Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

Kids Safer Online Than Ever Before

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted August 7, 2007.


Experts estimate that 75 to 90 percent of pornography winds up in the hands of children due to novel technologies and high-speed distribution networks. If you're ready to blame the internet, you're wrong.
Advertisement

There's a horrifying new menace to children that's never existed before. Experts estimate that 75 to 90 percent of pornography winds up in the hands of children due to novel technologies and high-speed distribution networks. That means today's youths are seeing more images of perversion than ever before in the history of the world.

What are the "new technologies" and "distribution networks" that display so much porno for up to 90 percent of kids? I'll give you one guess. Nope, you're wrong; it's not the Internets. It's print.

The year is 1964, and I'm getting my data from financier Charles Keating. He had just formed Citizens for Decent Literature, an antiporn group whose sole contribution to the world appears to have been an educational movie called Perversion for Profit.

Narrated by TV anchor George Putnam, the flick is an exposé of the way "high-speed presses, rapid transit, and mass distribution" created a hitherto unknown situation in which kids could "accidentally" be exposed to porno at the local drugstore or bus station magazine rack. Among the dangers society had to confront as a result of this situation were "stimulated" youths running wild, thinking it was OK to rape women, and turning into homosexuals after just a few peeks at the goods in MANifique magazine.

A lot of the movie -- which you can watch for yourself on YouTube -- is devoted to exploring every form of depravity available in print at the time. We're treated to images of lurid paperbacks, naughty magazines, and perverted pamphlets. At one point, Putnam even does a dramatic reading from one of the books to emphasize their violence. Then we get to see pictures of women in bondage from early BDSM zines.

But the basic point of this documentary isn't to demonstrate that Keating and his buddies seem to have had an encyclopedic knowledge of smut. Nor is the point that smut has gotten worse. Putnam admits in the film that "there has always been perversion." Instead, the movie's emphasis is on how new technologies enable the distribution of smut more widely, especially into the hands of children. In this way, Keating's hysterical little film is nearly a perfect replica of the kinds of rhetoric we hear today about the dangers of the Web.

Consider, for example, a University of New Hampshire study that got a lot of play earlier this year by claiming that 42 percent of kids between the ages of 10 and 17 had been accidentally exposed to pornography on the Web during the previous year. The study also claimed that 4 percent of people in the same age group were asked to post erotic pictures of themselves online. News coverage of the study emphasized how these numbers were higher than before, and most implied that the Web itself was to blame.

But as Perversion for Profit attests, people have been freaking out about how new distribution networks bring pornography to children for nearly half a century. Today's cyberteens aren't the first to go hunting for naughty bits using the latest high-speed thingamajig either; back in the day, we had fast-printing presses instead of zoomy network connections.

It's easy to forget history when you're thinking about the brave new technologies of today. And yet if Keating's statistics are to be believed, the number of children exposed to porn was far greater in 1964 than it is today.

Perhaps the Web has actually made it harder for children to find pornography. After all, when their grandparents were growing up, anybody could just walk to the corner store and browse the paperbacks for smut. Now you have to know how to turn off Google's safe search and probably steal your parents' credit card to boot.

And yet Fox News is never going to run a story under the headline "Internet Means Kids See Less Pornography Than Ever Before." It may be the truth, but you can only sell ads if there's more sex -- not less.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: porn, internet

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who learned about sex before she learned about the Internet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What happened to the GOOD OLD DAYS ...
Posted by: just john on Aug 7, 2007 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... when entire families slept in one bed, so all a kid had to do to witness LIVE SEX was to stay awake?

Our family values just aren't what they used to be!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Um, hold on a minute...
Posted by: Sharpless on Aug 7, 2007 1:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I'm missing out on some sarcasm in this post, but it's actually 100% easy-as-pie to look at full-on porn on the internet. You just have to find the right places and, honestly, they're not that hard (ha!) to track down. I'd post links but, uh, yeah. I won't. It's easier than ever to access it with no hassle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grammer error?
Posted by: jsong123 on Aug 7, 2007 2:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should "more safer" be "more safe"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grammer error? Posted by: jadresak
» RE: Grammer error? Posted by: PlumPudding
» RE: Grammer error? Posted by: Just Danj
Grammar, these are not mistakes in some cases
Posted by: FDPN on Aug 7, 2007 3:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Internets" is actually a trendy term for the internet among internet-junkies these days. I believe it is mocking the use of the term by President Bush or some other politician (multiple politicians more likely). Use of the word "internets" can be forgiven, it shows that you are a true denizen of the web and this author's articles typically deal with technology so it is to be expected. Although, I am personally partial to using, "intarweb" when I'm trying to be witty.

