Big Ed's Place

So it’s time to talk about Child Pornography, or Kiddie Porn. It’s one of the few remaining enforced taboos in America, both legally (since possession of kiddie porn is a crime) and in popular culture. Want to have a kick the dog moment in a crime drama? Have the cops discover kiddie porn in the bad guy’s apartment. On the flip side–want to have the ultimate lure of the taboo? Include some underage sex, particularly incestuous underage sex. Kiddie porn is an easy gut wrench.

But is it reasonable to be such a taboo? I think yes, but not in the way it’s too often applied. The problem is that it’s seen as an evil in and of itself. There are arguments that it’s a slippery slope to child abuse, but solid reputable research backing this up is difficult to find. After all, people aren’t automatons where viewing something immediately leads to trying to duplicate it.

But what is reasonable for its opprobrium is that the act of making child porn is an act of rape. The child cannot consent to posing for nudes, sexually suggestive pictures, or, at the extreme, pictures of them engaged in sex (which they also can not consent to). I believe that consent is paramount and fundamental to sexuality and my political world view stems in a great part from that (see here).

So why not treat it that way?

Pictures of a rape are, legally and morally, not distinguishable of pictures of other crimes. Consider snuff films, depicting a murder, or crime scene videos, depicting a robbery. If these come into someone’s possession, they have a moral and legal responsibility to turn them into the authorities so that they may attempt to catch the criminals. Failure to do so is withholding evidence; i.e. aiding and abetting the crime. So how about prosecuting the person who possesses kiddie porn as an accessory to the crime, rather than with possession?

Doing so would have some substantial benefits. For one, it would focus the attention on the actual crime. As long as ‘possession’ is the crime, it’s too easy to conflate having kiddie porn with ‘possession’ of pot, or ‘possession’ of an unregistered firearm. Possession crimes are frequently not seen as morally problematic so much as a disagreement with the government. Prosecuting for ‘accessory to rape’ moves the focus back to the victim–it’s not the state vs. Joe Porn Addict. It’s the state going after John Rapist and prosecuting Joe Porn Addict for not helping.

Which of course is the second benefit. If someone happens to find or come across some Kiddie Porn, they’d have a lot more incentive to turn it in. There’s no crime if they make a good faith effort to help catch the rapist. The potential plea bargaining options are also obvious.

Now that said, note that ‘accessory’ can still carry serious prison time, if it’s warranted. There’s even a case in Colorado where a woman got life without parole for failing to tell the police where her boyfriend was (just before he killed a cop). There’s also a current case in Wyoming where a guy duped another man into raping the first guy’s ex-girlfriend. Even though the first guy didn’t do the rape, he’s looking at serious hard time.

The point is, we already have experience in the legal system using accessory charges to separate the bad guys from those just caught up in something they shouldn’t be.

The third benefit is that it stops the criminalization of porn where there is no victim. This post in part is inspired by the Chistopher Handley case where a guy got six months in jail for buying ‘obscene’ cartoons.

Cartoons.

Where is the victim in a cartoon? Where is the child that could not give consent? And how much money and effort are we spending going after someone when there is no victim (to the expense of going after others)?

Furthermore, it’s clear that kiddie porn gets used as a ‘camel in the nose of the tent’ argument by those who wish to control the sexuality of others. As long as we concede that there exist materials–cartoons, writing, etc–that are ‘obscene,’ then all we’re arguing over is the definition of obscene. That argument, of course, cannot be won, as it ultimately comes down to Justice Potter’s line, “I know it when I see it.”

But prosecuting kiddie porn possession as accessory to rape eliminates the entire obscenity argument. Now obviously as a writer of erotica, I kind of like that because I’m less likely to be on the wrong end of a prosecution. But the obscenity argument can go the other way too. Imagine a photographer who takes Mapplethorpe style pictures of a 14 year old, but gets a judge or a jury to agree that they’re beautiful and therefore have artistic merit? That means they’re not obscene and this fictitious photographer, plus all the people who own copies of the picture, go free.

