Issue #18 -- August 2000

Contents

1. Science Confirms: Carrera's a Genius
2. I See London, I See France...
3. Chandra & Gary: Summer Reruns
4. Surgeon General's Moment of Sanity
5. Private Thoughts Ruled Pornographic
6. Too Squeamish to be President?
7. Book Review: USA vs. Erotica
8. Calendar: Marty Klein's Speaking Schedule

* * * * * * * * * * * *

1. Science Confirms: Carrera's a Genius

Congratulations to Dr. Michael Carrera. The non-partisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy has evaluated his nationwide program as the most effective in the country. The report says the Children's Aid Society-Carrera Program "demonstrated that, among girls, it significantly delayed the onset of sex, increased the use of condoms and other effective methods of contraception, and reduced pregnancy and birth rates." The focus is on long-term youth development, offering teens assistance with work, medical care, and school, and opportunities for involvement in sports and the arts. It is within this context that teens received family life and sex education. It's the most expensive such program around, costing $4,000 per teen per year -- which would, alternatively, pay for a month in jail or a few hours' intensive care for a prematurely born baby. For more information about the program, see www.StopTeenPregnancy.com.

The comprehensive National Campaign report also showed that abstinence-only programs, which are now the only sex education programs funded by the federal government, do not reduce the incidence of teen pregnancy.

Now we get to see if the federal government's goal is postponing and shaping the eventual sexual activity of teens to make it healthier, or simply condemning and shaming teen sexual activity.

2. I See London, I See France...

There are some one hundred Websites devoted to candid shots of unsuspecting women in public places. Apparently, some people are quite creative in using mirrors and high school geometry to catch glimpses under women's skirts, which they photograph and enjoy later, either privately or shared on the Net.

In case you're wondering, it's illegal. It is in Washington, anyway, where Sean Glas was recently convicted of voyeurism for non-consensual photography in a shopping mall. The court ruled that the photographs were hostile intrusions which violated the reasonable expectation of privacy--and that they were taken to arouse or gratify sexual desire.

"Voyeurism" is an interesting class of crime, because it depends on intent. The difference between legal (albeit inappropriate) staring and illegal peeping turns on the intention of gratifying sexual interest. It isn't illegal to salivate over a neighbor's car, for example, or to take pictures of it without permission. The implication is that we lose nothing from our car being seen or photographed, but that we do lose something precious by having our panties seen or photographed. The question is, what?

In America, of course, there's a cultural difference between having our underwear looked at and having our shoes looked at (particularly while we're wearing them). Say your local shoe fetishist, unbeknownst to you, started snapping photos of your shoes in public, and later used them while masturbating. Would you mind? Should this be illegal? If so, what else should be illegal?

For example, what about taking photos of women buying underwear? Or women washing it at the laundromat, or hanging it on clotheslines? If it's for art or market research, many people wouldn't mind. But if it's for sexual gratification, many would. As usual, it's the sexual aspect that troubles us. And what about men who are surreptitiously photographed for sexual purposes--say, a guy with a bulge in his speedo, asleep on the beach? Do we feel any differently about this?

Are women who are photographed unknowingly really victims--or innocent bystanders? It's an important question, because it involves one more venue of restricting others' freedom of movement to expand our own emotional comfort--with the government's help, of course. We should be hesitant to do so.

Frankly, I don't quite get the terrible upset some people feel about someone sneaking a peek at their, or someone else's, panties. Statistically, voyeurs are very, very unlikely to do anything more aggressive than sigh with pleasure. Frankly, if I can bring someone that much pleasure by flashing my Calvin Kleins, I'm in favor of it. It's certainly cheaper and quicker than taking people to lunch. Of course, I always follow my mother's rule--wear clean underwear out of the house just in case you're in an accident. You don't want the paramedics to see you wearing torn underwear while they're saving your life.

Americans are funny. We can accept the government spying in our schools, going through our trash, and opening our mail, but we get upset if someone sees our underwear. I can't believe people get upset about having their panties filmed, with strangers jacking off to it--while not minding private companies and the government stealing their personal information and screwing them with it.

