I am grateful for articles such as this which reveal the truth.Our
children are needlessly growing up in a society whose images reveal that they
are not valued as people and children of God, but as objects. We can
change this by a commitment to wholesomeness and goodness, and insisting that
this be reflected in the advertising and media communications we encounter.
I agree 100%. We need to take a stand against pornography being so easily
accessible to our children. I wish we could get rid of the filth altogether, but
people (adults) have a right to look at it and become under the delusion that it
doesn't have a negative effect on society as a whole. In my opinion,
pornography is the root of a lot of the sexual abuse and crimes in our country.
The industry wants little boys to see it at an early age so they become addicted
(anyone under the delusion that it isn't addictive needs professional
help). Take a stand!
Hurrah for this mother and others like her.True, the First Amendment
grants us rights. But perhaps when rights are abused -- and porn is certainly
an abuse -- limits are needed. It's a shame that our legislators, both
state and Federal, lack the guts to tackle a very serious problem. It CAN be
solved and addressed with some common sense. Unfortunately, guts and common
sense seem to be woefully lacking.The same holds true of the Second
Bravo! to one intelligent and courageous woman and loving mom.
I am in total agreement. It's hard to even go and pay for your groceries
anymore and see the trash right where you have to stand in line with your
children or grandchildren. It's awful for children but I don't like
being subject to having to look at it either. The images one sees is very hard
to get rid of.
Pornography is flat out evil.And any man that says he's addicted, I
will say that's a lazy excuse.Man up, and be father, and husband.Own up to your value as a human.
Why don't we just make it illegal to show any skin at all when out in
public? We could ban all magazines, make swimming illegal (unless you own a wet
suit), and control what tv shows we can watch. Seriously, where does it end?
Where do you all shop? I haven't noticed porn at a mall or in
stores where i shop.
To the comment, "where does it end?" That can be turned around to mean
where does it (the pornography) end.If Iceland can prohibit porn,
the great U S of A can prohibit it also.We must do something, or we
are just going to have more violence, sexual crimes against women, young boys
and girls. If the was a disease that was permeating our society, we would fight
it. Well, this is a disease. Let's fight it.
Thanks goodness someone has finally taken a stand!
Laws in this nation do not protect obscenity. Unfortunately, well planned
efforts by the porn industry has manged to help make lawmakers gutless in
defining "obscenity".It takes courageous individuals working
together to help defeat the growing tide of this heinous evil that has more
destructive additive power than drugs, tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol.
Seriously... out of all the problems our society faces today, this lady is
concerned because advertisements are too "pornographic" for children?
Really? No matter how much you try and "protect" people from this so
called "evil porn" (which really isn't porn at all) things are
still going to happen. Why not focus on the real issue. Proper parenting and
teaching your kids your values. Some people have way too much time on their
Some people must be getting stuff in the mail that I'm not. Either that, or
they've got a paranoid, unhealthy view of who and what we are as humans.
Yes, there is a lot of bad stuff out there. But, it's not in the JC Penny
@AggielovePornography is flat out evil.And any man that says
he's addicted, I will say that's a lazy excuse.----------Not sure I understand your comment. Pornography IS addicting. It has
been proven to be the case. And, it is horribly difficult to overcome. Even
President Hinckley stated that it can be as addicting as some of the most hard
drugs.When one has an addiction to it, not admitting the addiction
exists is dangerous, as the individual has the illusion that he can just stop it
at anytime without help. If a man (or woman) is addicted to porn, not having
help in overcoming the addiction leads to 100% failure and more prolonged
addiction.A person/spouse/parent should recognize addiction for a
loved one and seek help. Just avoiding seeking help in the name of "no
excuses" is an unhealthy approach. Sure, it would be better to have never
become addicted, but for those who are addicted, it is too late for that
thinking.I know. I was addicted for 20 years to it. I never gained
progress in overcoming it until I recognized my addiction and got professional
Perhaps the kinds of compliments we give sons and daughters--daughters,
especially--and other young people, would go a long way in helping them value
the right kinds of things in themselves and each other. If they feel their
looks, weight, figures, and appearance are valuable to us, they will feel that
way, too. If we value those things in ourselves, they will also learn to value
those things as well. They will be less inclined to be interested in a magazine
cover, and if they are, it's a conversation starter--by the adult. She/he
who starts the conversation gets the opportunity to choose its direction.
