I am troubled by the article in February by Janis Wolak
et al. The methodology described is suspect on the
basis of the two questions asked of respondents.
The second question does not define "having sex." That
is a problem dealing with youth whose understanding of
the term may be as varied as adults' ("I did not have
sex with that woman" --- Bill Clinton) or may be still
wider or narrower.
More problematic is the unwarranted assumption that
pornography is entailed by the two questions. Images
traditionally exempt from the ambit of pornography,
such as those with educational, scientific, medical, or
artistic intent or content, have presumably not been
eliminated from this study.
Even more problematic is the implication that "pictures
of naked people" are as negative in nature or potential
effect as any others included in the study. Thousands
of years of art (including photography in the last
century and a half) would stare back at that in
indignant amazement. Furthermore, the last hundred or
so years have produced the notable expansion and
acceptance of the naturist movement, in which
non-sexualized images of nudity are common.
Moreover, it is possible to consider pornography to
include images of persons partly or completely clothed.
That also underscores the fact that contemporary
society does not even agree on the meaning of "naked."
The article associates or equates "naked," "sexual,"
"R-rated," "X-rated," and "pornographic." More
attention to these is required.
The article discusses the possibility that images of a
certain type have a negative impact on youth in certain
categories. While it raises justified concerns, the
article also reflects our confused attitudes towards
bodies, nudity, and sexuality.
Attempting to improve psychosocial outcomes among youth
by addressing questions about Internet images (even if
better characterized) is demonstrably inferior to
addressing some official attitudes. We could well start
by dismantling abstinence-only sex education, which has
been shown by at least five leading scientific
organizations to be a longstanding failure.
We should also heed the warning of the social historian
James Kincaid. On the subject of children's developing
sexuality, he notes: "Our culture deals with this
inevitability by issuing orders to deny it."
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
eLetters: ![[Read eLetters]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
