The following quotes and annotations were provided by someone who read Pornography:
The Other Side and became concerned about the red thread that runs through the book.
Except for where noted otherwise, the comments following each quote are by the
individual who sent the quotes.
Quotes from the book are in italics.
The main point of the first chapter of this book is that pornography, together with
the desires that underlie it, is natural and healthy. (p. 14, par. 1)
No distinctions here for sex and porn involving kids, just blanket statements that all
sex and porn are good.
In the following Christensen describes in derogatory fashion the limits parents place
on child sexuality.
Even among parents who do not overtly punish their children's expressions of
eroticism (which many do, physically or psychologically) the message is sent in subtle
ways. If a child is playing with its genitals, the hand is pushed away...Of course,
there is also the perpetual anxious avoidance of nudity and of sex talk around
children. The message is subliminal but clear: there is something sinister about
sexuality and certain parts of the body. (p. 16, par. 2)
What is sinister, in my view, is Christensen's belief that we should encourage
childhood sexuality, making children vulnerable prey to the pedophiles who just look for
such children. That is why children who have been abused are more likely to be
abused again, because once sexualized, the pedophile's zoom into the child with their
radar for such things. Ferrel M. Christensen's views would make children completely
vulnerable to adults who want to have sex with them. You want the opinions of
experts on this, I will give them to you.
...pornography exploits the people it portrays, or sex itself, no differently than
a television program such as The Waltons exploits families or family life. (p.
34, par. 1)
Exploitation in porn would not be equated by most of us as equal to portrayals of
family life in the Waltons, especially when children are used in its production.
A commonly expressed fear from the antipornography camp is that little girls may
suffer distress and damage to their self-image from the sight of the naked women in
pornography. The real source of any such reaction would be the sex-negative emotions
they have previously been conditioned to have....the author of this book can report the
effect such exposure had on his self-image as a little boy: aside from satisfying some
powerful yearnings that had been denied, it gave him the reassuring feeling that at least
some people did not regard him as evil for having those desires. (p. 50, par. 2)
Society should just do as Ferrel M. Christensen says and expose children to sex and
porn, since after all, his own childhood should be dictating to the rest of us what our
morals and values ought to be.
You should read the entire section from page 109 to 113, as this is the short section
where he attempts to deal with sex and children. My favorite here is,
Although to do this subject justice would require an entire book, it is essential
here to say a few words about one thing: the common idea that there is something
inherently emotionally unhealthful about children, or even adolescents, having sexual
knowledge or sexual activity. It is widely averred, for example, that they are not
"emotionally ready" for such things. Or, in regard to children, that it is
not natural for them to have sexual feelings. The latter is a perfect example of
rationalization and ideologically induced blindness. (p. 109)
Here is a man who has never had a child, or been close to one, but assumes a great deal
about childhood sexuality. Who is doing the rationalizing here?
It is just as wrong to censor portrayals of alternative sexual lifestyles as it is
to suppress those of different political or religious systems. In all likelihood, given
the large range of human differences that exist, the best system in the present regard is
a pluralistic one that allows individuals to discover the different modes of living that
maximize their fulfillment. (p. 100)
In other words, if it feels good do it .
Should we nonetheless try to keep young people from acting on those desires
by preventing positive messages about sex from reaching them? Absolutely not. The sexual
ignorance and guilt traditionally imposed on adolescents are harmful in countless ways.
(p. 100)
Again, Christensen seems to be unable to recognize any harmful effects arising from
early sexualization, but denounces the methods used to slow down the sexual awakening as
cruel and unusual punishment for the young. It appears that he has done no research at all
on the impact of early childhood sexual experience.
The only moral wrong involved in teenage sex, or any other kind, lies in
taking an appreciable chance in bringing harm to another - not in sexual activity per se,
nor in the desire that leads to it. (p. 101)
According to Christensen, sex at any age is a good thing, and there are no harmful
effects, in his view.
Here's an odd rationale for introducing children to sex:
What evidently is true is that for many individuals, owing in part to a greater
dependency on genital friction for arousal, sexual "awakening" can be long
delayed by preventing the youthful experimentation in which they would otherwise naturally
engage. (p. 110)
So kids would have orgasms much sooner, if only we would let them.
Here is another,
As for the common idea that sexual awareness and exploration are harmful to
children or adolescents, it is no less biologically false. Stories of emotional
distress from early sexual experience are often told in this society; but it is clear
that the real sources of such trauma...lie in the accompanying social attitudes.
