The New York Times Magazine on Sunday, January 25, reported, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the Cyber Crimes Center in Fairfax, Va., are finding that when it comes to sex, what was once considered abnormal is now the norm. They are tracking a clear spike in the demand for harder-core pornography on the Internet. 'We've become desensitized by the soft stuff; now we need a harder and harder hit,' says I.C.E. Special Agent Perry Woo." The story, by Peter Landesman, was about girls and women who are "trafficked" (current parlance for "enslaved") and forced into prostitution.

Agent Woo couldn't have been clearer: soft porn leads to "harder and harder hits." But less than a month later, on February 20, the Times reverted to its usual porn-friendly form, running a story about two women who "are part of a growing cadre of women who are selling sex to other women, in this case what [one of the two partners] calls 'female empowered' adult entertainment… the kind that is mindful of women's tastes and suggests new possibilities for women's pleasure." This Times story made no mention of porn's slippery slope toward "harder and harder hits."

Instead, this was an upbeat story about porn as mainstream and unobjectionable. "Experts say demand by women—both heterosexual and lesbian—is driving the growth of all sorts of sex-related ventures, from stores, catalogs and sex toy companies to adult Web sites, pornographic films and cable television shows. At the same time, many women, they say, see the sex industry as a legitimate place to make a living."

How many women, one wishes the Times would make clear. And what experts? Does the Times know?

Public opinion polling shows the vast majority of Americans, both men and women, are appalled by the obsessive attention to pornographic sex in our pop culture and are strongly in favor of enforcing the obscenity laws. The Times seems not to know this.

It seems not to know all of the experts, either. Clinical and research psychiatrists have found that pornographic images stick in the memory, can be addictive and can lead victims from level to level of escalation until the addict loses a marriage or a job, or gets to the point of "acting out" some sick fantasy and rapes or kills someone. Agent Woo's observation reflects this reality.

Does anyone seriously think that "Female empowerment"—whatever that is—would change the way porn addiction works?

Here's a news service story the Times might have learned from:

Online porn driving sexually aggressive children

That was the headline on a story reported by the Pacific Rim Bureau of Cybercast News Service last November 26. In Australia, CNS.com reported, "Incidents of young children displaying sexually aggressive behavior towards others appear to be on the increase, and exposure to online pornography is a key factor." The children are younger than 10. Their offenses include "oral sex and forced intercourse"—commonly known as rape. Would stumbling on or seeking out "female empowered" pornography, even to the exclusion of all other kinds of pornography, have made these children less aggressive? Not likely.

Annabel Wyndham, manager of the child-at-risk assessment unit at Canberra Hospital, which reported the aggressive sexual behavior among children, put the blame on Internet pornography and "some pretty terrible parenting."

Jane Roberts, president of Young Media Australia, a non-profit organization, noted that, "You have parents who are happy to have children in their bedrooms with the door closed and the computer on… the first thing we say is, get those computers out of the bedroom."

She did not say, "let them have female-empowered pornography."

Talking fast to look good

People talking fast tend to be

1. on the defensive about something
2. ill-served by the relevant facts
3. eager to shift the focus and
4. anxious to look like the good guys despite everything.

For example:

• The Justice Department brings back Bruce Taylor, a tough porn prosecutor under President Reagan, to pick up where he left off over a decade ago. At the same time, the Department also assigns a team of FBI agents to focus exclusively on adult obscenity cases, something unheard of in the Clinton years. All of this makes news in the last month or so. On the defensive now, the porn industry responds by playing the role of political victim and civil rights patriot. Can you believe this? Of course you can; you’ve seen it before. To the Los Angeles Times (February 14), porn industry spokesman Jeffrey Douglas says, “This is a crude, crass political effort.” Aligning himself with our nation’s founding principles, he adds it is “a very dangerous, disturbing step.” He is concerned about protecting the First Amendment, of course; forget the money.
• Howard Stern gets suspended by Clear Channel Communications, which means his show won't be broadcast for a while on six of the company's radio stations. That was on Wednesday, February 26. On Thursday, Stern referred to Clear Channel as "fear channel" and warned of a "fascist right wing ... getting so much power." The online trade publication FMQB.com carried these comments from Stern: "They dropped a bomb on us. I don't think I'm going to last a month… It makes it seem like I did something wrong Tuesday ... This show is a big family. We reach people all over the country and at least a tenth of our family is gone today."

Worth noting: John Paul II on families & the media

Saturday, January 24, was the Catholic feast day of St. Francis de Sales, who is venerated as the patron saint of journalists. At the Vatican that day, Pope John Paul II outlined what public authorities, parents, and media executives must do to help families "find in the media a source of support, encouragement and inspiration as they strive to live as a community of life and love, to train young people in sound moral values, and to advance a culture of solidarity, freedom and peace." His statement is worth noting at length.

All communication "has a moral dimension," the Pope said. "People grow or diminish in moral stature by the words which they speak and the messages which they choose to hear. Consequently, wisdom and discernment in the use of the media are particularly called for on the part of communications professionals, parents and educators, for their decisions greatly affect children and young people for whom they are responsible, and who are ultimately the future of society."

The Pope noted that, "many families throughout the world, even those of quite modest means, now have access in their own homes to immense and varied media resources. As a result, they enjoy virtually unlimited opportunities for information, education, cultural expansion and even spiritual growth… Yet, these same media also have the capacity to do grave harm to families by presenting an inadequate or even deformed outlook on life, on the family, on religion and on morality."

The Pope said, "Public Authorities themselves have a serious duty to uphold marriage and the family for the sake of society itself. Instead, many now accept and act upon the unsound libertarian arguments of groups which advocate practices which contribute to the grave phenomenon of family crisis and weakening of the very concept of family. Without resorting to censorship, it is imperative that public authorities set in place regulatory policies and procedures to ensure that the media do not act against the good of the family. Family representatives should be part of this policy-making."

Parents, he said, "are called to train their offspring in the 'moderate, critical, watchful and prudent use of the media' in the home ... Even very young children can be taught important lessons about the media: that they are produced by people anxious to communicate messages; that these are often messages to do something - to buy a product, to engage in dubious behavior - that is not in the child's best interests or in accord with moral truth; that children should not uncritically accept or imitate what they find in the media.

"Parents also need to regulate the use of media in the home. This would include planning and scheduling media use, strictly limiting the time children devote to media, making entertainment a family experience, putting some media entirely off limits and periodically excluding all of them for the sake of other family activities. Above all, parents should give good example to children by their own thoughtful and selective use of media. Often they will find it helpful to join with other families to study and discuss the problems and opportunities presented by the use of the media. Families should be outspoken in telling producers, advertisers, and public authorities what they like and dislike."

Regarding media decision-makers, the Pope said, "In view of their great power to shape ideas and influence behavior, professional communicators should recognize that they have a moral responsibility not only to give families all possible encouragement, assistance, and support to that end, but also to exercise wisdom, good judgment and fairness in their presentation of issues involving sexuality, marriage and family life."