objectify children who do not have the same social power or rights as they do  which is why their "title" for themselves and their "cause" is so harmful.] 

It might seem counterintuitive for non-criminals to fight to be recognized alongside criminals, but B4U-ACT sees this as a way of fighting the stigmatization of attraction to children and the conflation of pedophiles with child molesters. [There should be a stigmatization because children do not have the social power or the life-experience to understand or consent to being an object of a grown man's gaze .] Of course, "pedophile" has become cultural shorthand for "abuser" for good reason: We fear they will act on their attraction to children. An article on the DSM debate in the Harvard Mental Health Letter says the scientific evidence supports that concern: "Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way. [Exactly - and more so when they form "support" groups that aim for the general populis to feel sympathetic for their pedophilia. The support group itself merely perpetuates the victim-blaming and victim-silencing tendencies of our patriarchal society ] Typically this involves exposing themselves to children, watching naked children, masturbating in front of children, or touching children's genitals." Kramer and his ilk argue that such scientific wisdom is based on skewed data that looks only at offenders, and that many child molesters are not technically pedophiles (i.e., they offend because of opportunity, not sexual attachment).

Such claims seem rather dubious when visiting a message board like Boy Chat, where it's easy to find men discussing how society just doesn't understand that many "young friends" enjoy having a friendship with a "boy lover." [Again we see that pedophiles have a voice - they also have access to the voices of other pedophiles to assure them that their "way of life" is bona fide]. There are no mentions of sexual activity with children, as such posts are forbidden, and posters are effusive about how they would never think of "hurting" a child -- but one gets the sense that they're operating under a different understanding of "hurt." Most of the discussions focus on feelings of love and tenderness for young boys; it's all very reminiscent of how Michael Jackson would talk about his friendships with children. There are also conversations about how to find a "YF" -- for instance, one man says he is renting a room in his house to a woman with custody of her grandsons. He writes, "The boys have taken to me, naturally, and my landlady loves me. I'm taking it slow, but I've already been trusted to watch the boys ... another night coming this week; an overnight. They're cutie pies." 

There is a general consensus within the medical community that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and as such is unlikely to change, so treatment focuses on helping them to suppress their desires through psychotherapy and medication. [Oh, a sexual orientation?  How can anyone say that pedophilia is as sexual orientation, as if pedophilia is a type of "queer lifestyle" or even relevant to sexuality. They are attracted to power - to defeating, colonizing and consuming children.  Pedophilia is not about consensual sexual activity or romantic love. Also,  just because the pedophile is "unlikely to change" doesn't mean that we should be welcoming support groups that defend men's abuses against children,  both in fantasy and acted out on a child! But, who is surprised? The DSM V is now saying that rapists have a "condition" that makes them rape, silencing the voices of rape victims, almost all of which are women. It appears to  all goes back to maintaining power in the hands of men and silencing the victims of male violence] Fred Berlin, director of the Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit at Johns Hopkins and an expert presenter at today's event, compares it to the sort of treatment people with drug addiction or alcoholism go through. 

[Whoopsie Daisy! I guess the pedophile had a "relapse." To0 bad that their relapses include victimizing children] 

"They need to learn to not give in to cravings [Whaddya know! Pedophiles can have "cravings" for children akin to alcoholics craving a bottle of cheap port. Children are things!] which are satisfying and very pleasurable but which their intellect and their conscience and society is telling them they ought not to act on," he told me by phone. "Now, can everybody succeed? No, but there are large numbers of people who experience these attractions and with proper help go on and don't continue to offend.  There is good evidence to show that that's the case."

He says many pedophile activists [What's next, "rapist activists"?  - they don't really rape, they just want to...)] are concerned that the term "has become a stigmatizing pejorative," a way of saying "that somebody is less than human."[Like the way you feel about children?] They're unlikely to get much sympathy from the general public for being stigmatized, but Berlin says it's in society's best interest to resist demonizing them. "The idea is to try to get folks who are sexually attracted to children to come forward and get help before acting so that children are not harmed," he said. [That's great that you want to stop pedophiles from physically victimizing children but when you start saying it is "activism" and making up chat rooms to talk about "loving boys" - you've attempted to create harm, rather than prevent it. These trends towards normalizing men's entitlement to women and children are terribly harmful.] "That's certainly a goal that I would fully support." He adds: "None of us as little children sit down and ask ourselves the question, 'Do I want to grow up to be attracted to men or to women, to boys or to girls?' Nobody sits down, reflects about that and then decides," he argues. "If someone realizes while growing up that they're attracted to pre-pubescent children, it seems to me it is very important for them to know that there are places they can go to get help before they act on those feelings." [What help will they get? What about the notion that "pedophiles cannot change?"]

