Tolerance of Pornography
Father Wood has pressed for greater legislative control of porn. As both a psychologist and a Catholic, I was disturbed because the article was both overly emotional as well as factually misleading. As a Catholic, I was appalled because Father Wood chose not to recognize our American separation between church and state nor our freedom of press.
Father Wood never defined what he considers “pornographic.” I assume from his article that he is referring to both reading material as well as pictures of naked persons, including those where sexual activity is involved. The term “pornography” is a highly emotional word and to use it repeatedly added emotionality to an area where it is already excessive. Were Father Wood to have avoided such an emotional term, he would have assisted his readers by helping them to maintain their objectivity.
He deviates from fact when he attempted to lead his readers to believe that those producing this material cater exclusively to criminals, child molesters, and sex-crazed males. Were this not enough, he went on to say that it invades our homes, becomes addictive, and even plays a role in crimes such as rape and child molestation.
As a psychologist I can attest that curiosity about human sexuality is both universally common and quite normal. Therefore, it is quite normal for people to desire to read about it and to view it in pictures. To be curious about sexuality, or to enjoy reading about it, or to enjoy viewing pictures of the sexual act is not limited to males and will not turn anyone into a pervert, a rapist, or a child molester. Nor will it magically dissolve anyone’s sense of right and wrong.
Because so many persons possess pictures or books related to human sexuality, it stands to reason that criminals also possess such material. Possession of such material is not a sign of criminal intent. Many people find this type of material to be pleasantly stimulating sexually. Therefore, to learn that some criminals engage in this behavior before commiting a crime does not indicate that it played any casual role in the crime. As a matter of fact, by offering an alternative outlet for sexual fantasies it might even lessen the chance that such a crime may be committed.
In response to Father Wood’s ridiculous statement that “porn” is addictive I, as a scientist, can say that I have yet to see any valid research demonstrating that viewing pictures of naked people--some of whom may be involved in sexual activity--is in any way addictive. However, like any other interest or hobby, such as playing tennis, it can occupy an amount of one’s time and may endure for many years with comparable results.
Aside from viewing this matter as a scientist I must also deal with it as a Catholic. As a Catholic, I am offended because Father Wood in choosing to ignore our American separation between church and state is attempting to extend his authority beyond his church and beyond our religion in an effort to pressure our neutral government into enforcing aspects of this theology upon the citizens of our state--many of whom are not even Catholics. One would hope that history would have taught Father Wood the folly of turning sinners into fugitives.
PATRICK ZEGA
Long Beach