@ panamadesnewsIceland? That country has a population 6 times
smaller than Utah. They have no standing military. Only licensed people can
own guns, and they must register their weapons with the government and it
usually has less than 5 guns deaths (including suicide) per year. The USA and
Iceland are not comparable. This whole story is nothing more than a mom being
hypersensitive. We don't need freedoms limited. We need parents to do
their job and teach their kids values and standards.
Let me see if I understand this correctly... The Second Amendment is a
God-given absolute right that cannot be infringed upon in any way, shape or
form, while the First Amendment needs to be carefully regulated by government
censors who will decide what we can see and read? Apparently it's okay to
be ready to blow holes in the human body, but not okay to see one uncovered?
Can we be a bit more consistent in how we view the Constitution please?
I believe that we must be careful here not to rally behind this well intentioned
woman while forgetting that we have a responsibility to be the example and not
just talk or legislate about it (which we as a society seem to have a certain
proclivity to do).
Thank you, Dr. Brown! I am totally agreement. Being a Mom to five daughters ages
13 to 31, and a Grandmother to three precious grandchildren ages 10 mths to 6
years old, I totally agree. I am currently student teaching to finish my
Elementary Education degree, and I totally agree with you. Taking past Social
problems and Women cross culture classes... I totally agree with you. Please
share your state's findings with us across the border to Arizona.... and to
our great nation! Sincerely, Debbie Adams
Do yourself a favor and do the right thing.We all know what we
should be doing. Just do it.
Let me be more clear. I realize porn is very tempting for some folks out there.
But I also know that times have changed, a lot. There are lots of sorry
excuses for men out there, because they use all these excuses in today's
world. OCD this, and PTSD that. Always an excuse for why they are whimps.I've always been shocked at all the men out there undressing women with
there eyes.Start looking at women like heavenly fathers children, and not
a piece of meat.
I have to agree with this mom. This kind of thing has no practical use in
society.It's a terrible thing to expose children whether it be through
advertising or other. Now stopping it is another thing when it has been deemed a
method of free speech(You know freedom of expression) when it is that lewd and
disgusting.You all have seen the turn towards stripping and You've heard
some of the reasons why they do it and it's all about the money. These
teens that are turning towards this have real bad role models like
Kardashians,Lohan and others. Education in schools have gone by way of the
doh-doh and it's not getting any better.
Folks as you all get wraped up about this, remember what this women is
campaigning for. "And she's not talking about the plentiful and easily
accessed videos, images and other material available through various electronic
mediums." This lady is taking about magazine covers of Heidi Klum, Runners
world, and photos of actors running on the beach in bathing suits. The portrayal of sexual acts through any medium is easy to define as
pornography and restrict..but is a photo of Cameron Diaz on the red carpet in a
low cut dress pornography? Of course Sharia law would answer this and fix it
When will people learn that you can't legislate hearts? It's the
parents job to protect their children, not the government. Yes, pornography is
evil, but when you pass social laws like this, you give your power as a parent
over to the government and hand them a little bit more of your 1st amendment
rights and your parental rights eery time you ask the government to fix your
problems. We already have porn laws, enforce the laws already on the books. Take
personal responsibility This is basically the same reasoning that the gun
grabbers are using to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. Guns aren't
responsible for, so called, "gun violence". Evil people are, and you
can pass laws form now to doomsday, and you won't stop evil people. Same
Wives who are cold and withhold themselves fromtheir husbands,
shouldn't be surprised when theirhusbands find other outlets.
Obscenity is illegal, pornography is not. Being offended here is silly - but if
you are start wtih the ads for the new mall in downtown Salt Lake City. This
issue shows a problem with the parents, not the publications.
