Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 29, No. 9. 1966.

Censors and sex

Censors and sex

Is It A Rule of public conduct that people of firm and narrow principle must always be better organised for civic action than are of firm but broader [ unclear: principle] "I ever to be a more effective organising force than "Well, now, let's talk it over." So, at least, it seems to be in the contest between those who are moved to censor books and those who are moved to censorship.

Or so the case seemed to stand until I encountered the New Jersey Commit for right to Read, and long may it wave. The committee (Box 250, Caldwell, New Jersey 07006) raises funds, recruits members, holds seminars and panel sessions, collects information on book-banning cases, presents clear arguments in favour of the right to read, addresses protests to local officials who suppress books, and publishes a regular bulletin titled The Readers' Rights.

I am especially grateful to The Readers' Rights for bringing to my attention the report of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research titled Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types, a statistical study of 2721 sex offenders, 1356 of whom were interviewed in jail while serving sentences for sex crimes.

The book-baners like to argue that there is a direct connection between "sexy" literature and sex crime. And certainly, could such a connection exist, it would provide a powerful reason for censorship. The Kinsey Institute report, however, finds no such connection. As summarised for the Ladies' Home Journal by Dr. Paul Gebhard, who took part in the report, and as reprinted in The Readers' Rights, the Kinsey researchers found that:

The stereotyped "sex criminal" of popular imagination turns out to be many different kinds of men. Contrary to general belief, few of them take dope, although many of them do commit their crimes under the influence of alcohol. And few are in any way inspired by pornography. As the Institute's previous reports have shown, pornography of all kinds is mostly read and enjoyed by men of more than average intelligence and with vivid imaginations. The men in prison for sexual offences, on the other hand, turned out to be men of rather low intelligence and imagination. Their disinterested, [Did Dr. Gebhard mean "uninterested?"] and indeed scornful attitude toward pornography was perhaps best summed up by one fairly typical prisoner who told me, "You can't do nothing with a pitcher."

Many of the mothers of America should find reassurance in this fact. Boys, at puberty, often begin to take a surreptitious interest in risque magazines, and sometimes wind up with collection of outright pornography. A mother who finds such possessions hidden in her son's room need not be unduly concerned, for this does not mean he will grow up into a fiend or a pervert. Not one of the men we interviewed seemed to have gone to prison as a result of exposure to pornography, either immediately before his crime or even at some distant time back in his adolescence.

I happen to know a smidgin-bit about the mothers of America. I had one of my own once and I ended up married to another. If they cannot find their reassurance in Dr. Gebhard's results, let me suggest they ask one of the fathers of America, perhaps the one they happen to be married to. If he is honest enough to confess to his own adolescence he will be able to tell them that Dr. Gebhard is describing something like the normal process of early puberty — John Ciardi, Saturday Review, November 6, 1965.