A Maryland state senator blocked the showing of an X-rated film at a state university. Predictably, the Washington Post ridiculed him for it. But what’s really at stake here?
This commentary contains material that may not be suitable for children.
Women’s groups are going to have their work cut out for them at the University of Maryland. So will the health clinics and campus police. They’re going to be busy cleaning up the mess if the school decides to give a green light to showing X-rated films on campus.
Last spring, Maryland students planned to screen a triple-X-rated film at the student union. When State Senator Andrew Harris heard about it, he threatened to cut off the school’s share of state operating funds. Good for him!
The school canceled the film, but defiant students showed a portion of it anyway in a lecture hall where they did not need permission from school authorities.
Many students are portraying this as a case of academic freedom. And the Washington Post agrees. The newspaper mocked Senator Harris for wasting the school’s time. But it’s just possible that Senator Harris knows a lot more about the consequences of viewing hardcore porn than does the Washington Post.
In CitizenLink, writer Daniel Weiss describes pornography research conducted by Dr. Victor Cline. Cline found that “once addicted, a person’s need for pornography escalates both in frequency and in deviancy.”
Weiss writes that the porn viewer gradually becomes desensitized, no longer getting a thrill out of what he’s viewing. Ultimately, he is driven to act out his fantasies on innocent victims.