CSUN's Pedophile Confab
William F. Jasper (wmjasper@aol.com) writes in the August 30 edition of the conservative journal The New Statesman about the World Pornography Conference, cosponsored by the Free Speech Coalition and the Center for Sex Research at the California State University-Northridge (CSUN):
...The three-day global porn confab in August 1998 and the slimy connection of the porn racket to academe was the subject of intense scrutiny by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee of the California State Senate on July 6th of this year. The hearing, which received scant media attention, was important for demonstrating a number of crucial truths about grand strategy, tactics, battlefield landscape, imminent threats, and the correlation of forces in the ongoing culture war.
...What surprised many insiders in Sacramento was the transformation of the Democratic committee members as the hearings unfolded. Like their White House boon companion, Bill Clinton, California Democrats have been major beneficiaries of the Hustler-Playboy-Penthouse political largesse and have not been the least queasy about rubbing elbows with the Hollywood sexploiters and the radical homosexual lobby. And in the past few years they have become increasingly chummy with the hardcore porn "industry," allowing the San Fernando Valley to become the world capital of porn video production. Under Clinton, federal prosecutions of pornography offenses, such as interstate commerce and postal crimes, have taken a steep dive and "adult" entertainment production has exploded, as the Larry Flynts of the world have been metamorphosed by the ACLU-Tinseltown con artists into poster children for the First Amendment. But the arrogant excesses of the militant hedonists proved too much even for the political libertines.
When [conservative Republican State] Senator [Raymond] Haynes charged that the "academic conference" was in effect a CSUN-subsidized trade show to promote and legitimize the pornography industry, the liberal Democrats who control the committee not only rallied to his cry, but took the lead in denouncing the publicly funded CSUN's sponsorship of a program to promote the abuse of women and children. Senator Steve Pease (D-Chula Vista) was outraged that CSUN's chancellor failed to appear to defend the university's conduct. He easily gained committee approval to force CSUN to foot the cost of the estimated $50,000 it would take for state auditors to investigate the conference funding. Senator Richard Alarcon, a Democrat in whose district Northridge is located, noted that he had recently delivered the commencement address at CSUN and angrily stated that "for the first time in 18 years I'm embarrassed to be a graduate of Cal State Northridge." Moreover, said Alarcon, "this very, very liberal" senator was sending a message to the Cal State chancellor that he is appalled by this "stain on the university system" and the willingness of academia to "get in bed with the porn industry."
The unethical and illegal use of university funds, personnel, equipment, and resources to promote a private trade show - and a porno conference at that - was only one of the factors that set the Sacramento politicians fuming. What put them over the top was the revelation of the prominence of notorious pedophile/pederast/child porn advocates and defenders at the CSUN-sponsored event. Aside from "seminars" on such high-brow intellectual fare as "Visual and Carnal Pleasures of Hardcore Pornography," "Women and Pornography: Victims or Visionaries?" and "What Sex Offenders Think About Pornography," there were also sessions such as the one titled "Child Pornography: Forbidden Thoughts and Images in an Erotic Landscape," presented by Dr. Ralph Underwager, an aggressive pedophile supporter. Underwager, who masquerades as a Lutheran pastor, is a founder of the Institute for Psychological Therapies in Northfield, Minnesota. Together with his wife and fellow sexpert, Hollida Wakefield, he edits a quarterly journal, Issues in Child Abuse Accusations.
In 1993, Underwager was interviewed by Paidika, the infamous Dutch journal of pedophilia. Paidika asked: "Is choosing pedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?" To which Underwager replied: "Certainly it is responsible... Pedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people..." Underwager declared that "pedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim that pedophilia is an acceptable expression of God's will for love and unity among human beings."
Unfortunately, the perverse sanctimony of "Pastor" Underwager and similar frauds goes virtually unchallenged today in academia. The joint legislative committee was particularly perturbed because the obscene bilge delivered by Underwager was not some strange anomaly that crept unbidden into the conference. In testimony before the committee, Dr. Judith Reisman, author of the important study Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, presented documentation showing the gathering was a full-fledged pedophile confab.
The founder of CSUN's Center for Sex Research and the sex guru emeritus at the conference was Dr. Vern L. Bullough, a self-admitted pedophile and an editor of the Journal of Pedophilia. Bullough wrote the introduction to the pedophile handbook Loving Boys: A Multidisciplinary Study in Two Volumes of Sexual Relations Between Adults and Minor Males, by the Dutch pedophile and former "jurist" Dr. Edward Brongersma.
