Post-publication Peer Review (P3R) is an online forum for ongoingreview peer review. To submit a P3R please go to the article you wish to respond to and click on the link that reads "P3Rs: Submit a Response." Submission of P3Rs are open to all health care professionals and experts in related fields.

Post-publication Peer Reviews to:

ARTICLES:
Janis Wolak, Kimberly Mitchell, and David Finkelhor
Unwanted and Wanted Exposure to Online Pornography in a National Sample of Youth Internet Users
Pediatrics 2007; 119: 247-257 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
*P3Rs: Submit a response to this article

P3Rs published:

[Read P3R] Unwanted Definitions of Pornography
Paul Rapoport   (27 February 2007)

Unwanted Definitions of Pornography 27 February 2007
Top
Paul Rapoport,
Professor emeritus
School of the Arts, McMaster University

Send letter to journal:
Re: Unwanted Definitions of Pornography

rapoport{at}mcmaster.ca Paul Rapoport

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