“Baby Pros” and “Kiddie Porn”

The New Morality​—Harvesting Its Crop

Pimps and pornographers prey on the young and helpless

THE fastest-growing industry in America today is a brutalizing and depraved business​—child vice. It employs more than half a million youngsters. Most of them are runaways, from homes to big cities, where they become vulnerable, easy prey to pimps and pornographers.

“Baby pros,” child prostitutes, are used and abused by pimps. In the Times Square area of New York city 800 pimps control thousands and thousands of girls. Records disclose that hundreds and hundreds of these children have been brutalized, beaten, tortured and raped by their pimps. Some prostitutes end up murdered. Yet prostitution is called a “victimless crime.”

Pornography dips into the even younger age brackets. Children as young as three and four years of age​—who often end up in mental institutions or hustling on the streets—​can be found doing unbelievable things in front of cameras. But if seeing is believing, then it must be believed, because it is there to be seen in pornographic movies and magazines. Five- and six-year-olds are exploited, engaging in every imaginable sexual activity and perversion, including masturbation, sodomy, sadomasochism and even incest.

Pornography started out comparatively mild, but quickly escalated to meet the increasing demands of quickly jaded perverted appetites. It began with nudity, which moved into simulated male-female intercourse, and from there to actual intercourse. Then came homosexual activities, men with men and women with women. Bestiality was next. And, finally, child pornography, called “kiddie porn.” Children were shown in both homosexual and heterosexual activities, sometimes children with children, sometimes children with adults. By now “kiddie porn” has skyrocketed into a multibillion-dollar business, and yearly uses 300,000 children under sixteen.

Why such interest sexually in young children? They have been promoted by the media as sex objects. Advertisers pose them with their products, provocatively so, with windblown hair and pouting, promising lips. The young especially attract men who are afraid of adult women, psychiatrists say. The modern woman, the liberated female, equal and even a competitor, intimidates these insecure men. But the young girls, sexily attired and posed, look vulnerable, are nothing to fear, and are therefore inviting to such men. Presented as sex objects, these youngsters become sex targets.

Derek Eaves, a forensic psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders is worried: “There is an enormous increase in crimes against children.” He considers society to be in a moral crisis. A Columbia University professor says that provocatively posing little girls means “they are for sale” and is a step taken toward the destruction of Western values. Daniel Cappon, analytical psychotherapist, says: “We’ve entered the new Dark Ages of society. We’re living through the black ages of degeneracy. Darkness has descended on our psyche; people are more brutalized now than ever before.” Strong language, but maybe not too strong, when you read of a thirty-three-month-old girl assaulted by a fifty-one-year-old man. Or consider the sickness that’s evident when pornographers photograph and pedophiles (those who lust after children) buy pictures of a seven-month-old girl with her legs spread apart.

Psychologists Victor Cline and Frank Osanka scoff at the idea that pornography is a “victimless crime.” Osanka says: “Child pornography is nothing less than the photographic record of the sexual abuse of children, and the severe psychological effect of that has been clearly established.” Cline says: “The potential for real psychological harm from continual exposure to pornography is significant.”

The pro-pornography groups, of course, see no harm in their sickness. Several groups, such as the Pedophile Liberation Organization, the Pedophile Information Exchange and the Childhood Sexuality Circle, are mounting a counterattack against opposers. They maintain secret underground networks that operate nationally and allow them to barter and exchange millions of dollars’ worth of filth. Some of these national and international organizations are now surfacing to push for their “rights.” Pedophiles see no harm in “kiddie porn,” only because they are blinded by their own lust.

But the children used in it are harmed, often ending up peddling sex on the streets and having trouble seeing themselves as desirable in any way other than as a commodity, a sex object with a price tag. Here again, as in the case of small boys sodomized by grown men, the courts have problems seeing “kiddie porn” as obscenity. “There is a widespread fear that prohibiting a ten-year-old from appearing in a pornographic film might violate that child’s First Amendment rights.”

Incredibly, even some parents appear in “kiddie porn” films using their own children! And that brings us to the subject of the next article​—INCEST.