Other porn conference "faculty" included pedophile champions John DeCecco, Daniel Tsang and Wayne Dynes. Cecco, an "out" pedophile, is head of the San Francisco State University Sex Research Center, which competes with its CSUN counterpart for the title of Left Coast Kinsey Institute. Tsang is the editor of the The Age of Taboo, published by the homosexual Alyson Publishers. One Age of Taboo essay by radical femi-Leninist Kate Millet claims that "one of children's essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well. So the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution." Mr. Dynes, like DeCecco and Tsang, is a pedophile and an editor of the Journal of Pedophilia.
Joining this vile pedophile professoriate was Ted McIlvenna of the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. This is the same institute that published McIlvenna's kiddie porn photos under the mantle of "science" in his book Meditations on the Gift of Sexuality. Then McIlvenna and the Institute turned around and sold the photos to Hustler magazine for use in a pro-incest article. It was at this same "distinguished" institute that James Elias, the current director of CSUN's Sex Research Center earned his doctorate on "Adolescent Exposure to Erotica."
Additional honored participants included the exalted "Trinity" of porn lawyers, H. Louis Sirkin (Penthouse), Burton Joseph (Playboy), and Herald Price Fahringer (Hustler). All three of these champions for degeneracy have defended the basest child pornography, with Fahringer arguing all the way to the Supreme Court in favor of pornography using children of any age, including "simulated or real intercourse," sadomasochistic abuse," and "sexual bestiality." Also appearing was the ACLU's Nadine Strossen, bleating the ludicrous theme that the sorry specimens populating this pervert menagerie were heroic exemplars in the tradition of our Founding Fathers, upholding precious American ideals. Appropriately, according to one observer, Ms. Strossen stood signing autographs cheek to jowl with Al Goldstein, editor of Screw magazine, one of the few porn mags (we've been told) that can boast with some justification to topping Larry Flynt's Hustler for crudity and depravity. Yes, this is the same Nadine Strossen who is regularly presented to millions of television viewers by Ted Koppel, Dan Rather, Jim Lehrer and Tom Brokaw as the demure, brave, compassionate hero of the oppresed and articulate defender of liberty. As the CSUN peo-porn palaver showed, the ACLU is joined at the hip with the meanest of predatory creatures who callously victimize the most innocent and vulnerable members of society.
In the tradition of Alfred Kinsey, the groves of academe are providing a bevy of bearded, tweedy professors to construct intellectual and legal defenses for the commercial child molesters. Among the numerous professors who mingled with the pornography stars, starlets, and producers were: Harris Mirkin, political scientist from the University of Missouri-Kansas City; philosopher David Austin of North Carolina University (a panelist on "The Role of Fetishism") film scholar Peter Lehman from the University of Arizona; Ed Donnerstein of the University of California-Santa Barbara; William Griffit of Kansas State University; and Jay Lorenz of the University of California-Irvine.
A recent study by the Family Research Council, "Homosexual Activists Work to Lower the Age of Sexual Consent," outlines in alarming detail the aggressive program of the sexual liberationists to eradicate all protections against the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, and to legitimize the pedophile agenda in media, entertainment, and academic circles. Dr. Reisman, in her committee testimony, pointed out that the CSUN porn festival was also co-sponsored by the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS) and the American Association of Sex Educators and Counselors (AASEC), two of the leading transmitters of Kinseyite sex education programs into the public schools. Many SSSS and AASEC leaders are on record as paid consultants to the billion-dollar pornography industry, and their pro-incest, pro-pedophile materials already finding their way into school sex ed curricula.
Pedophilia is still considered so abhorrent a crime that most people cannot even imagine that such a revolting practice could ever become accepted as a "right" in America. But a geneation ago the same was thought of abortion and the "unspeakable vice" of homosexuality. The degenerate lobby is using the same practiced methods that proved so successful in legitimizing those crimes. They are assembling corrupt, prostitute academics to provide intellectual cover for their criminality. And they are talking up "adult-child love" to soften public opposition to pedophilia. In this they are following the plan outlined by homosexual strategists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their manifesto, entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s.
"Application of the keep-talking principle can get people to the soulder-shrug stage," wrote Kirk and Madsen. "The free and frequent discussion of gay rights by a variety of persons in a variety of places give sthe impression that homosexuality is commonplace." Even the religious "bigots" and "intransigents" who do not "embrace" gay culture, noted Kirk and Madsen, will begin to feel more and more isolated and more reticent when it comes to expressing disapproval. And the hardcore conservative "may still shake his head and htink, 'People are crazy these days," but in time his objections will become more reflective, more philosophical and less emotional."