This debate goes far beyond the push by pedo-activists, raising fundamental questions within the medical community about how we define mental illness. Controversially, the proposed DSM adds hebephilia (attraction to pubescent children) to the entry for pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescents), creating the hybrid "pedohebephilic disorder." Psychiatry professor Richard Green, founding president of the International Academy of Sex Research, wrote in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, "In several European countries, the age of legal consent to have sex falls within the range proposed for the DSM as signifying mental disorder for the older participant," he writes. "If the general culture is accepting of participation by the younger party [How can we conclude that a child can consent to a sexual relationship with an adult, whether they are 8 or 15 years old, when the power dynamics are so clearly unbalanced?] but psychiatry pathologizes the participation by the older party, then the mental health profession pronounces a moralistic standard and, if successful, becomes an agent of social control." [No, this is absolutley, 100% incorrect. Social control is when grown men feel entitled to access the bodies of women and children (whether through pornography or rape) and in turn create a cultural climate in which women and children are disproportionately victimized. This creates fear that forces women and children to make changes to their lifestyles to avoid victimization. Social control is when a woman cannot walk the streets at night because a man may assault her. Social control is when women and their children around the world are made poor because of the wars that men fight and the economic system that they fight for. Social control is when a man tells the court that the 11 year old child "liked" being raped. Social control is what men have over women and children.]

Few of us in the general public are capable of thinking about pedophiles, or hebephiles, in emotionless, scientific terms -- but, luckily, we aren't the ones charged with treating them, or defining who "they" are.

• Tracy Clark-Flory is a staff writer at Salon. Follow @tracyclarkflory on Twitter. More: Tracy Clark-Flory

If anyone wants to contact the group B4U-ACT or the "pity-a-pedophile" foundation as I like to call it, here is the website. In the meantime, this fuming boner killer is in need of a toke and a few snuggles from her cat. 

Links - August 3, 2011

Links - August 3, 2011


Sociological Images:
Gendered Kids Stuff


1. Kid's Luggage Normalizes Gendered Occupations

2. More Gendering of Kids' Stuff

My two cents:


I have to add some commentary to this photograph as it is so biologically deterministic and reflective of our larger cultural values regarding the two sex-classes. First we can see the text claiming how "different" boys and girls really are. This seems to be intended to allow us to digest the text that appears next to each advertised photo. Next to the ad featuring the girl-child we read, "Pretty and Playful." This illustrates female's  perceived role and purpose as an object to be looked at and played with rather than respected. This girl is posed to look passive and playful as she has her hand on her head and she is smiling. However, look over to the boys and we see that they are described as "rugged and ready". Boys are brave, courageous and ready to take on the world, unlike the girls who are asked to merely smile and giggle. They are with a dog, too, to signify their bravery and so-called "boyishness." The posing is interesting, also as one of the boys has his knee raised to signify his "natural" bravery. His pose garners respect whereas the picture of the little girl is meant to garner "aww, how cute!" 


This is exactly what we're talking about when we say feminism has a LONG way to go...


and finally from the same Sociological Images post

Two Cents: 


Again, this photo illustrates roles based on biological deterministic beliefs about boys and girls. Boys like to learn and create and discover shit - girls like to take care of babies and change diapers full of shit. It's just the way it is.


A Place for Everywomon and her series on Radical Feminist Seminar 

1. Radical Feminist Seminar: Sheila Jeffrey’s Speech on Trafficking

Excerpt:

"Sheila Jeffreys gave a lecture related to her book, The Industrial Vagina. I had recently read through this entire book, a book so painful to read that I had to put it down every few minutes of reading, just to remind myself that, yes, I am safe, but this is why I am a radical feminist. One point Jeffreys hammered home, is that the idea of individual agency is fundamentally a conservative idea. At what other job do we claim workers are expressing their “agency”?  It is really Milton Friedman’s politics of super, super individualism that are being put forth by “pro-sex work” lobbyists."

2. Radical Feminist Seminar: Professor Dines Brings It On

Excerpt: 

"Another reason a switch to a pornography with a “feminist conscious” is not likely to happen is a reason rather hard to face: Men actually like getting off to women in pain. For example, Dines quotes a porn producer as saying, “Nobody wants to watch a girl enjoying anal.” Dines also mentioned that condoms are typically not used in heterosexual porn. According to her, this is because condoms show at least a minimum level of care about the women’s health. If porn showed men wearing condoms, that would be a reminder that women are human beings, who are capable of being hurt."

3. Radical Feminist Seminar: Sheila Jeffreys on Trans Politics

Excerpt: 

"Groups such as GenderPAC, a U.S. organization that ran from 1999-2009, are “gender protection rackets,” Jeffreys asserted, since GenderPAC thinks we all have a “right to our gender.”
A point I was not aware of–and quite horrified by–was that gender identity laws are not meant to protect born women. This is because there are apparently too many of us."



Sub-Human by Rmott62


Excerpt: 

"Sub-human that is an uncomfortable word, a word that you would do anything to avoid.

Sub-human is what the vast majority of the prostituted class are made. That sounds harsh, that is harsh.

The invention of the prostituted class was not a flux, was no mistake. It was invention that used slavery, capture of women and girls in times of disasters or wars, used that women are kept poor, used racism, used any and all oppression to create the prostituted class."

Silence Means Dissent - Andrea Dworkin from Anti-Porn Men Project


Excerpt: 

"We know that men like hurting us. We know it because they do it and we watch them doing it. We know that men like dominating us because they do it and we watch them doing it. We know men like using us because they do it, and they do it, and they do it, and they do it, and they do it. And men don’t do things that don’t like, generally speaking. They like doing it and they like watching it and they like watching other men do it and it is entertainment and pay money to see it and that one of the reasons that men make pornography. It’s fun."

Photograph of Andrea Dworkin found here