(p.110, par. 2)
In other words, children are not harmed by sexual behaviour, it is only our response to
it which creates trauma in them. I guess that's why sex abuse
victims are more likely to become prostitutes, addicts, drunks, have sexual problems
in adulthood, have psychological problems and commit suicide. It's not the sex,
it's what we think of it that harms children. I guess if we accept the idea of
children having sex, then they wouldn't get hurt, according to Ferrel M. Christensen.
It may even be the case, as various [unnamed] researchers have
suggested, that there is a valuable place for erotically explicit materials in the
education of children, especially given the fact that our society's high degree of privacy
deprives them of the exposure to nudity and sexuality they would have in a more natural
environment. (p. 111, par. 3)
We should provide erotically explicit materials for the education of children.
Now, pedophiles tell us that this is how they groom children for sex, so I wonder
which "researchers" are actually advocating this in the main stream. See,
for example, Elliott, Michele (1995) Child sexual abuse prevention: what offenders
tell us. Child Abuse and Neglect. 19:5, pp. 579-594.
On page 112, Ferrel M. Christensen states his belief that children are vulnerable to
pedophiles because they are not exposed to sexually explicit porn. In the same
breath, he suggests that eliminating the porn materials would not stop the pedophile from
making his own "to use as 'bait' to entice children into sex with them."
The idea is in the 2nd par.
So here, Christensen acknowledged that pedophiles use porn to bait children, but
nevertheless thinks society should provide this "education" to children.
The porn is used to break down a child's resistance to sex, but we should provide it
to kids en masse. Is this as weird to you as it is to me?
I just can't say anything about paragraph 3, it is just entirely indefensible, so you
check it out....[subsequently the reviewer provided
comments on that paragraph after all —WHS] ...I've changed my
mind, and here are my comments on this paragraph:
Here is how Ferrel treats the problem of child porn, in paragraph 3:
Finally, what about that special category of pornography that has caused so
much alarm in recent years, that which itself portrays children? This is another topic
that needs far more treatment than can be given here, but a few things can be said.
(p. 112, par. 3)
Since this is the most serious objection anyone has to pornography, that being the
production of child porn, it would seem to me that more than a paragraph should be devoted
to the subject in a book that purports to legitimize porn.
Once more, there is no evidence that such materials cause a sexual interest
in children, any more than seeing homosexual pornography produces a homosexual
orientation. (Ibid.)
I beg to differ, for the evidence in the literature is clear that exposure to sexual
themes and materials do initiate a child into sexual awareness. An adult viewing
homosexual porn is different from young children immature in thought and the ability to
protect themselves. They need our protection from views exactly like these. Anyone who
says that sexual abuse of a child is not harmful is deluding themselves.
As for those who already are sexually aroused by children, for reasons that
have already been discussed, banning it [pornography] does not prevent them from
being so aroused. (Ibid.)
Christensen seems to say here that society should not even try to limit the sexual
behaviour of pedophiles, since banning their porn isn't going to help.
Even something as innocuous as the little girl in the old Coppertone ads has been
reported by numerous pedophiles to be highly sexually stimulating. Note also that in most
of the world throughout history, children have gone naked until the age at which they
begin to internalize their culture's taboos. This is often the case in modern Europe,
where complete nudity for swimming is common for all ages. (Ibid.) [1]
We know that pedophiles tend to gravitate toward places where children will be
uninhibited and unprotected, like schools, parks and beaches, but Ferrel M. Christensen
certainly doesn't alleviate any of our concerns with this statement. If anything, he
reminds us that pedophiles don't wear signs on their foreheads, and we must remain
vigilant to the threats that face our children.
Moreover, even the possibility that overtly sexual depictions of children
elicit child molestation is somewhat disconfirmed by the fact that no increase in police
reports of such acts occurred in Denmark during the years there when child pornography was
legal and widespread. (Ibid.)
This seems to be rather skimpy evidence to base such a serious conclusion on. If child
porn was so rampant in Denmark, perhaps the sexual acts children experienced were not
necessarily reported to police. Though Christensen provides a footnote for his Denmark
info, he does not provide the volume of the journal the alleged article can be found in,
rather sloppy for an academician, and perhaps purposely so.