Is it possible that Americans could be desensitized to the "shoulder-shrug stage" concerning pedophilia? Absolutely. Especially considering the moral corrosion the sex deviates have already exercised on our younger generations through pop culture, media, and education. But the response of the California legislative committee shows that it is still possible to appeal to decency and to awaken righteous indignation and outrage against obscenity.
Pedophilia must reamin an utter abomination. And the facile politicians, entertainers, and academics who rise in its defense must be subjected to the same scorn and revulsion as David Duke when he rises in defense of racism and Ku Klux Klan.
........
Dr. Bullough (whose recommendation was crucial to Prometheus Books decision to publish Luke's first book) writes Luke: "Dear Luke: These are charges made by Judith Riesman and have appeared in the John Birch society publication. I am not a self admitted pedophile, and my four children and grandchildren are upset. So would my late wife be. My ideas on the subject were developed at an international meeting sponsored by the Catholic Brothers of the Paraclete back in the 80's to deal with pedophilia in the Catholic Church. The results were published in a book edited by the Psychiatrist Jay Feierman. Unfortunately, it turns out the 50 or so experts assembled from around the world had no real advice to give as far as causes. What was needed was more research.
"As a historian, I knew that the age of consent has changed over the course of the twentieth century, generally raised upwards and so some of the behavior now classed as pedophiliac was not earlier classified in this way. But how does one do research on the topic which is forbidden. I read extensively in the literature and felt that at least in some cases, we had to look upon it as sexual harassment, i.e. a behavior that was tolerated and acceptable a generation ago, but is not today. The vast public acceptance of this change in harassment from tolerated to making it illegal has really changed behavior but not yet eliminated it. Was there something more involved which puts the stigma more on the perpetrator. How do they think?
"When Paidika first began to be published, I was invited to be on the editorial board. I originally turned it down, but then accepted it since it gave me access to what passed for research on the topic. I was not the editor, but along with about 30 other mostly academics on the editorial advisory board. I was asked by the publisher of the English translation of Brongersma's book to write a preface to it, and I did so. If you read the preface, you will find I called it a lawyer's brief made by a believer in the subject, and for us to understand people like Brongersma we need to read what they believe. I believe Brongersma is wrong and erroneous but how does one deal with the topic without talking to such people or reading what they have to say. I still hold by that.
"I have initiated a lawsuit against Judith Riesman and asked for a retraction from the John Birch society. Riesman, however, is a slippery character. The Kinsey nstitute also sued her and won a $50,000 settlement against her, the amount of money they spent to win their suit. She declared bankruptcy and says she is unable to pay, and just goes on making her accusations. One begins to feel helpless in trying to deal with such charges. Any advice from you on how to do so would be much appreciated. I should add that one of the perils of doing sex research is in being charged with being what you have researched. I did a lot on homosexuality and a considerable number of people have come to believe that I was gay; I also did a lot on cross dressing, and many believe I am a cross dresser. I also did a lot of prostitution but interestingly no one so far has accused me of being a prostitute. I have also done some on s/m and similarly I have been identified as one. Personally I am a monogamous homosexual. Married to my first wife for nearly fifty years before she died three years ago, and now married to my second wife, an old friend. I remain monogamous."
Swinger Alan Miles writes Luke: Why do you waste time publishing the New Statesman article by William F. Jasper on the World Pornography Conference? Any author's credibility is immediately lost when his or her article quotes any study by the [bogus] Family Research Council, or any of the other Religious Right organizations with the fancy names. The RR is nothing more than a sick bunch of cultists that are hiding behind America's acceptance of mainstream religion. That article means nothing to thinking Americans. If you continue to promote anti-porn opinion, please research the author and his or her "resources" prior to publishing it. It just makes you look bad, and at this particular time of your life, you could use much less of that.
Fred the Lawyer writes: I'll bet you posted Mr. Jasper's article to get a rise out of people. Well, there's nothing like a good old dose of bombast (from either the left or the right--I'm not picky) to get a chuckle out of me.
