The Making of a Monster

September 2005

Dear Friends,

The late author and Christian apologist Malcolm Muggeridge once said, "How do I know pornography depraves and corrupts people? [Because] it depraves and corrupts me."1 Even before the advent of the Internet, which has made sexually explicit material more widespread, Muggeridge understood that the scourge of pornography has the power to destroy both individuals and societies. We are seeing evidence of that now. Alas, so many of us have become like the false teachers mentioned in the book of 2 Peter, whom the apostle describes as "slaves of depravity — for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him" (2 Peter 2:19, NIV).

As the 21st century progresses, it seems that every day brings new extremes of sexual debauchery and degradation. Simply put, our society has become obsessed by perversity. The term "pornography" itself no longer carries much of a stigma culturally, because what was once taboo is now the norm. Obscene material that was confined to seedy bookstores on the wrong side of town is now aired on network or cable television during the "family hour." The formerly top-rated television program "Friends," which now continues in syndication, cavalierly references the male characters’ affinity for "porn" as if it were akin to my appreciation for USC football. Speaking of football, when asked in a recent interview with GQ magazine whether or not he was a "regular" guy who did things like "search the Internet for porn," New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady suggested that he did, saying that he is no "different" than any other guy."2

At the outset, let me be perfectly clear — especially to those who may shrug off or slyly wink at the cultural acceptance of pornography. Much like a mistress, the philosophical acceptance of this salacious material in everyday life is a wickedly insidious thing that, over time, will devastate individuals and families. We must assume a zero tolerance policy toward obscenity, which is defined by law as illegal material that is not protected by the First Amendment. I am aware of how depressing this topic is and take no pleasure in being the messenger of bad news, but we and our children need to know how dangerous pornography really is.

With every new assault made on God’s sacred and holy gift of sex, the appetite for lascivious images grows more insatiable. Pornography has become a multibillion dollar criminal enterprise. Malcom Muggeridge was right: Worship of deviant sexuality throughout the modern world has "depraved and corrupted" us all.

Obscenity is not a new phenomenon, to be sure. That fact was driven home to me in 1985-1986, when I served at the behest of President Ronald Reagan on the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography. It was one of the most unpleasant assignments of my life as I witnessed horrible photos and films of acts done to women and children — things that would be shameful to describe. Depictions of sadomasochistic behavior among homosexuals were also deeply disturbing to the members of our commission. Evidence of this material's effects on families and individuals comes to us at Focus on the Family nearly every day, as distraught parents, husbands and wives cry out for help and advice.

I witnessed the most graphic illustration of pornography’s cancerous curse in 1989 when I interviewed convicted serial murderer Ted Bundy, just 17 hours before he was executed in the Florida State Prison. He described for our video cameras how he had stumbled onto several pornographic magazines in a dump near his home. He was just 13 years of age at the time, yet he was instantly addicted to violent images that eventually fueled his brutal fantasies. He murdered more than 28 women and girls in cold blood, one of them a beautiful little 12-year-old girl named Kimberly Leach. After assaulting her, he killed her and then dumped her body into a pigsty.3

Going back to our commission, it was composed of liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, Christians, Jews and atheists. Our differences did not alter our perception. We were so affected by what we had seen during those 18 months that we voted unanimously in the final meeting to condemn pornography and proceeded to write a 2,000-page report calling for 26 changes in the way it was prosecuted. Congress later passed each of those provisions and President Reagan signed them into law. The United States Department of Justice established a task force as we recommended and by 1990, this country was well on its way to reducing the sale and distribution of obscenity. Some of the most powerful producers of hard-core materials were convicted and sent to serve long prison terms, including Reuben Sturman, who pocketed more than $1 million per day from his wicked pornography business. He died in prison years later.4

I felt I had helped make a significant impact on one of the greatest threats to the welfare of the family in that era. Then, two things dashed my hopes. First, William Jefferson Clinton was elected president of the United States, and then his appointed attorney general, Janet Reno, immediately began dismantling the Justice Department’s effort to prosecute the producers and distributors of obscenity. Porn kingpins, who had donated generously to Clinton’s election efforts, cheered lustily as their business recovered and their profits boomed. These are documented facts within the pornography world.5

Reno’s associates even tried unsuccessfully to weaken the policy of the Justice Department regarding prosecution of child pornography, if you can believe it. The announced revision was immediately condemned unanimously by the United States Senate, 100-0, and by the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 425-3,6 after tens of thousands of angry phone calls came flooding into the White House and Justice Department. Reno and the president ran for the tall grass. Still, prosecutions of adult obscenity were virtually nonexistent throughout Clinton’s two terms.

