Pornography Awareness Week - Oct 29 to Nov 5 (Largest group of internet porn viewers 12 to 17)

BALTIMORE, Nov. 1, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Cardinal William Keeler is encouraging all parishes in his diocese to prayerfully and actively take part in Pornography Awareness Week (PAW) from October 29 to November 5. Among other things, participants are asked to wear a white ribbon to symbolize their commitment to purity and their public protest against “the increase of obscenity” in today’s culture.

PAW is a national effort to raise awareness of the detrimental effects of pornography to individuals, families and society as a whole. Thousands of people are participating across the country.

In his message, Keeler explained that “the idea that pornography does not cause serious problems is a myth.” He went on to explain that it denigrates the dignity of the person, usually women and children, to the point that they become looked on as mere sexual toys. Pornography frequently leads to more aggressive sexual behavior again most frequently targeting women and children as victims.

Keeler is hoping that PAW will alert parents to the temptations that surround their children when it comes to pornography. Keeler warned that the largest group of Internet porn viewers are children between the ages of 12 and 17 and he said that many parents are totally unaware of the fact that their children might be exposed at all.

Eli Machen, founder and president of The Omega Recovery Institute in Asheville, North Carolina says that pornography has a real chemical effect on the brain which is what causes pornography to be so addictive.
Machen explains that pornographic images are so powerful that they are easily and frequently recalled. However, because the physical reaction to pornography is actually chemically triggered in the brain, most individuals who regularly view pornography find that they need to increase or intensify their pornographic habits in some way in order to maintain the same chemical effects. Pornography is extremely addictive and always leaves the viewer wanting more.

Phil Burress, a former pornography addict for 25 years, is hoping that PAW will increase awareness of the dangers of pornography. He says, "I believe it's one of the leading causes, if not the leading cause, of divorce in America today." Burress is now the leader of the group Citizens for Community Values which works to get pornography out of stores and hotels.

Morality in Media is also promoting the Pornography Awareness Week (also called White Ribbon Against Pornography Week) as an attempt, among other things, to alert parents to the fact that the average age that children first come into contact with pornographic material is 9 years old. The president of Morality in Media, Bob Peters says that more people need to speak out against pornography. He says, “If people don't make complaints in the community about pornography, there's a perception that people don't care and maybe that it's even acceptable in our community."

The Child Online Protection Act, signed into law in 1998 by then President Clinton, requires ‘adult content’ sites to take measures to ensure that minors cannot access material that is considered “harmful to children.” The standard by which something is judged ‘harmful’ or not is defined as “contemporary community standards”. Sites with such material are required to obtain proof of age from their viewers. Penalties for not doing so can be fines reaching up to $50,000 or six months in jail.

Fittingly but unintentionally timed to coincide with PAW, the Justice Department is currently in court trying to shut down online sites that do not protect minors from offensive material. The ACLU is representing two such websites who argue that the wordage “community standards” is ambiguous and unenforceable. The ACLU also argues that it is the role of parents, not the government, to regulate internet usage by minors. Attorneys for the government argue that even Internet filters cannot possibly keep all pornography out of a home computer.

Cardinal Keeler and Morality in Media have listed additional resources that can help in the fight against pornography. Keeler also said that parishes should be the first step in helping to recognize and overcome porn addiction. He also suggested sample ‘Prayers of the Faithful’ and preaching points for Pornography Awareness Week.

See Morality in Media’s White Ribbon Against Pornography page:
http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?wrap.htm

Read Related LifeSiteNews Coverage:

'Mainstream' Porn is More and More about Child Porn
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/060421a.html
Road to Perversion Is Paved With Porn
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/060412a.html

You rang?

Just a few thoughts about this article, really not so much thoughts as questions.

...the largest group of Internet porn viewers are children between the ages of 12 and 17 and he said that many parents are totally unaware of the fact that their children might be exposed at all. How do they know that 12-17 year-olds comprise the largest viewing audience of porn, when most parents themselves don't even know?

...the average age that children first come into contact with pornographic material is 9 years old. What type of porn does a 9 year-old come into to contact with/exposure to? SI Swimsuit Edition? The lingerie section of the JC Penney catalog? Just what is their definition of porn? How do they calculate the average age and what was the sample size?

While I'm sure it would dismay the good Cardinal, evidence indicates that internet porn has led to a decrease in the number or reported rapes.

In short, a reader doesn't have any idea what or who was sampled and what definitions/criteria are used. The definitions of porn could be so broad that seeing the swimsuit portion of the Miss America Pageant could qualify, who knows? In all likelihood, this is typical alarmist BS coming from a denomination that has no room to lecture anyone on sexual impropriety. I'm sure you think differently, oh well.

Those "studies" are purely a case of confusing correlation with causation. The author even admits that clinical experimentation can't reproduce similar results. Without that kind of support, it's not hard to imagine that the authors of those studies are just playing with crime statistics to get what they want. It wouldn't be that difficult. And I'll bet I could find you plenty of case studies of rapists who use porn regularly.

I'm sure that any good psychologist will tell you that indulgence in porn won't decrease sexual appetite, but increase it. It's like indulging in desserts or candy; it's satisfying for a while, but soon you'll be raiding the frozen section for ice cream yet again. You'd be better off abstaining from sugary desserts if you want to keep the urge away.

You do raise a good point with the definition of pornography. Many people consider Playboy to be pornography, but the technical definition of pornography is a depiction of people performing sexual acts. Playboy isn't known for showing people in sexual congress; what you see is naked women not having sex. I wonder how broad a definition was used as well, but expecting the Catholic Church to stay silent on pornography is out of the question.