Hard to believe that all of these comments were contained in one paragraph of Ferrel M.
Christensen's book.
Next, here Ferrel M. Christensen makes a concession,
...there is something to the idea that if "kidporn" were legal, it would
send the message to pedophiles that their desires are socially acceptable. Even that
is unlikely, perhaps, in a society where they are often despised more than murderers.
and,
Given that children are particularly vulnerable to coercion, protecting them from
being pressured or forced into something which, in present social conditions, can be
highly distressing...is a serious concern (though it is potentially no more so than the
practice of coercing them not to act sexually). (p. 113)
Of everything in this book, this quote bothers me the
most. Ferrel Christensen equates the pressure to force children into sex
as no more evil then the pressure he claims children experience from being told not to
have sex. He notes that coercing a child "can be highly distressing", but
only under "present social condictions". It is hard to imagine how social
conditions could change sufficiently that coercing a child into sex would somehow ever be
ok. Most people agree that coercing anyone into sex is always harmful, but
especially a child. The idea that denying children sex is equal to coercing them
into sex, is the oddest thing I have ever heard anyone say.
Christensen asserts that those who campaign against child porn,
...are constantly alleging, on the basis of no evidence whatever, that pornography
in general encourages child molestation. (p. 113, par. 2)
The truth is, it is almost axiomatic that a child molester who is caught will
frequently have a fine collection of porn, so that is evidence enough for most of
us. In spite of that, Christensen claims on page 129, par. 2, that "many
psychiatrists...believe that pornography often has the effect of preventing sexual
violence." Dr. Money [of Johns Hopkins University
—WHS] (Ferrel M. Christensen calls him the foremost expert on
childhood sexuality), he claims, says that "persons requesting help in a sex offender
clinic '...commonly disclose in the course of counseling therapy that pornography helps
them contain their abnormal sexuality within imagination only, as a fantasy.'"
If so many sexual offenders are caught with porn, it is obvious that the fantasy was not
enough all the time, making porn the instigator which feeds the fantasy to bring it to
action. [2]
For whatever it is worth, the majority of investigators evidently believe that
exposure to media aggression produces long term and short term tendencies toward the real
thing. (p. 141)
That statement in Chapter 11 seems to be a direct argument disputing the thesis of the
book, that porn does not cause sexual deviance.
Those who commit coercive or brutal sex crimes evidently fall into various
categories with different types of motivation, but clinicians who work with them and
social scientists who interview them have repeatedly reported the following fact: among a
certain percentage of these persons, a background of sexual repressiveness appears to be a
significant factor in producing their violent behaviour. (p. 148)
Christensen blames the existence of violent sexual predators on sexual repression in
childhood, a rather explosive remark to make, given that he provides no citation to
support this claim. Even a cursory glance at the professional literature on this issue,
not to mention common sense, tells us that violence begets violence, and a child initiated
into sex too early in life will often have sexual problems in adulthood. Though repression
causes problems of its own, violent sexual offenders will frequently have violence and
sexual interference as part of their childhood histories as the primary cause of their
needs. Christensen really needs to use a little academic support of his outrageous
position, but we are to accept his word for it.
This would be especially true in cases where sex has been associated with
physical or emotional violence by parents who severely punish their children's expressions
of eroticism. (p. 148)
Well, on the bright side, Christensen concedes that violent criminals usually have
violence in their childhood, but for reasons that can not be fathomed, he believes that
this violence is associated with childhood sex. Many victims will say that alcohol is the
biggest cause of beatings, but Christensen ties the problem to childhood sexual
repression, without a single reference to back himself up. This
bizarre logic then takes another turn when he writes in the same paragraph:
In a similar vein, it has been found that many especially violent rapists
were themselves sexually assaulted when young. The cycle continues, but how did it get
started? (p. 148) [3]
In other words, "Oh woe is us," is it being sexually assaulted in childhood
or being beaten for sexual repression that causes violent adult predators? While
Christensen tries to raise doubt on the answer to that question, his effort is a dismal
failure, since we know by evidence, instinct and common sense that adult violent sexual
predators almost always were themselves assaulted in similar fashion as children. I have
to ask why Christensen perpetually down-plays the impact of childhood sexual interference
throughout his book, but never more so than here.