Children learning to read are drawn to sounding out words or using their new
skills while standing in line at a supermarket. Words on many covers are
inappropriate, suggestive or clearly offensive...it is chilling to hear five,
six, and seven year olds phonetically reading them while we are preoccupied with
shopping details. I have turned many magazines around and spoken with store
managers but the problem is huge and community vigilance is needed.
I agree with Pamela Atkinson. We need to take a stand against pornography and
the affects it has not only on children but on everyone. The First Amendment was
written for our protection and shouldn't be used as a shield for harm
otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to make laws such as stopping at a stop
sign or train crossing.
I'm trying to figure how what could count as seeing "porn" while
out and about in the community and all I can think of that could conceivably
come close are the covers of GQ and Cosmo at the supermarket and walking past
Victoria's Secret at the mall. Is that really worth legislating? From the
looks of this article, the mother seems to want to raise her children to be
paranoid adults who go around looking for reasons to be "offended." Looks like the party of "personal responsibility" is at it
We, the People, can do much to bring about change in this world, but I am afraid
that we are too loyal to our party to, stop fighting and hating, long enough, to
come together and do something. The remedy for doing this is spelled out in the
Declaration of Independence and the scriptures:"When in the
course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature
and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinion of
mankind requires that they should declare the caauses which impel them to the
separation."Complaining is not the same as declaring. Man cannot
be beaten for what he doesn't know. We assume that the people sitting in
our seats of government really know what a republic form of government is, they
don't. So, it is incumbent upon us, the Latter Day Saints, who ought to
know, to tell them, just as David told the Phillistines, just before he slew
their giant. (Continued)
It is good to see that Utah has so few problems bigger than this that the
Legislature can take time to bat the ball around for a while. What is Porn? How
much of what body or bodies can we show. Is a naked baby on a carpet too naked?
Is a mother breast feeding porn? Are the USA diving teams too exposed? Is the
statue of Lady Justice porn? It all may be for some folks and not to others.
Are we ready to make women wear Burka's? That may be the answer.
I applaud Dr. Brown and Senator Weiler for their efforts to protect children. If
we look at the last 20 years and what was considered appropriate signage and
ads, we can all admit there has been a serious decline. Lets take the high road.
We can't control everything but let's take steps where we can to
protect children from sexual images.
Does anyone remember Attorney General David Wilkinson's ill-fated and
expensive campaign against R-rated movies on cable TV? At least SJR15
doesn't require the state to sue anyone. It's just a consciousness
raising feelgood statement.Not to defend pornography, but I worry
about a debasement of language that conflates a bikini ad with
"Hustler." Words have meaning and dilution of meaning does not help one
advance a cause. The issue needs a better vocabulary. Does Dr. Brown seriously
think that there is moral, legal, physiological, or definitional equivalence
between explicit sexual imagery and the woefully undefined imagery she calls
"softcore gateway" porn? Does she object to Jamaican tourism ads that
show people cavorting in the surf?Concepts of decency vary from
culture to culture and societies have different social mechanisms to regulate
behavior. Nudity or toplessness are common in some cultures that do not seem to
be plagued with rampant unrestraint or moral depravity. Conversely, Dr. Brown
appears in the photos accompanying the article without head covering and
sleeveless, offenses against female presentation that some other cultures would
find scandalously lurid. Must we cater to the lowest common denominator of
sensitivity and all embrace the chador?
I am surprised that in UT there would be such resistance, indicated by the
comments, to the idea of limiting exposure of children to pornographic material.
The question should be, who is harmed by limiting public displays of nudity that
is clearly intended to do nothing but titillate the observer? In many/most cases
the displayed nudity has no other purpose that to shock by pushing the envelope
beyond what has previously been acceptable.Being a current resident
of CA I see how, many times, such public displays are intended to prematurely
implant ideas of sexuality in children. Thus leading to easier exploitation,by
pedophiles and other disturbed people, of pre, and early, pubescent children.
The extreme youth of so many girls giving birth these days is clear testimony
that such aggressive "exposure" campaigns has worked as intended.Even if the child makes it to adulthood without succumbing, the ideas
implanted by years of exposure leads to distorted attitudes towards sex outside
of marriage. There is no downside to stepping back from so much overt sexuality,
intentionally skirting the edge of pornography, being displayed on billboards,
news stand magazine covers and the like, unless the intention is recruitment.