As for the article title, that does come off as a blatant grammatical error and I'm not sure what the source of this one was. Could be an attempt to mock the idiots screaming about how the internet is the devil (reference to The WaterBoy) and exposes kids to porn.

The problem with references is that some people don't get them. To those people, you look like a fool.

Not everyone has seen every episode of the Simpsons and can quote nearly every line.

Not everyone knows that "internets" is a mocking/ironic way to describe the internet.

Hopefully, some of you now know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ed Meese and the Keating Five
Posted by: Jim Pivonka on Aug 7, 2007 5:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Charlie and Ed were bosom buddies, as you undoubtedly know. I can understand that you had to leave out the Meese connection, and any mention of the famed "Keating Five" and Keatings checkered later history - including his part in bringing down several premier politicos, and producing an early blotch on the McCain escutcheon.

But it must have been really, really hard to resist those digs. Maybe you could do a follow up article for us, just to bring the young-uns up to date.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Children safe on the net????
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Aug 7, 2007 6:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so lets see.. are we to believe that children today have less exposure to porn than back in the 60's??.. funny..everytime I open my email account there is numerous porn related spam mail.. one click and a child is in heaven!!!

So Fox news wont run a story on how kids have less exposure to porn now..because they dont..they have more..

Is it really a liberal/progressive belief that kids are safer on the net now??? talk about looney left!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Children safe on the net???? Posted by: hot karlrove
» RE: Children safe on the net???? Posted by: heftysmurf
Is exposure to pornography in teens such a huge issue?
Posted by: heftysmurf on Aug 7, 2007 6:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I'm not suggesting that we give the kids the birds and the bees talk at 10, I'm not convinced that teenagers stumbling into or actively seeking pornography in response to their very real biological needs is this huge social issue that so many seem to claim it is. At the age of 13 a group of my friends and I watched a pornographic video that one of them had obtained (don't remember how). None of us went crazy on it like a drug or went out to find the closest warm body to experiment with; even then we understood then that this was sex - a reality of most multi-cellular organisms - and not some travesty of nature that destroys youth.

Let's not try to blow it out of proportion, shall we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

click here if you are under 18
Posted by: El Hombre Malo on Aug 8, 2007 12:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the last year I must have viewed over one tera of pornographic material on my computer screen, both for recreational use and research.

I have not spent a penny nor used any stolen password.

I am Internet savy but not a wiz-kid of any sort.

It never came through my email in the form of spam because I believe in mail hygiene and I receive little spam.

At least 80% of aforementioned porn depicted some form of kink or paraphilia.

Less than 25% of the porn I viewed required me to click a legal age disclaimer link. Not one verified my real age, soy they are only intended to protect themselves from legal trouble.

I grew up in a country where laws regarding public exposition of smut are much softer than in the USA. I got my first hard porn mag (swedish no less) at 11 and when I was 13 we had formed a "club" in my class to co-finance our weekly adquisitions. Newstands on the street routinely display their porn. You can bet I am no prude.

I agree with one point of this article; there is some kind of people for whom "too much porn" equals "any amount of porn" and will denounce any mean by wich smut is beign distributed. And I personaly believe parenthood includes the right to protect your children from what you see as harmful, within some limits, so its up to parents to supervise their children activities, not delgate in any kind of censorship authority.

But to say today's youth is better protected than 4 decades ago is... naive, to say the least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: click here if you are under 18 Posted by: Just Curious
Waste of time
Posted by: heecheeboy on Aug 8, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article should have been labeled satire. As it is I wasted my time with it. The title is misleading. The lead in is misleading. The points have no point, even as satire. And obviously, any fool with a smattering of commonsense can discern for themselves the vast availability of porn on line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

censorship: same ol' same ol'
Posted by: talapuspete on Aug 8, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Putnam was the Lars Larsen of those times: anal, reactionary, and furious. I don't remember if he packed a gun, or not; probably—always a good penis-substitute. Putnam started as a news man, became an anchor, but was such a neo-fascist he quickly became a commentator on L.A. news.