I wish I could say that George W. Bush’s administration has done significantly more to fight this blight; but to date, it is not the case. This past May, Alan Sears, the former executive director of the commission on which I served and now the president of the Alliance Defense Fund, and I, along with several colleagues, went to meet personally with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. We implored him and his team to simply enforce the obscenity laws. From those discussions and in subsequent forums, we have reason to be optimistic. During remarks to the United States Attorneys Conference, Mr. Gonzales sounded like a man determined to act decisively. "Enforcement is absolutely necessary," he said, "if we are going to protect citizens from unwanted exposure to obscene materials."7 While we remain hopeful that Mr. Gonzalez will keep his promise, we still await the first Bush-era indictment of a high-profile pornographer. [To contact the attorney general and encourage him to enforce obscenity laws and prosecute pornography criminals, write to: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001. Or e-mail: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov.]

Don’t try to tell me, as a Christian writer claimed in his book a few years ago, that those whom we elect to high office have no significant impact on the lives and beliefs of our citizens. It is true, as he said, that the basic moral fiber of the nation tends to "bubble up" from the bottom.8 But bad policies also come crashing down from the top. That is exactly what happened in 1993 following President Clinton’s election and continues to this day. It is to George W. Bush’s detriment — a man whom I generally admire and support — that he and his administration have accomplished very little in five years to curtail the epidemic swirling around us. The laws are on the books. He and his team have been reluctant to aggressively enforce them, and they only have 40 months left to do so.

The facts speak for themselves. The Department of Justice — with its tens of thousands of prosecutors — has convicted a mere 37 persons or organizations since 2001 on obscenity charges involving receipt, distribution or transfer of illegal pornographic material.9 Only nine of those cases involved "big fish" — meaning the major companies that supply, distribute or produce the vast majority of available obscenity. And of those nine, only one involves easily obtainable hard-core material. In other words, the most voluminous and most readily available types of illegal pornography remain the least prosecuted.10 Just one prosecution? What gives?!

The amount of readily available offensive material has increased significantly in recent years. Why? The dramatic development that changed America’s sexual habits in the 1990s was the advent of the Internet. It instantly engulfed the nation in filth and evil. Consider the exponential growth of online pornography over a mere two-year period: A leading software filtering company identified 311,662 pornography Web sites in 2001. By September of 2003 that number had grown to 1.3 million!11 The total "adult-oriented" sites now number 4.2 million and comprise about 12 percent of the Internet’s total.12

On a similar note, you may have recently heard about a proposal concerning the establishment of a new .xxx Internet domain. By domain, I’m referring to the end of an Internet address. For example, our own Web site is www.family.org. The domain is ".org" — other domains include, ".com," ".net," etc. Despite the honorable motives of some who support this proposal, we are nevertheless adamantly opposed to its creation and implementation. Proponents of the measure suggest that it will clean up the rest of the Internet and isolate pornographic sites to a single domain. Reality suggests otherwise. Rather than minimize the proliferation of sleaze and offensive material, the added domain will only give pornographers more opportunity to flood our homes with despicable content. It’s been suggested that users would be able to program their computers to totally block access to any Web site with a .xxx domain. Yet, some technology experts even believe this "magic bullet" approach to filtering won’t even work. Then where will we be? At this writing, the Commerce Department, which maintains the authority to block or allow the domain’s availability within the United States, has put the proposal on hold at the behest of the Bush administration, which shares concerns similar to ours. We applaud this move — and I encourage you to communicate your objection to this proposal to the Department of Commerce via letters and e-mail. Your voice could very well make a difference! [Contact information: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. By e-mail, please contact Secretary Gutierrez at CGutierrez@doc.gov. ]

The reason I bring up the subject of pornography now is to call attention to the plight of large numbers of innocent children who are suffering and dying as a result of sexual crimes in the Western world. I’m sure you have been reading the tragic stories of kids, one after another, who have been abducted, horribly abused and then murdered. Just in the past few months, we’ve been shocked to hear about 9-year-old Jessica Lundgren who was sexually assaulted and then buried alive.13 Nine-year old Dylan Groene and his 8-year-old sister, Shasta, were at home late this spring when their mother, older brother and family friend were murdered. Both Dylan and Shasta were abducted by a registered sex offender. Shasta was found alive, but her brother was killed.14 When the complete truth is known, there will be a connection to obscenity within these cases. It is virtually inevitable.