Exposing children to images when they are so impressionable is not teaching them
to abhor the human body - it is teaching that the body is to be respected. The
billboards I have seen along freeways in Utah are not what I see in Idaho - sad
to say. And it IS an issue - a moral issue is every bit as important as an
economic or political issue. These moral issues strike at the core of the
family. Let's bring back what's right!
Here's a thought: Teach your children not to become sexual deviants. In
societies where Women are required to cover up their entire body, and where the
image of a Woman's skin is forbidden, there are higher instances of rape
and violence against Women, and such behavior is tolerated and even encouraged
as a means to subdue Women (who are treated like personal property). We
shouldn't be relying on the government to be our moral compass nor our
moral enforcement. If you don't like the images you see on tv, turn the
channel! If you don't want your children exposed to pornographic images on
the computer/tv/magazines, etc., pay closer attention to them! Government is
not your child's baby sitter. If the Victoria Secrets display in the
window is offense to you, don't go to the mall with the Victoria secrete.
If you don't like the image on the billboard, look away. Take
responsibility for your own actions and teach your children likewise! Quit
trying to get the government to be our minders, if I wanted to live in Saudi
Arabia I'd move there.
@Two For Flinching:"Why don't we just make it illegal to show any
skin at all when out in public?"I think you mean like a certain
religion... who require their women folk to cover in burkas from head to toe
except for the eyes. If they don't, they get beaten by the morality
police.Any attempt to ban porn will eventually end up like them. I
think that's how they got there in the first place. Let's try to be
wise about this issue.@panamadesnews:"That can be turned
around to mean where does it (the pornography) end."I ends when
women (who take their clothes off and show their bodies) acquire some morals."If Iceland can prohibit porn, the great U S of A can prohibit it
also."Didn't Hitler prohibit porn back in the day?@cjf:"I never gained progress in overcoming it until I recognized my
addiction and got professional help."It's not addition.
It's a normal inquisitiveness about things that are generally concealed
In no way would I ever say that pornography not a problem, but problems such as
these cannot be taken care of through legislation. That has been the problem,
trying to take care of the problem from the top down. "It is not needful
that we be commanded in all things." The fact is that parents would rather
shelter their kids or have the government take care of it for them than have an
"awkward" (meaningful) conversation with their children. How
many parents in Utah brought their children to watch the movie
"Twilight"? I think it is hypocritical for so many people to attack
"pornography" and say it is all of these things, but then to go and
support an industry that is to blame for the very things you are attacking. Take
a stand and stick to it. Don't flip-flop. If you are going to flip-flop,
don't take a stand or you are just a hypocrite.
Three hundred cheers for Dr. Jennifer Brown. She is a busy professional and a
busy mother, and she's putting herself on the line to fight this disease in
our social psyche. I mistrust anyone who says porn is okay,
including the soft porn that comes in the mail, on magazine covers, and in the
lingerie ads in this very newspaper (which has been the beginning of a porn
involvement for more than one paper boy). Such a view belies a porn attachment,
in my view. By contrast, those who have a healthy respect for women and children
and self could never defend the scourge. Tell me where I send my
check to support Dr. Brown's efforts.
It's proper to worry about the effect of seductive images in our public
places on children--I grew up with it (we all likely did) and it had a powerful
effect on me, no doubt. Some can say that only the hard core porn is addicting
to the brain--but that's definitely hogwash, I know firsthand. And science
is definitive on this point. And it is not just harmful to children.Nonetheless, there will be evil lurking in the world, whether law can control
where we encounter it 100% or not. But improvements in public places of morality
and decency should be welcome, especially in arenas frequented by children.
I'd hope that even without laws more retailers and web sites and even
television stations would recognize and respect the silent majority that would
rather not to be titillated in their domains (and for good reason), instead of
allowing the crass to seek to profit off of people's weaknesses.