Who said you can tell what medium is the most potent by the number of attempts to censor it? Marshal whatshisname, I think. He was right.

The "damage" pornography is supposed to do to viewers is mainly important to those most in love with...publicity.

Good article! Always good to get some perspective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GREAT satire!
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 8, 2007 12:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Refreshing piece. And in the vein of satire I'm not taking the conclusion seriously either. It's a helluva lot easier to stumble across porn online than it is to stumble upon porn in print. But I see that as a good thing. It's heartening, as well as jarring, to be sure, to be confronted with questions from my kids when they run across stuff online and to be able to respond to them and teach them good surfing habits and watch them do that. I'd rather they learn their sexual ethics from me and from their mother than the "perversion" obsessed prudes and Xtian fundamentalist whackjobs (like Conservasaurus) that grossly over-populate this country. Sex is NORMAL, 'Merkuh. Get over your damned selves. Get on the internets powered by yer nukuler 'lectricity and get funky. Quit yer Jesus and grab yer penis... and so on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was easy to find in the 60s!
Posted by: donnambirdlady on Aug 8, 2007 2:37 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was a kid, my youngest brother used to pick up porno magazines from our neighbor's trash can. Rather than freaking out my mother used these as an educational opportunity. We looked at them as a family and commented on what we saw. It usually registered as Yuk! or gross! or that guy has a weird looking penis... I think this was a smart and healthy way to handle this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mike Males
Posted by: mmales on Aug 9, 2007 10:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great story, Annalee. Other than refuting right-wing and mainstream media scares, I wish progressive writers would just get out of the culture war. Kids have always seen lots of pornography. They handle it fine. In fact, you can demonstrate that a youth is far safer online, unsupervised, than in church (where both sexual predation and gun homicide is far more common)--in fact, safer than if supervised by an adult (who, statistically, is far more likely to molest or harm the youth than anyone he/she meets online). Thanks for a good bit of history in a left media that is generally so depressing on youth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all Al Gore's fault.
Posted by: strahlungsamt on Aug 10, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every single new media since the dawn of time started out as a source of porn and later morphed into a source of propaganda or advertising.

From gods and goddesses of fertility in Roman times to the homoerotic fantasies of the Sistine Chapel to the Baroque era to the French Impressionists, every genre of painting or drawing dealt extensively with the Human Form. (Sexual orientation of the artist playing an important role)

Then, at the end of the 19th century, film arrived. Look at some of the earliest experiments in Silent Film before the Hays Code and you'll see plenty of female nudity in films, especially early experimental films. (Not to mention the history of photography - Lewis Carroll and his little girls anyone?)

Back in the 80's, a friend of mine used to work for Kodak at their developing plant for Super 8 film in Germany. He claimed that 90% of all film which came through his machine was amateur porn.

But of course, no young person under 18 (that magic number when sexual desires suddenly awaken for the first time) had ever seen porn before the Internet. It's a total disgrace and I blame that filthy Liberal Al Gore for poisoning our kids.

We need to put our faith in GWB and Jesus to save our kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all Al Gore's fault.
Posted by: strahlungsamt on Aug 10, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every single new media since the dawn of time started out as a source of porn and later morphed into a source of propaganda or advertising.

From gods and goddesses of fertility in Roman times to the homoerotic fantasies of the Sistine Chapel to the Baroque era to the French Impressionists, every genre of painting or drawing dealt extensively with the Human Form. (Sexual orientation of the artist playing an important role)

Then, at the end of the 19th century, film arrived. Look at some of the earliest experiments in Silent Film before the Hays Code and you'll see plenty of female nudity in films, especially early experimental films. (Not to mention the history of photography - Lewis Carroll and his little girls anyone?)

Back in the 80's, a friend of mine used to work for Kodak at their developing plant for Super 8 film in Germany. He claimed that 90% of all film which came through his machine was amateur porn.

But of course, no young person under 18 (that magic number when sexual desires suddenly awaken for the first time) had ever seen porn before the Internet. It's a total disgrace and I blame that filthy Liberal Al Gore for poisoning our kids. After all he INVENTED THE INTERNET.

We need to put our faith in GWB and Jesus to save our kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]