1. I didn't realize it until now, but the World Pornography Conference was a brilliant, albeit unoriginal, idea. For years, the tobacco industry has been funding the Tobacco Institute which in turn funds "research" on tobacco as part of their general PR efforts. The porno industry could make lots of headway in their quest for legitimacy by doing likewise. It certainly couldn't hurt their image. It appears that they have started down this well-trod path. What they should do is start funding their favorite researchers. I must say, this is a trend worth following to see what becomes of it.
2. I was not at the World Pornography Conference, but I am quite skeptical of Mr. Jasper's claim (or implication) that it was all a giant conspiracy run by and for a bunch of pedophiles. I have a feeling that Mr. Jasper is simply trying to get a rise out of the right wing, and has no compunctions about sacrificing accuracy if it means riling up the troops in the culture wars. Well, Luke, you were there. Do you honestly think this was a giant pedophile conspiracy?
Luke: I had no idea how many supporters of pedophilia were at the Conference. I was surprised and interested by Jasper's assertions and now that I think about it, it makes sense that many of those who support a general widening of the definition of acceptable sexual expression, would support pedophilia. And that pedophilia is cause for concern.
Fred: 3. I have no trouble believing that our fearless legislators in Sacramento (Spanish for sacrament) got on their high horse about how University resources were used to further the porno industry. Doubtless, university resources are used to promote private industry every day. Show me an engineering department that does not do research sponsored by private industry. Show me a business school department that does not do research sponsored by prvate industry. As I see it, the only difference is that the legislators don't like this particular industry. However, there is certainly nothing unethical about a university working on something that aids a private company or industry, unless you have an axe to grind with that company or industry.
4. University of Nevada Las Vegas has a gaming department that is geared toward helping the gaming industry. Nobody in Nevada is up in arms about a public university that serves this privately owned vice business. Rather, it is only if you have an axe to grind with pornography that you could be up in arms about this.
5. I wager that the amount of CSU money involved was paltry. The porno industry could have raised that much money in its sleep. Perhaps the academics in question could simply raise the money from private sources, and everyone would go away happy.
6. Which leaves us with the question, is this a legitimate thing for an academic to study pornography? I suspect, Luke, that you posted Mr. Jasper's diatribe in an effort to lure some poor slob into coming forward and arguing this cause. Well, there's nothing good on television, there's no beer in the fridge, and I have nothing better to do, so here goes.
7. First, the mere fact that the "researchers" have unpopular findings or conclusions is no ground to object to their work. After all, the Bell Curve probably riled up more angry public opinion than any academic piece of research I have ever heard of, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the subjects explored in that book were worthy of exploration by academics. You might think that the authors were jerks or geniuses, but the subject itself is worthy of academic exporation. Similarly, the mere fact that the reports by researchers of pornogaphy are objectionable does not make it an illegitimate subject for research.
8. Whether or not pornograpy is immoral does not take away from its legitimacy as a subject of study. When I was in college, I took a course in criminology. We discussed gambling, prostitution, organized crime, etc. There is no question whatsoever that criminology is a legitimate area of academic inquiry. The mere fact that the subject matter is illegal and immoral activity does not take it outside the ambit of legitimate academic inquiry.
9. The mere fact that the issues discussed in a study of pornography are the same issues that involve the general "culture wars" does not take it outside the ambit of legitimate study. After all, the right wing constantly harps on the fact that pornography has a deleterious effect on our society. Is it not a legitimate area of inquiry to see if that's so? Gays allege that they are gay, not because of environmental factors, but because that is the way they are. Is it not a legimate area of inquiry to see if that's so? Was it a ligitimate area of inquiry for Kinsey or others to see exactly what is common among humans, sexually?
10. Incidentally, my criminology professor was libertarian. He advocated legalizing narcotics, gambling and prostitution. (At least that is what he told us. I'm not sure whether he was just trying to get a rise out of us. If he was, it worked at the time.) The mere fact that his conclusions were contrary to popular wisdom, and would have exasperated the religeous right does not take criminology outside the ambit of legitimate academic inquiry.
11. It seems to me that the only real objections to the study of pornography as an area of academic inquiry are these: a) a particular piece of research trite; b) it merely masks the fact that the researcher is simply trying to get his jollies while masking this effort with a veneer of academia; or c) the results are tantamount to someone concluding that the earth is flat, i.e. not only objectively wrong but silly.
12. As to these arguments, you would have to look at a particular piece of research, or a particular researcher. I don't think these points could be answered in the abstract.