Re: AggieloveYour attempt at being more clear was only matched by
its being more offensive and inaccurate. I'm sorry you think mental
illnesses such as OCD and PTSD are merely petty excuses for people who want to
be weak. How insulting to the thousands of military personnel who suffer with
PTSD, many of whom have committed suicide. No wonder some
conservatives want to focus the gun debate on mental illness. If they share
Aggielove's view on mental illness, it's nothing more than someone
making up an excuse for poor behavior.
I also do not see pornography in the mall, grocery stores or magazines delivered
to our home.What I do often see, are little girls
"performing" in scanty outfits or cheering over the latest Britney
Spears clone.What our society DOES need is a healthy dose of sex
education for our children, that takes away the "naughty" so that porn
doesn't become something they look for.The more you make it
"naughty", the more "naughty" they want.Sign me:65 year old Mom
She should focus attention on a real cause : Like end the Fluoridation of our
drinking water * Stopping the conversion of all Farm Lands to Produce POISON ie
- GMO Foods * And does she have the X's in her Skies? Those ain't jet
trails up in that sky - ChemTrails . Most people have no idea of what I'm
posting about , but if they have kids , grandkids they'd better start
Gee, I wonder if the people opposed Dr. Brown relating the FACTS to us and the
legislature feel the same way about sitting in a closed room with a dozen
cigarette smokers. Actually, porn is far more dangerous because it not only
effects the people viewing it, sexual crimes against innocents increase. Whole
industries and empires are built up by its devastating effects – slavery,
child kidnapping and abuse, etc. Young people are especially prone to addiction.
You keep fighting Dr Brown. You’re right. Porn is no victimless crime.
Maybe we could start working on "R" rated movies. That would be nice.
If we outlaw freedom of speech, only outlaws will have freedom of speech.
I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but would like to
point out that the effects of pornography on a group of people are far from
conclusive. Even a cursory study of the topic reveals that while some studies
have shown correlations between an increase in certain negative behaviors and
the use of pornography, other studies have shown just the opposite!Because of this lack of consensus in pornography studies, as well as the
ambiguous, non-standard definition that this woman is using for
"pornography" that should be banned, I would oppose this bill.I would, however, love to get rid of all those check stand magazines, simply
because they are ridiculous. :)
My point is that lawmakers are not the ones we should be talking to about
pornography, anything they try and do will likely get slapped down in court
anyway, just like in the past. Remember when we had a porn tzar? How did that
turn out? We should be talking to parents and schools, and lets start early
rather than later. Education, not (more) repression is the key to success here.
Lets start by teaching our children that men and women are both of equal worth,
and neither should be objectified, and that there should be mutual respect. I
think that is our real problem, there are too many young boys out there who
think it's ok to treat girls and Women poorly, and I think it starts in the
home! And to be honest, I don't think this state has a very good track
record in that regard, just look at our per-capita porn usage in Utah if you
don't believe me.
There is so much of pornography around us that many have been desensitized to
it.There was a time when the prevailing climate was to give the best
advantages to our children and to protect them from predators and salaciousness.
This gave more time for children's real tasks English, Math, Language and
Arts work skills. Not destroying our children with images that they are not
capable of sorting. This is not about what you respond to as prudery but common
sense and a protection for our finest product . . ..Our future.. Our
High Schools' were not then learning below the level of 8th graders in
China. Scotland's High Schools being ahead of our college levels. We were
not a nation of consumers. . . but producers. We had Edison and The Wright
Brothers. What are we now? Professional T.V watchers. Filled with
useless dark images,degrading images that destroy a desire to accomplish more.
We are a nation giving little of use back to the world? Who is really lacking .
. . those that protect this stupidity or those who try to get us out of it?
I was shopping in Smith's. My 4 year old grandson was just the right
height to be looking at a magazine of a very immodest woman. I asked the
manager to cover those up. They did and I've seen several stores who place
a piece of cardboard over the part that is offensive. I see nothing wrong with
this. Ask parents to teach? Many do but many don't care. I don't
know the answer but I think we can do better w/o infringing on anyone's
Reading these comments makes me think people didn't even read the article
I am grateful that a concerned parent went to the trouble to research
physiological effects and present them! I fully understand the 1st amendment
concerns, and think that we must use a balance of reason here. The line must be
drawn when it begins to be harmful to unsuspecting public--especially the youth.