I agree that churches are obliged to teach, preach and warn against sexual impropriety. But they aren't obliged to criminalize it, as ordinary human weakness (in this case, lust) is not criminal per se. As I like to say, unsaved people will do unsaved things. The article didn't call for criminalization, but did mention some current govt prosecutions. As I know how social conservatives think (having been one myself a while back), I decided to throw that in here.

As for my statement about the church not having credibility on this issue, it's colored by the alarmist nature of the article. All too often I've seen groups with agendas play fast and loose with "the facts" in order to promote a particular agenda (e.g., 25 million starving americans, 600K missing children, second hand smoke). Given the well known failures of the Catholic church regarding its recent priestly problems, me thinks this might be an effort to re-establish their moral high ground and they may be playing fast and loose with the facts here. Maybe they aren't, but there aren't any details explaining the methodology, so I find the information suspect. Not passing the smell test and all that.

Perhaps you are correct, perhaps not. And you will get no arguement from me about some rapists being porn users and abusers. However, if both trends are accurate (the decrease in rape numbers along with increased numbers of people viewing porn), doesn't that at least cast some doubt about the arguement made by many that indulgence in porn leads to sexual crimes?

As to your remark about the clinical experimentation, he does go on to talk about the differences between what happens at the clinic vs. what happens alone at home. To put it delicately, think "happy ending".

You do raise a good point with the definition of pornography.

Thank you. As I replied to another poster, all too often I've seen groups with agendas, even noble ones, play fast and loose with "the facts" in order to further that agenda. Is that the case here? I suspect it might be, but I don't have nearly enough information to answer that question one way or the other.

As for my statement about the church not having credibility on this issue, it's colored by the alarmist nature of the article. All too often I've seen groups with agendas play fast and loose with "the facts" in order to promote a particular agenda

Whether there are groups that play fast and loose with the facts has nothing to do with whether the Church has an imperative to preach against pornography. If this particular cardinal had been involved in some sex scandal, then perhaps he would not be the right man to bear the message, but, regardless, the message needs to be brought. Someone, somewhere abusing statistics to promote an agenda does not preclude all others from promoting that agenda, nor does it even point to the wrongness of the agenda. It merely means that that one individual or set of individuals has lost credibility.

As far as criminalizing immoral behavior, it probably is silly to try to do that, but that is not the same thing as refusing to allow previously criminalized behavior to be legalized. For instance, once upon a time homosexuality was illegal in many states because it posed a threat to the health and welfare of the community. Now homosexuality is practically celebrated in every facet of public life and given special protections. How did this happen in so short a time? Because we, as a society, turned away from believing that behavior was a threat, then away from believing it was deviant, and finally away from believing it was abnormal. Once you start down the path, it is difficult to turn back.

I don't know that many people believe that porn alone will make a rapist out of anyone, but there's got to be plenty of evidence that porn plays a part in motivating many rapists. Unless I miss my guess, the point of the survey that you linked to is that porn alleviates the urge to rape, and therefore is a good thing. I would argue that it has the opposite effect, and I think there is much more evidence to support that point of view.

So a potential rapist is able to 'relieve the pressure valve' and therefore take care of the problem, as opposed to having to just live with his frustration if he's taking part in a study? I don't buy it. That sounds as if the problem is simply that the rapist is just too horny to control himself, so he goes out and attacks someone at random. It's way more complicated than that in most cases; it often involves an acquaintence of the rapist with whom he's angry or frustrated. Often he wants to exert some kind of control or dominance over her. Someone dealing with those things probably isn't going to be content to sit and watch porn and abuse himself. When you think about it in those terms, the study that you refer to doesn't add up, in my opinion.

As I replied to another poster, all too often I've seen groups with agendas, even noble ones, play fast and loose with "the facts" in order to further that agenda. Is that the case here? I suspect it might be, but I don't have nearly enough information to answer that question one way or the other.

The young age range sounds a bit farfetched to me too, frankly. I think you know which side I'm on, but I also think both articles are taking liberties here.

Whether there are groups that play fast and loose with the facts has nothing to do with whether the Church has an imperative to preach against pornography.

The Church does so because it has a particular benchmark for human intimacy and believes pornography, via its usual cause of sexual excitation, offers a false kind of intimacy since no partner is involved, and no offspring maybe created thus any resultant climax from pornography is an empty (and selfish) act neither bringing two people closer together nor bringing about a conception.

IMHO, the content of the initial news release is filled with unsubstantiated claims, alarmist rhetoric, vague assertions and scant detail. It's ridiculous on its face.

For the Church, I think use of pornography, contraceptives, non-marital copulation, and even homosexual acts all "fail" for similar reasons: 1. No child can result 2. The "intimacy" is transitory and founded on a hollow premise in large part because of 1.

It took some digging but the 12-17 claim was often pointing to one website which was simply making an undocumented claim. Eventually I was lead to the "3rd Way," a "nonpartisan" progressives website and to a PDF which has a footnote for the same statistic. Here's the footnote:

Mark B. Kastleman, The Drug of the New Millennium: The Science of How Internet Pornography
Radically Alters the Human Brain and Body, 2nd edition, Granite Publishing, Orem (UT), 2001;
see also, http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html,
accessed on: July 18, 2001; Bella English, "The Secret Life of Boys: Pornography Is a Mouse
Click Away, and Kids Are Being Exposed to It in Ever-Increasing Numbers," The Boston Globe,
May 12, 2005; Crystal Roberts, Internet Filtering and Blocking Technology: The Most Effective
Methods of Protecting Children from Pornography, Family Research Council, Washington (DC):
September 3, 1999, available at http://www.copacommission.org/papers/ is99g2pn.pdf, accessed
on: July 15, 2005

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.