O.K. That's the best I can do in twenty minutes at 11:00 p.m. I would conclude with one particular thought, however. Even if the researchers in question are trite, wrong and objectively silly, they have prodded William Jasper into going ballistic, and penning a lengthy piece of bombast. At the very least, they have provided me with at least one hour of moderate amusement, and that is certainly a laudible goal for any human to strive for.
The Porn Profs' Plans for Your Kids
Dr. Dennis Jarrard writes in the Morality in Media Newsletter, November-December 1998. Note: Dr. Jarrard was Chairman of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
I recently spent a day in Hell.
I attended the World Pornography Conference (August 6-9, 1998) at the Sheraton Universal Hotel in Los Angeles, and I was probably the only pro-decency person among the several hundred people who took part.
"Eroticism and the First Amendment" was the title of the confab, which drew advocates and defenders of porn from as far away as Russia, Japan, South Africa, and Australia. For eight very long hours I rubbed shoulders and even broke bread with top obscenity lawyers, the porn industry's political shills from the ACLU, porn video "actresses," and "academics" from major universities, particularly California State University at Northridge (CSUN). The town of Northridge is the world capital of porn video production.
The purpose of the proceedings seemed to be to advance a plan of the incredibly wealthy, $8 billion-a-year porn industry — namely, to get the public to accept the now-discredited Prof. Alfred Kinsey's anything-goes approach to sex as the basis for granting teaching credentials to all sex "educators" in both our public and our religious schools. Judging from what I heard, the plan is well under way.
I focused on the talks on "research and effects." The "academics" remarks were meant to provide the necessary pseudo-scientific intellectual basis for this all-out attack upon morality and reason. What these "intellectuals" said should frighten us citizens into action.
The first talk I heard was by CSUN's librarian, who described her efforts to protect the school's tax-supported porn collection. The only "academic" defenses she gave for this porn pile were "free speech," "academic freedom," the "First Amendment," and opposing "censorship."
In the next "academic" session I heard, the professor quoted tax-supported "researcher" Dr. Ed Donnerstein of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Donnerstein maintains that only violence in porn is dangerous. The speaker did not mention that porn was a form of violence in itself. Nor did he mention the money that Donnerstein has taken from Playboy and other porn interests to do some of his "research."
Dr. William Griffitt of Kansas State University informed us that porn caused no adverse effects, and that, why, even education can be distasteful to some — e.g., showing explicit sex films in the classroom. He cited the discredited, ACLU-dominated Presidential Commission on Pornography (1970) as showing minimal effects from making and using porn.
When I asked about the more recent Reagan-era [Attorney General Meese] Commission that found porn harmful, he dismissed it as politically inspired. He carefully dodged the issue of the link between porn and public health and safety problems such as rape, venereal disease, AIDS, incest, serial murders, child molestation, and sex addiction.
Griffitt quoted those "scholars" who support him, and largely dismissed the findings of Drs. Cline, Weaver, Zillman and others whose research points to severe harm from porn use.
He said not a word about the enormous increase in sex-related pathologies since Kinsey, as documented by Dr. Judith Reisman in her explosive new book, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences. I asked Griffitt about Kinsey, whose famous "research" Dr. Reisman has shown was a fraud that involved hundreds of sex crimes against children. He saw Kinsey as a very fine researcher, a real contributor to learning and teaching about sex. Porn, Dr. Griffitt assured us, was a valuable research tool.
One professor from California State University at Long Beach told how he brought "porn stars" into his classroom as guest lecturers. He told us this shielded him from direct criticism. (Conference organizers brought out porn "actresses" to speak, too; no one talked about how many of these women use drugs, die young, or are lesbians who were abused by their fathers.) The objective, scholarly title of one California State instructor's lecture was, "There Is No Relationship Between Pornography and Violence Against Anyone Or Anything."
On and on they droned. The "research" of "sexperts" such as Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, Wardell Pomeroy and their direct descendants is being peddled endlessly. It comes from Vern Bullough's Center for Sex Research, from the other Kinsey-spawned sex "research" and/or teacher credentialing centers such as those in San Francisco and at CSUN, and from many other "centers" and "institutes" for sex "research" and credentialing.
But what about the real world? What about all the academic studies that show a direct connection between porn use and sex crimes and disease? None of the "scholars" mentioned Dr. Reisman's monumental findings about what they are doing to put our children and our society in the hands of Kinseyite cranks and their wealthy porn czar patrons.
Even the so-called legitimate entertainment industry received praise at this gathering, for its use of "erotic" images in Hollywood movies since Tinseltown discarded the movie decency code in the 1960s. Getting dirt on the big screen made it much easier to spread obscenity worldwide.