And something that is true of male pedophiles in general - the majority of
whom are passive, nonviolent individuals - is that they feel threatened by women. This
suggests that their sexual interests are turned toward children precisely because of
anxiety over rejecting and hostility. In other words, what makes children sexually
preferable to such persons is that they are accepting and unthreatening. The extent to
which this culture's negative attitudes toward sexuality in general, and male sexuality in
particular, might play a part in this has not been adequately explored by psychologists.
(pp. 151-152).
It is hard to know where to start with this incredible statement, but here is an
effort. First, Christensen makes a blanket statement that the majority of male pedophiles
are passive, nonviolent individuals, with nothing to back it up. He then blames the
rejection of women as the cause of pedophiliac tendencies, rather than what the evidence
shows, that sexual interference in childhood frequently causes pedophilia in adulthood. He
then blames pedophilia on this culture's negative attitudes toward sexuality, suggesting
that pedophiles, en masse, we are to assume, are attracted to children because they are
accepting and unthreatening, unlike women. This theory for the genesis of pedophiles
ignores the most common pattern we have found in the life cycles of confessed pedophiles:
most were sexually interfered with at a young age, and re-enact their trauma in adulthood
as a result of that interference. Since this would destroy Christensen's theory that child
sexual interference causes no harm, he posits this absurd theory of pedophile causation
and blames society's sexual repression for creating this sexual preference. Pedophiles
create pedophiles, Mr. Christensen, the way it always has been and will always be. It is
the primary reason why we should protect children from sexual interference for as long as
possible. [4]
The teenage son of a childhood friend of the author was driven to suicide by
guilt, guilt produced by his religion's telling him he was sinful and unworthy if he could
not stop masturbating and having sexual thoughts. The conclusion that sexual guilt is at
fault in some violent sex crimes is difficult to escape; it is virtually written on the
face of certain cases. (p. 152)
Once again, Mr. Christensen assumes that we should reform sexual values on the basis of
his personal experience. It is certainly hard to believe that a teenaged boy would leave a
suicide note talking about masturbation and church, but Mr. Christensen seems quite
certain that he knows why the boy took his own life. Let's just hope he did not run this
theory by his childhood friend at the time of their great loss. Based on this single
alleged suicide, Christensen now believes he has provided indisputable proof that sexual
guilt is involved in violent sex crimes, "virtually written on the face of certain
cases." Too bad he has so little respect for the reader that he provides no cases,
nor any other evidence, to support this argument. I
don't think I have ever been happier to reach the end of a book, but one more Christensen
conclusion bears review. On the last page, 165, Mr. Christensen provides us with the
solution to all of humanity's sexual problems when he writes:
...pornography by itself is not the basic issue. Opposition to it is only a
symptom of more general attitudes toward sexuality that are both false and harmful to us
all. But sane and humane attitudes about that subject can never be cultivated as long as
harmless sexual fantasies are despised by the general public and suppressed by the power
of the state. Indeed, the current campaign against pornography is also harming sex
education and the rights of sexual minorities; in the long run, it is a threat to the
privacy, liberty, and dignity of everyone. (p. 165)
I have never heard pedophiles, violent sex offenders, sadomasochists and other weirdoes
called a "sexual minority" before, but this fits with Christensen's assertion
that our efforts to reduce and eliminate these predators is no different then the
oppression of the Negro under Jim Crow laws. I'm sure the NAACP would love to hear that
this oppressed class is using the history of struggle of blacks in America to obtain
legitimacy for their activities in society. Needless to say, this book was perhaps the
most difficult I have ever had to read, but I am comforted by the fact that all this work
to identify Mr. Christensen's agenda will never have to be repeated. I hope it has also
saved other readers from swimming through this arrogant, sanctimonious rationalization of
childhood sex, and the pornography that supports this desire among us.
—Anonymous
[Name withheld on request.]
My Notes (—WHS):
To alleviate the
impression one is left with by reading F.M. Christensen's allegation, the vast majority of
public swimming places or beaches in Europe do not permit nudity. Nudity is
permissible only in relatively few designated areas.
As a case in point,
refer to the assessment made by Lorne Gunter of the extent of the "harmlessness"
of the collection of child pornography in the possession of Robin Sharpe: "Child porn must remain taboo."
The answer to that
question is in the observation quoted by Frederick Mathews of the relationship between children who were sexually abused and became in turn
sexual abusers as adolescents and adults.
See Frederick Mathews.
See also
Back to main page of comments on Pornography: The Other
Side |