3. Chandra & Gary: Summer Reruns

Move over Tammy Faye, O.J., and Monica. This summer's juicy story is Chandra and Gary. It has everything a person could ask for in entertainment: extramarital sex, a missing person, and, and...well, it has illicit sex, and the possibility of foul play, and what more do most Americans ask for in their daily news?

The story provides this season's best chance for people to renew their moral credentials. After all, Condit cheated on his wife. Levy is half his age. And get this--he lied about the affair, and encouraged her complicity!

Americans apparently don't learn much from the news. It's bad enough that most of us don't know where Bosnia is, or what that crazy Hutu-Tutsi thing was. But after the thousands of hours most Americans have spent tracking the sex lives of public figures, how could we still be ignorant about the rules of affairs? It's simple: Rule 1, hide it; Rule 2, see rule 1. And yet Americans still feign shock when people lie about cheating on their mates, and listen earnestly to Larry King and Rush Limbaugh deconstruct this allegedly complicated behavior.

And oh, are we Americans enjoying the perfect cocktail of voyeurism and sanctimony. This otherwise adult career woman is suddenly considered a young girl who has been victimized by an exploitive older man. The idea that she might have helped her career by taking advantage of his vulnerability to an attractive, attentive woman has not been much discussed. The even saner concept--that they are two adults who were each enjoying a mutual relationship--is too boring to be considered.

There is, of course, a delicious justice in Condit tripping on his own penis a year after leading the attempt to castrate Bill Clinton for the same thing. But what's the surprise? It's absolutely routine for the Morally Righteous to practice the same sins they torment everyone else about. Conservative Congressmembers Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingstone, the Rev. Jimmy Swaggart--the list of those projecting their sexual guilt onto the rest of us is a Who's Who of people who make a living telling others how to live. Sinners seem way over-represented among successful evangelists and morally crusading politicians. Demonizing others' sexual behavior may be the most reliable clue that someone is uncomfortable with their own sexual choices or fantasies.

In letters to various editors, Americans are complaining that poor Chandra is getting lost in what Newsweek called a "media circus" (the same week, of course, that they put her on their cover). There's a good reason for this: without the drama of forbidden lust, there is very little to this story, and correspondingly little genuine concern about her among strangers. We Americans like to have it both ways--enjoy the voyeurism, and complain about its impropriety. Then we want Gary Condit--charged with nothing more than infidelity--to pay for our sins. At least his lust was for a real woman. Our lust is for a story of lust. Ours is the greater shame, and the greater threat to the Republic.

4. Surgeon General's Moment of Sanity

For a year, people have been talking about a report on sexual health that Surgeon General David Satcher had been preparing. By Valentine's Day, the smart money was that it would never be released--it would be too "controversial."

Last month the smart money proved wrong, as "A Call To Action" was published. It describes the nation's sexual health crisis, and calls upon everyone, from the government to churches to families, to respond. The report calls for a "respectful" dialogue among people with divergent opinions, acceptance of the "diversity" of human sexualities, and "thoughtful" implementation of a range of programs--including comprehensive sex education alongside the abstinence-only programs supported by the Bush administration. The report even recommended that young people abstain from sex until they're involved in an "enduring monogamous relationship."

Hundreds of print and electronic media editorials across the country commented on the report, with an amazing 93% of them favorable.

But the Bush administration immediately distanced itself from the report. And conservative think-tanks and politicians could not support something so reasonable and practical. A coalition of 11 conservative organizations, including Focus on the Family, denounced the report as ''bad medicine'' because it noted that sexually active teens could care for their health by using condoms. The Family Research Council was even angry that the report said "enduring monogamy" rather than marriage. "I don't use the term 'marriage'," replied Satcher, "because not all marriages are mutually monogamous." This guy's actually living in the real world, and his report showed it.

Less than 10% of Americans are virgins on their wedding day, yet federal and state governments spend some $300 million dollars per year attempting to promote abstinence until marriage.

Dr. Satcher lamented abstinence-only programs that tell sexually active students they're on their own. "Our nation must care as much for young people who are sexually active as for those who are abstinent," he said. "I don't believe some people deserve a death sentence because they make a mistake--I don't believe they deserve a sexually transmitted disease, or to become a teenage parent."