Did you know that 25 percent of all the videos sold and rented in the United States last year were porn videos? Or that organized crime controls 90 percent of the distribution of porn videos in America, including those in your friendly suburban video store? Or that the Clinton Administration ended almost all federal prosecutions of the porn czars? In large measure, you can thank the people at this conference.
The speakers definitely did not bring up Dr. Reisman's 30 years of research into how the Kinseyan sexology societies and teacher-accrediting agencies have metastasized sex "educators" out into our children's classrooms through such devices as their "Commission on Accreditation."
None of the learned professors pointed out the obvious similarities between this process and the way Soviet "educators" disseminated Lysenko's pseudo-scientific Communist theories on the brain, and Germany's teaching institutions accredited the "researchers" of Nazi racial theories.
These supposedly unbiased "academics" did not want to discuss Dr. Reisman's chronicle of the damage done by the Kinseyans through the incredible explosion of sex crimes and venereal disease (not to mention AIDS) that we have suffered since the 1950s, when the obscenity laws were still enforced and we had the movie production code.
They did not want the public to learn what she has written about the incredible and immediate impact of porn on the user, how he literally "grows new brain" whether he wants to or not. Nor did they want to admit that one of Kinsey's closest collaborators, Hermann Muller, did his "research" under the Nazi and Communist regimes, which could easily provide children and adults as "subjects."
The Kinsey model of loveless, dangerous, anything-goes sex is now the only model that teachers get credentialed to teach in America's schools. We parents and taxpayers must de-credential the Kinsey-clone sex "educators" who are teaching our children that condoms should replace chastity, that lust is better than love.
The damage that the "sexperts" are doing to our boys and girls is no less harmful than that done by Soviet and Nazi "educators" in the 1930s and 1940s. In those cases, crackpot pseudo-science led to the deaths of millions. In our country, venereal disease, AIDS, rape, murder, molestation, incest, sex addiction and the other effects of "harmless" porn are killing the minds, souls and even the lives of countless young people, not to mention adults.
A determined citizenry can still make a difference. Read up on Kinsey, porn, and the sex "education" industry. Support Dr. Reisman's "R.S.V.P. America" program to end Kinseyan "sex ed." Join a no-compromise anti-porn group. Educate your clergyman. Call the talk shows. Contact your lawmaker. It is late in the day.
As Dr. Reisman says, it's high time we pried the cold, dead hands of Dr. Kinsey off our children.
From http://www.geneross.com/archive/july1999/7_07_99.html:
The Los Angeles Times comes out with a story today saying a state legislative committee has voted to order an audit of the 1998 World Pornography Conference that was co-sponsored by Cal State Northridge's Center for Sex Research and the Free Speech Coalition.
According to the Times article, Sen. Ray Haynes [R-Riverside], who describes himself as a "Christian conservative" accused Cal State of using state funds for the conference and requested the state auditor review the center's books. Haynes contends that the conference was "part of a concerted effort on the part of the pornography industry to legitimize itself." Haynes also went on to take issue with a particular seminar which he said encouraged pedophilia. The discussion was titled: "Child Pornography: Forbidden Thoughts and Images in an Erotic Landscape." The university denies that allegation stating that a discussion of a topic doesn't constitute an endorsement of an issue.
A Cal State spokesman said no university funds support the Center for Sex Research headed up by sociology professor James Elias, that the center is self-supporting and raises money from such conferences. Elias, who has produced documentaries and written hundreds of papers on the study of sexuality, won Cal State's Distinguished Teacher Award last year.
Gloria Leonard, president of the Free Speech Coalition has this to say: "According to the reporter who interviewed me [for the Times article], Haynes not only implied but came out and said that the conference was nothing more than a trade show, that we were dealing with child pornography and obscenity. Of course I refuted all that and explained that if Haynes knew anything at all about the Free Speech Coalition, he'd know about our standing reward about child pornographers. We study all the aspects of our life so assiduously, we attempt to further ourselves economically and enhance ourselves spiritually, naturally, it stands to reason that our sexuality deserves no less scrutiny or curiosity. He might have learned a few things had he showed up for this."
Leonard says, so far, she hasn't heard a word from the state. "I'd love the opportunity for them to do that," she says, "so they can see the ridiculous waste of taxpayers' time and money that something like this is going to eat up when there are higher priorities."