But if we bring Child Porn prosecutions back to what they really are–accessories to rape–this does not happen. Instead, it all becomes simple. It’s simply about the crime of doing something to someone who could not give consent.

Now I’ve gone through this entire post focusing on the legal prosecution, but I want to also point to another novel way to deal with child porn and the real crime involved: suing possessors. A woman is suing individuals who download pictures of her abuse (here). I agree with the article that the legal grounds for collecting from someone for additional victimization are new terrain. As a result, I am troubled by the possibilities of where it could go. However, I like the idea for two other reasons. First, there really is a victim here, so we’re not talking about a hypothetical case or obscenity issue. The very nature of the suit forces the case to focus on that fact–that a crime was committed. Second, I like the implied ownership of the images aspect. Since she didn’t (and couldn’t legally) sign a model’s release, she’s implicitly asserting claim to ownership of the photos of her. This makes it an ownership case as much as a criminal damages case.

But civil or criminal, we’re doing ourselves a disfavor as a society to get all worked up about ‘child porn’ as something nasty and evil and obscene. We’d be far better served going after the real crime–the rape involved in creating it–and leave the rest to the side.

Recently, “Oh Get a Grip” has had a series of posts by their host authors on First Times (sexual and not) and before that, on genres one didn’t feel comfortable writing. Well, the genre that I’m second-most uncomfortable with (the first is memoir) combined both of those. It’s the teen coming-of-age story.

Why? Because, honestly, I have all too vivid memories of that time frame and nothing in those jives with what I read in the genre or even see in the TV and movies about high school.

Ya see, I graduated from a suburban high school of about 2000 kids. There were just shy of 500 in my graduating class, and that was typical for my state, outside of the rural areas. And with that many kids, I didn’t know them all. Hell, I didn’t even know one of my co-valedictorians and met her for the first time when we called to the office at the end of my senior year to be informed that they weren’t going to break the GPA tie.

Which meant that there really wasn’t a ‘popular clique.’ Yeah, we had cheerleaders, but my crowd largely ignored them. Football players weren’t gods and in fact, the track team was where the real pride was. I suppose you could have called us the ‘nerds’ or ‘geeks’ but when there’s 50 plus kids who fit that stereotype, it doesn’t much matter. Yes, we had our peer pressure situations and our intrigues and all the usual melodrama of being a teenager, but, frankly, 80-90% of the other students were just bodies in the hallways or occupants of the desk three rows over that we’d never see again after the eddies that swirled them into an honors class swirled them back out. That’s not to say we didn’t resonate with The Breakfast Club, when that film came out, but the characters therein represented different worlds in our school that didn’t meaningfully intersect.

That’s not to say it was trouble-free. I had to deal with bullies in junior high and had moments where I was publicly made fun of in high school. Alcohol, drugs, and sex were around, as were fights and low-grade crime (it was the suburbs after all, so gangs weren’t a part of the scene). It’s just that the tropes we commonly see in high school stories weren’t there.

This is what makes it hard for me to conceive of a decent story, much less write one. Most American teen high school stories involve a few basic tropes. The outsider getting ostracized by the cool kids, even though he/she is the true ‘cool’ one. The ‘king’ and ‘queen’ of the school who are popular and dating each other. There are scenes at dances or in the halls or other places where people shun the lead character when they walk in. Lots of kids are trying to find ‘their place.’ A few teachers have hearts of gold who bend over backwards for the kids, but at least one or two are completely incompetent (okay, the incompetent teachers trope was true for a couple of classes). Very few of us ended up married to our high school sweethearts (though, amusingly, mine babysits occasionally–it’s a long story for a different time).

But most of all, the high school tropes assume that it was a significant period in one’s life. Honestly, I can’t say that’s true–certainly not in comparison to what came after. Which is course is where the title of this post comes from.

