THE PRURIENT PROBLEM OF PRE-PUBESCENT PORNOGRAPHY

by Sam Sloan

I am a libertine. More than that, I am proud to be able to say that, in my student years, I actively campaigned for an end to all censorship. I like to think of myself as one of the founding fathers of the sexual revolution. I have long been totally against any restrictions on the production, distribution and sale of material commonly referred to as "pornography".

Today I saw something so shocking and upsetting that I am forced to re-evaluate this point of view. I cannot sleep thinking about this. The problem is Kiddy Porn, but not the Kiddy Porn we have all heard about but probably have never seen, featuring little girls engaged primarily in sexual acts. Rather, it is pornography where the kids are the consumers: Porn targeting children as the viewers. Porn found in places where adults would never look and therefore would not know about.

How did I found out about this? Today, I was walking through the Children's Section of the Brooklyn Public Library. Like many public libraries, there were computers available for Internet access. As this was the children's room, all the computers were in use by little children aged 6 to 9. While walking by, I happened to glance over the shoulder of a little 8 year old girl who had head phones on and was looking at a computer screen. And what was she looking at? She was reading a screen which said that it was all right for little girls to get under the sheets and use dildos, as at least this would not bring about sexually transmitted diseases!

I was tremendously upset. It so happens that I HAVE FOUR DAUGHTERS. I do not want a famous pop star, whose picture was provided, telling my daughters that it is all right for them to use a dildo.

But what was even more upsetting was that the little girl who was reading this was not an Internet hacker who had broken through some password system designed to keep children from reading this material. Rather, this was on MTV in a section specifically designed and targeted for young children. In fact, this section was so child oriented that no adult would ever see it, unless they saw it as I did, looking over the shoulder of a child while passing through a public library.

Moreover, the pictures themselves were not pornographic. While they did include sexually suggestive photos of famous female pop stars such as Courtney Love and Shirley Manson, plus cartoons, the photos were much less suggestive than those available at any public newsstand. It was rather the words which were pornographic, by any traditional standard. Here is a sample:

"AMY'S FANTASY: Courtney Love is erotic because she's tough. ..... My fantasy would be that at one of her shows, there's all girls in the audience and there's no boys. When Courtney Love stage dives, the girls would sort of pass her around until she asks us to rip her clothes off and get her off. It'd be fun, it's be like a big girl orgy. We'd deposit her back on stage and she's all spent."

I do not want my four daughters to read this stuff. I do not want some famous female pop star telling my daughters that, ooh, it felt so good the first time she discovered how to masturbate, as actress Janeane Garofalo does elsewhere on this web site. I do not want some male pop star telling my daughter to use a dildo. Yet, there is no way to stop this. All of the kids aged 6 to 9 in the public library I visited were looking at exactly this, and at nothing else.

I asked the librarian about this. I specifically complained about the part where the pop star, whose name is John Norwood Fisher of Fishbone, advises little girls to use a dildo. The librarian handed me a pamphlet which, she said, provided library policy on this. She said that parents were advised to supervise their children in the library. She further said that most parents just drop their children off and there is nothing which the library can do about this.

I saved this material to my floppy disk and I am providing it for you now. Before looking at it, I want to warn that this material is extremely titillating sexually. Please take this seriously. This is not a joke. I believe that no adult will be able to look at this material without becoming sexually aroused. Please note that I am not providing this to you for your sexual gratification, but to demonstrate my point that THIS IS WHAT OUR CHILDREN ARE LOOKING AT.

The subject is masturbation and "Sex in the Nineties". While piously proclaiming that it is better for our little kids to masturbate rather than to have sex with each other, a proposition with which no reasonable person would disagree, and providing quotes by such distinguished personalities as Former US Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders endorsing this view, it then provides material which would cause almost any normal person do exactly that: masturbate. Moreover, in an obvious attempt to avoid criticism by providing a contrary view by religious leaders that masturbation is contrary to the commandments of God, the religious point of view is made to look absurd and ridiculous. For example, one religious person is quoted as saying: "It was better to cut off a boy's genitals entirely then to let him go insane or die from masturbating too frequently."

At the end, any pretext of justifying this material on the grounds of saying that masturbation is better than group sex disappears because, in the final segment, the children are fantasizing not only about group heterosexual activities but also about lesbianism and male-to-male homosexuality. No mention is made of the dangers of AIDS.

Here is the proof: You can find this material yourself by browsing the following web address: Sex in the 90's .

Here is the objectionable material, as I have linked it to my own web site:

Please take this matter seriously.

Sam Sloan


Here are links:

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: Sloan@ishipress.com