AVN's Mark Kernes, also a Free Speech board member had this to say: "The esteemed gentlemen from the California State Legislature obviously don't know their asses from a hole in the ground when it comes to the World Pornography Conference. Obviously, none of them attended it, and just as obviously, the reports they have gotten back about it are just as erroneous. This was a conference of sex researchers. Various academic people, or people aiming to get degrees in sex research and related sociological subjects were hearing from people involved in the porn industry about what that life was like. It's called research. The pornography industry doesn't have to legitimize itself as Sen. Haynes says. Well guess what, it already is. It's already an over $4 billion a year industry and that's just the videos. With the dance industry and toys it's probably over $11 billion. That pays a lot of taxes. It pays your salary, Sen. Hayes. Haynes probably got a hold of a conference schedule and doesn't like the concept that sex researchers might want to discuss a topic called 'Child Pornography: Forbidden Thoughts and Images in an Erotic Landscape.' Far from encouraging pedophilia, this is a study of why people are interested in that material. If you don't know why people are interested, then it's a little bit harder to sidetrack them from actually doing it. By trying to close down discussions like this, what the senator is actually saying is that he doesn't care whether there's pedophiles out there or not."
CSUN Sex Research Center Set for Audit
SOLOMON MOORE
07/11/1999
Los Angeles Times
NORTHRIDGE -- Professor James Elias thinks "Porn 101" is a little too racy a title for his forthcoming volume on the San Fernando Valley's most notorious industry.
A voluminous collection of essays on pornography, Elias wants to call it "Eroticism and the 1st Amendment," but his publisher says the book will sell better with a less scholarly name.
They're probably right, but Elias still prefers his title.
" 'Porn 101' makes it sound like we're teaching people how to make pornography," he said.
That's the problem with being a sex researcher, says the Cal State Northridge professor--people often mistake the scholarly with the prurient.
It happened when he researched adolescent sexuality for President Johnson's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. And he said it happened again in Sacramento on Tuesday when state Sen. Ray Haynes, a conservative Republican from Riverside, requested an audit of Elias' Center for Sex Research and its 1998 World Pornography Conference.
Incensed by suggestions that the event was less an academic conference than a porn trade show on the public's dime, the 12 members of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee opened fire on CSUN for "promoting pedophilia" and unanimously ordered an audit.
State Auditor Kurt Sjoberg said a team of state investigators will visit the campus this week to review the center's finances and examine its arrangement with CSUN.
"We want to find out if state funds--university funds--were involved directly in the center or services to support the center," Sjoberg said. "We need to know what the university's role is--directly or indirectly--supporting an operation like this or allowing it to use the university's name."
Sen. Richard Alarcon, D-Sylmar, said the fact that university personnel wrote a news release for the pornography conference on university letterhead shows that the center may be receiving taxpayer-funded services.
Haynes and other legislators took issue with several workshops at the 1998 conference, including one that he said promoted pedophilia, and another called "The Money Shot," which he said was a how-to course on pornography.
"There's no nice way of saying what a money shot is in a pornography film," Haynes said.
Despite the Center for Sex Research's controversial conferences, William V. Flores, dean of the College of Social & Behavioral Sciences, said Elias' program has passed its annual reviews with flying colors.
"Some of the people in Sacramento said the conference promoted pedophilia," he said. "That's ridiculous. We would never do that."
Flores said he recently turned down a qualified job candidate who wanted to teach a course on the history of pedophilia.
But Haynes said the distinction between the Cal State campuses and their nonprofit auxiliaries is still not sharp enough.
"If [the Center for Sex Research] is housed at the university, that is not acceptable," Haynes said. "If they used the university's name, they got a benefit from the university and the taxpayers.
"California State University has a lot of prestige and is always looking for money. The pornography industry has a lot of money and is always looking for prestige."
The Three R's: Reading, Writing and Raunch
Jon Scott
08/31/1999
Fox News: Fox Files
SCOTT: At one university, you can take a course called Pornography in Modern Society. At another, Advanced Studies in Pornography.
Catherine Herridge now on the new three R's - reading, writing, raunch.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX FILES: Our society is inundated with pornography - in movies, music videos, and especially on the Worldwide Web.
But there's one place you may be surprised to find the triple-X's: the hallowed halls of America's universities.
BRIAN EDWARDS-TIEKERT, WESLEYAN SENIOR: Pornography is a taboo subject, but it's out there. And if you want to understand our world, it's one of the things that you have to address.
DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: This is a plot. This is a conspiracy to undermine the basic foundation of decency and sexual morality in our society.
HERRIDGE: Across the country, from the Ivy Leagues to state schools, courses in sexually explicit subjects are offered to undergraduates.
MEGAN WOLFF, WESLEYAN SENIOR: The very fact that it's such a big deal - that it's really not an issue that you could touch with a ten-foot pole in so many cultures and so many times - I think gives it all the more reason to need to be examined.
HERRIDGE: Megan Wolff and Lisa Charbonneau are students at Wesleyan, a $30,000-a-year private university in rural Connecticut. They took a course entitled Pornography: The Writing of Prostitutes, which caused an uproar when this headline ran in a local paper.
LISA CHARBONNEAU, 1999 WESLEYAN GRADUATE: I think when the story was picked up, the academic content of the course was not emphasized -and I think that's probably what triggered the sort of emotional, hysterical response that is quite unwarranted.
If you sat in the class every Tuesday and Thursday for an hour and 20 minutes, I think that maybe you wouldn't feel that way at all.
HERRIDGE: But some people did when they learned about the final project for this literature course.
Students were required to create a work of pornography as part of their grade. One student chose to follow a man's eyes as he masturbated. Another student dressed as a dominatrix for a project on sadomasochism.
WOLFF: I've seen a lot smuttier Victoria's Secrets (sic) catalogues than - than this project certainly was.
HERRIDGE: Does sadomasochism have a place in the classroom?
CHARBONNEAU: Well, I think everything has a place in the classroom.
WOLFF: It wasn't exactly shocking.
CHARBONNEAU: Leather pants are leather pants. Who really cares?
HERRIDGE: Apparently Wesleyan did.
University President Doug Bennett called for a review of the course when it gained national attention, even though no students had complained.
EDWARDS-TIEKERT: Where are our priorities? Are we concerned about our missions as a university, or are we concerned about what the press thinks of us?
HERRIDGE: No Wesleyan officials would talk to FOX FILES about the course - which was the brainchild of this woman: tenured professor Hope Weissman, who taught it for two semesters.
Others, however, have not been silent - like radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
SCHLESSINGER: When you're dealing with something so insidious as pornography being mainstreamed as an academic course worth (sic) of intellectual assessment in colleges and universities, it's not going to get quiet as long as you have people who are willing to stand up.
HERRIDGE: Wesleyan's troubles pale in comparison to the controversy at a state school in Northridge, California.
An investigation is under way to see whether public money was used to sponsor a conference on pornography. Ray Haynes is a California state senator.
SENATOR RAY HAYNES, CALIFORNIA STATE WHIP: We have to ask a serious question as a state legislature: Is this the kind of activity that we want our universities involved in?
In essence, what the university was doing was allowing its name to be used for the public relations purpose of improving the image of the porn industry.
HERRIDGE: At last year's world pornography conference, nearly 500 porn stars and professors met for three days to discuss topics like Sex Toys and Porn 101.
HARRIS MIRKIN, Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY: Pornography is one of the issues that is being used to justify censorship in the country.
HERRIDGE: Harris Mirkin is a professor at the University of Missouri, where he lectures on censorship and adult pornography.
At the conference, he presented this paper: Child Pornography: Forbidden Images in the Erotic Garden.
FOX FILES sat down with him, where, for the first time, he discusses his controversial position that, quote, if adult pornography is permitted, child pornography should be permitted.
MIRKIN: I don't think it should be illegal to possess child pornography. I think it should be illegal to make, if you want, child pornography.
HERRIDGE: So you think all the laws are wrong on this?
MIRKIN: There's nothing wrong with questioning the laws.
HERRIDGE: But pornographic pictures of children hurt them, exploit them.
MIRKIN: I don't think that people ought to be used sexually against their will.
HERRIDGE: Aren't you really contributing, because you own that picture?
MIRKIN: No. If I walk down the street and I see a picture on the ground and I pick up that picture, am I contributing to what the picture is a picture of?
HERRIDGE: Certainly you're not saying to me that if you are given a picture of a child that's exploiting him sexually, you're innocent as long as you haven't paid money for it.
MIRKIN: If I'm given a picture, I think there is no way in which I have contributed to the exploitation of that kid.
HERRIDGE: But Congress disagrees. In 1984, they banned the possession and distribution of all child pornography. And since then, law enforcement has aggressively pursued offenders.
No one has yet to challenge the law on the grounds of academic freedom.