President Bush believes "the only sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy is through abstinence." One wonders if he believes that his own college-age daughters (who have already been busted for under-age drinking) are sexually active. In an attempt to prevent this, would he prevent them from knowing about or using condoms?

5. Private Thoughts Ruled Pornographic

Most people dismiss the expression "thought crime" as an exaggeration. But here's an Ohio guy who was actually jailed for writing down his thoughts.

22-year-old Brian Dalton wrote in his journal about torturing and molesting children. When his probation officer found the private journal in a routine search of Dalton's house, he notified police. Last week, Dalton was sentenced to 10 years in prison for "pandering obscenity involving a minor." That's because Dalton "did create, reproduce or publish [any] obscene material that has a minor as one of its participants or portrayed observers."

Everyone agrees that Dalton's journal is fiction. No one has suggested he wanted to sell or even show the damn thing to anyone else. But "even without passing it on to anyone else, he committed a felony," Assistant County Prosecutor Christian Domis said. That's right: Dalton's crime was writing down thoughts the government found illegal. Dalton thus becomes the first person in the United States successfully prosecuted for child pornography involving writings, not pictures. Private writings.

It shouldn't need saying in America, but apparently it does: it shouldn't be illegal to think something, nor to write it down for private use--no matter how repulsive the thought. It should be absolutely legal for you to think about, or write about, raping and mutilating my mother. Or me, or anyone else.

Here's the kicker: Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien called the Dalton case a "breakthrough'' in the battle against child pornography. How, exactly, is this a "breakthrough"? The usual arguments about child pornography are that it hurts the child who is photographed, or encourages adults to molest, or is used to entice children. But no minors were involved in "producing" Dalton's journal, and Dalton has not been accused of molesting anyone. So in what sense are his private words dangerous--and in what sense is Dalton's community safer for his punishment? The only "breakthrough" in this case is the creation of a new tool to limit people's right to think what they want--which makes Americans less safe, not more.

So who is the victim of Dalton's "crime"? His arrest is more proof that "protecting children" is not the only motivation of every anti child-porn crusader. Many actually want to dictate what you can fantasize. And that's not about "the children," nor people like Dalton--it's about the crusaders themselves. It would be nice for a change, to expose and judge what they're thinking--their fear of other humans, their skepticism about the value of democracy.

Now that Dalton's private thoughts and words are illegal, is it also illegal to:

• ... report on this trial in detail?
• ... describe, while complaining about, what can't be legally written?
• ... write a story in which a child misunderstands an adult and feels violated?
• ... write a diary entry, "I have fantasies about sex with children that are illegal"?
• ... describe, in writing, the private thoughts you've told a priest or therapist?
• ... describe, in writing, fantasies of other crimes, such as murder, rape, and theft? if not, why not?

Ohio has now made it illegal for you to possess your own journal or erotic fiction if it isn't clean enough. Oscar Wilde once said, "I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read." How times have changed.

6. Too Squeamish to be President?

Seven hundred people die every day from AIDS in Kenya. Over 7% of the population is HIV-infected. The government is therefore planning to import 300 million condoms using World Bank funding.

Unfortunately, President Daniel Arap Moi says he is "shy" about speaking publicly about condoms. Instead, he has asked Kenyans to abstain from sex for two years.

If Kenyans are like other human beings, this plan will be a complete failure--a large-scale social experiment with disastrous consequences. Like children whose lack of decision-making skills, comfort, and knowledge about sex is the price they pay for their parents' refusal to talk about sex, Kenyan citizens will be the ones to pay for President Moi's "shyness," with unwanted pregnancies and disease.

Even the government's modest plan to import condoms ran into swift opposition from both Christian and Muslim religious leaders who believe the government should actively promote abstinence. "Committing adultery is against the laws of God, and importing condoms will mean that more people will be actively engaged in sex," said Archbishop John Njenga. Sheikh Mohamed Dor said the country was "committing suicide" importing so many condoms, which he said would encourage young people to have premature sex. Neither leader seems to notice that the lack of condoms hasn't prevented the behavior they disapprove of. The availability of condoms won't increase sexual behavior--it will simply reduce its consequences.