Those who embrace pornography will not see the value of placing guidelines on
object-oriented photos of the human body, but those who see it for what it is
can see the obvious correlation between this type of propaganda and how our
children grow up to see others and themselves as only good enough if their body
is perfect. It isn't just a sexual issue. Self confidence, self worth and
human compassion are on the line. We see an increase in depression, anxiety,
and harsh judgement of others when we allow the human body to be seen as an
object, and sensual perfection as the ultimate goal.
merich39: "If we outlaw freedom of speech, only outlaws will have freedom
of speech."Let's stretch the 1st/2nd Amendment metaphor a
little further. The 1st Amendment can be restated in 2nd Amendment terms as
"A well exercised intellect being necessary for the security of a free
state, the right to keep and bear ideas shall not be infringed." Ideas here
encompasses religious beliefs, information, images, and all words spoken or in
print.Ideas and weapons can be used for both good and ill and a
certain amount of infringement on the right to keep and bear either is accepted
by most (shouting "fire" in a theater, sawed-off shotguns), but we
recognize the necessity to keep both largely unfettered. What Dr. Brown is
proposing is the 2nd Amendment equivalent of restricting magazine capacity to a
single round-- an extremely stringent restriction on rights to solve a problem.
Interpreted that way, I suspect many who have commented in favor of her efforts
might reconsider their support. She is seeking a legislative solution to a
problem whose solution rightfully belongs in another sphere. Fight bad ideas
with good ideas, not idea control laws.BTW, Harley Rider is a Poe,
A chess game can be lost by moving a seemingly unimportant pawn without
realizing that it had a critical defensive role on the square it previously
occupied. Looking at the images of the kind discussed in the article is like
moving that pawn. When we do we lose individually, we lose in families, we lose
as a community, and we lose as a nation. Do not be fooled by those who say a
little bit of nudity is no big deal.
My 3 kids are all now in their early 20's. Like any parents, my wife and I
were concerned about their exposure to pornography. So instead of petitioning
the legislature to protect our children for us, we purchased NetNanny for our
home computer. We monitored the programs they watched on T.V. We made sure we
didn't subscribe to any cable channels we felt were inappropriate. And we
monitored their cell phone use. We communicated to them the dangers of
pornography, made clear our expectations of them in this regard, and meted out
appropriate discipline if our rules were violated. In other words, we acted as
parents, instead of expecting the government to do our jobs for us. I feel that the task of protecting ones children from pornography is very
doable with a small amount of monetary expense and a normal, healthy amount of
I think it is very ignorant to think that making it illegal will completely ban
it. I believe that if they want to get to it they will. It is another
prohabition to me it does not really work.
I think we should point out that we have come a long long ways since the
60's and 70's. Or perhaps we have forgotten.When my mom
took me to the genealogy library in downtown Salt Lake by bus we passed live
street walkers, X-rated theatres, big lighted signs on State promoting topless
bars, and scandilly clothed people on billboards pushing cigarettes and hard
liquor. It left an impression on my mind, but I am glad to report things are
much better today.
There is a reason why I don't take my children to the store very often, why
I position myself between them and the magazine aisle, why we do little to no
shopping in the mall, why we're careful about the internet, the movies we
watch and why we almost never turn on the TV. Anyone who doesn't
understand the harmful effects this article is talking about is likely either
highly desensitized themselves or addicted to porn. Most modern magazine covers
of women's magazines, SI swimsuit issue, and the various other magazines on
the checkout aisle have some type of inappropriately dressed female (and
sometimes male) on the cover, aka softporn, which is a gateway drug. So Two For
Flinching, yes, modest clothing on the streets would be very nice. You
sarcastically refer to covering all skin and wearing a wetsuit, but keeping
breasts, bottoms and the landscape inbetween covered by clothing that is neither
sheer nor skintight is not extreme in any way. Teaching women to respect
themselves and men to respect women is also not extreme. Pornography?