Early in my senior year, they rounded us up into the auditorium where Jostens made a big pitch to us about buying class rings. It was a film that had the phrase “These are the best days of our lives.” I almost threw up on the spot (and never bought a class ring). If high school was the best, then it was time to slit my wrists and be done with it. Not because high school was particularly bad, but because that sentiment undermined all there was to live for in the future. For me, and the people I enjoy spending time with, high school was just a blip on the way to an interesting and enjoyable life. Not “the best days” by a long shot.

And that extends to the characters that interest me enough to write about them. I remember hormonal confusion. I remember the heady rush of a crush that consumed every waking moment. I remember the terror and passion of those first sexual steps, when getting to second base was actually a big deal. But I’ve been there, done that, and don’t think I could write about it without infusing it with a “get over it” tone.

That’s not to say there aren’t other authors who can and who do (and whom I enjoy). But me… I just don’t think I could write it. Which is why it’s a genre I just don’t expect to write.

I recently caught an old movie showing on television–the Running Man, with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  There’s a ‘kick the dog’ scene early on, and it reminded me how much I get irked at poorly drawn villains.

A ‘kick the dog’ scene is one where the villain does something nasty or evil simply to demonstrate how nasty or evil they are.  In the Running Man, the villain fired a janitor for the sin of spilling water on the villain’s shoes.  After accepting the janitor’s apology, of course.  It’s a trope (a scene used so often in fiction/film/TV that the audience knows what it means) and so I’m sure y’all can come up with your favorite examples.

The thing is, it’s gotten to the point where it irritates me enough to take me out of the story.  Because no one’s a villain in their own mind.  Despite Iago’s protestations and despite the skulking of countess Hedleys tying women to the railroad tracks, that’s just not the way people think.

Hitler wanted to make the world a better place for the Germans and the Aryan Race.  Osama bin Laden wants to re-establish a Muslim based world, without the ‘evil’ of the West.   Even your petty crook often sees himself as a daring bandit, demonstrating how clever or powerful he is by ripping of “those chumps” or “those people who deserve it.”  Think about how we romanticize pirates.  Isn’t it cool to call out yar har! and “avast ye matey” and talk of booty and plunder, and gloss over the murders committed by the same pirates?  I’m sure the pirates downplayed that end of it as well.  We romanticize Westley from The Princess Bride, when, as the Dread Pirate Roberts who never lets any of his prisoners live, he has to have murdered a great number of people.

I think it’s partially the nature of being human.  We have no choice but to be the protagonists in our own stories.  There’s also some good psychological literature on how people justify bullying or being prejudiced (and some day I’ll post about it).  The point is, people find some rationalization or some belief system that allows them to be the hero, and not the villain, in their own mind.

So, back to fiction–why take the trope shortcut?  It doesn’t take that many more words to give the villain a more realistic motivation and improve the piece.  Taking an example from my own work–Hayley in Dealing with the Devil.  Hayley’s a freaking sociopath, who manipulates and abuses those around her.  But what’s going on in her mind?

When I wrote her, I imagined that her dominant mental conversation was all about how great she was and how much fun it was to show how great she was.  She was a ‘hero’ by being so clever and so ‘powerful.’  And she was even doing a favor by passing on some of her skills and attitudes to her ‘little sister’ (Regan).  She’s even sees herself as generous for the favors (well, she calls them that) she does for her friends.  I think it comes across well, making her far nasty than someone who’d just kick the dog.

There are some other good examples.  I love Silence of the Lambs, because you see how both villains think and operate.  I like the movie Heat, which also gives you both the villains and the cops point of view.  I haven’t seen the Sopranos, but from what I’ve heard, it does the same.

Which makes it so annoying when I do encounter the ‘kick the dog’ trope.  Take The Running Man–c’mon.  Can’t you have simply replaced that 30 second scene with a discussion about how the death of Arnie would be so spectacular to see?  Show the lust for ratings.  Show the complete disregard for the humanity or the innocence/guilt of the condemned.  Hell, throw in a dialogue line like “Burn, baby burn!” which demonstrated how evil some Enron folks were and are.  It wouldn’t have been than much harder, and it wouldn’t have taken more screen time.

And so I’m irked at the writer, completely losing the fun of an escapist old movie, replaying on TV.