And that's what bothers abstinence-only people on both sides of the Atlantic--the possibility of sexual behavior without awful consequences. Love the sinner? Hah. Such people want the sinner to roast in hell--hell on earth, if you see AIDS-ravaged Central Africa. Or any inner-city where 15-year-olds are giving birth.

7. Book Review: USA vs. Erotica

This extraordinary book is quite enjoyable, with a compelling story that's hard to put down. Along the way, readers meet charming Southern lawyers, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (recently of Microsoft case fame), unpredictable Utah juries, Attorney General Edwin Meese, sex experts around the country, and a stubborn, warm, soul-searching David-vs.-Goliath protagonist.

Phil Harvey ran a clean little business: selling X-rated videos and dildos through the mail to adults across America. He made some money, most of which he donated to family planning programs for poor people. The government didn't like anyone watching X-rated videos, so in 1986 they took him to court and tried to close his business. When he was acquitted, they came up with the Multiple Jurisdiction Strategy: indict him in so many different states simultaneously that he'd gladly go out of business, pay a million dollar fine, and spend "only" a year or two in jail.

The government admitted that Phil Harvey's business was legal--his products were legal, and his customers adults. They just wanted him out of business, and wanted to warn other vendors to close their doors. The government's legal strategy worked with many of Phil Harvey's competitors, who lost their businesses, homes, and health.

If the story ended there, it would be short and unsatisfying. But the story, and book, continue with an act of tremendous courage and vision. Phil risked his personal freedom and everything he owned: he sued the government. The legal--and social, political, and economic--battle lasted almost eight years.

For suspense, heroism, behind-the-scenes journalism, and good guys-vs.-bad guys drama, The Government vs. Erotica rivals anything the Sopranos or Jeffrey Archer can offer. Fortunately, it's also surprisingly funny. Those G-men can sure do some wacky things, and Phil has a wonderfully dry sense of humor.

This stimulating book is great summer reading for anyone who likes a good legal yarn. It's also a must for anyone who enjoys a vibrator or X-rated video, or knows someone who does. Dildos are illegal in Alabama, oral sex is illegal in one-third of the country, Congress wants all conversation on the Internet reduced to what's appropriate for children--and writing down your private thoughts is illegal in Ohio. Chances are, this tale has relevance for you.

8. CALENDAR: Marty Klein's speaking schedule

August 19, 2001
Sexuality & Religion--Friends or Enemies?
  Center for Inquiry West
  Los Angeles (repeated in Costa Mesa that afternoon)
  310/306-2847

September 14, 2001
Diagnosis & Treatment of Sexual Issues
  Pathway Counseling Center
  Milwaukee, WI
  414/774-4111

September 20-21, 2001
Human Sexuality
  (satisfies CA licensing requirement)
  National Association of Social Workers
  San Francisco
  800/538-2565

September 29, 2001
Start of next case consultation series for psychotherapists.
  Los Angeles
  For information, call 650/856-6533, or click here.

October 25, 2001
Diagnosis & Treatment of Sexual Issues
  Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
  San Diego
  610/530-2483

October 27, 2001
Sexuality in the Age of Technology: Has Anything Really Changed?
  Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
  San Diego
  610/530-2483

November 15-16, 2001
Human Sexuality
  (satisfies CA licensing requirements)
  National Association of Social Workers
  San Francisco
  800/538-2565

February 22-23, 2002
Human Sexuality
  (satisfies CA licensing requirements)
  National Association of Social Workers
  Oakland, CA
  800/538-2565

March 15-16, 2002
Human Sexuality
  (satisfies CA licensing requirements)
  National Association of Social Workers
  San Mateo, CA
  800/538-2565

April 27, 2002
Existential Issues in Psychotherapy & Couples Counseling
  Family Service Agency
  Santa Cruz, CA
  831/459-9351

Send your comments on this issue

You may quote anything herein, with the following attribution:
"Reprinted from Sexual Intelligence, copyright © Marty Klein, Ph.D. (www.SexEd.org)."