You will also remember little 7-year-old Danielle van Dam who disappeared from her home in San Diego in 2003. Authorities seized thousands of computer files containing child pornography from the murderer’s house. They included a cartoon video depicting the rape of a young girl. The prosecutor in the case said, "The video represented [the defendant’s] sexual fantasies and inspired the abduction, rape and murder of Danielle."15

Similarly, the man who confessed to kidnapping, raping and killing 8-year-old Jessica DeLaTorre in South Dakota earlier this year told detectives he had viewed child pornography at an Internet café and in his home prior to committing the crime.16 Dennis Rader, the so-called "BTK killer" who savagely took the lives of 10 people, has offered very little information about his private life, but from the available evidence, it appears clear that pornography played a part in his past.17

The watchdog group, Morality in Media, has chronicled case after case of rape, child molestation and murder in which pornography was a key factor.18 Here is the cause-and-effect relationship in encapsulated form: When violent crimes are motivated by sex, the perpetrators typically get hooked on hard-core materials early in life, just as occurred with Ted Bundy. As their obsessions grow, the demand for more explicit and brutal images increases. Finally for a deranged few, a fatal leap is made from vicarious fantasies to the assault on real live victims. From there, they develop an insatiable appetite that demands fulfillment. That’s what Ted Bundy was trying to tell us. And his experience is repeated now somewhere in the U.S. every few days.

What Bundy told me is that he would live a fairly normal life for perhaps four to six weeks at a time. No one, not even his closest friends or family members, knew about an intensely private caldron that simmered within his warped personality. It would remain under control for a time until eventually — almost always while heavily drinking — it would rise up and transform him from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde. The next morning, after yet another murderous binge, he would be shocked that he was even capable of such hideous behavior. The passion that led to this tragic end for so many women was traced back, Bundy admitted, to the discovery of what used to be called "detective stories," featuring cover photos of scantily clad young women who were bound, gagged and facing death.

How many other damaged teenagers are out there today whose lust for violence is being fueled continually by Internet porn? How many young psychopaths will go on to rape and murder when, in time, lust leads to sin, and sin when it has conceived, leads to death. (James 1:15)

Of late, we see evidence of this sickness cropping up in very young perpetrators. In the conservative state of Utah, for example, adolescents accounted for more than half of all sex offenders in 2001, with police reporting that suspects as young as 8 years old had committed felony sexual assaults.19 More than 700 juvenile sex offenders were charged in Utah courts the previous year, with the fastest growing age group of sex offenders being 3 to 18 years old.20

An article in the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Sun Sentinel last year noted the sharp increase in sexual assaults among grade-schoolers in the area, including a 10-year-old and 11-year-old accused of raping a 5-year-old girl; a 9-year-old accused of sexually assaulting a 2-year-old and a 6- and 7-year-old accused of simulating rape by rubbing up against a playmate.21 Sheila Rapa, a child psychologist interviewed for the story, noted how rapidly violent sexuality has infiltrated the world of children. "When I started doing these psychosexual evaluations in ’94, it was a different child I was evaluating than I’m evaluating now … [today’s children] talk about adult sexual behavior, they talk about oral sex, anal sex, things that children even 10 years ago didn’t have knowledge of."22 The article highlighted several reasons for this downward spiral among young children, chief among them being sexual abuse at home and exposure to pornography. While it’s true that every person who delves into this seedy world will not necessarily turn into a criminal, one thing is certain: Exposure will warp the minds of not only children, but men and women as well. Inevitably and invariably, God’s gift of human sexuality becomes corrupted when individuals become wrapped up in unrealistic and immoral depictions of sex. The worth of men and women is reduced to a matter of mere utilitarian purpose. [To read more about this theme, you might want to visit one of our Web sites, www.pureintimacy.org*.]

The question is what do we do now, parents? How can we protect our kids from a society which has descended into the pit of hell?

First, it is our obligation to heed the warning signs posted at railroad crossings. In essence, those signs are telling drivers to stop, look and listen. That is exactly what we need to do regarding the world in which our children live. We dare not get too busy to monitor their activities. That scrutiny is needed every single day because of the predators lurking near them, especially where young children are concerned.

Never forget that pedophiles (individuals who sexually abuse children) roam the landscape looking for victims. They do not have difficulty finding them. The average pedophile "captures" and exploits 150 children during his career.23 Most do not get caught for many years; and even if they are caught, they may not be convicted. These men regularly use devious tactics. They can enter a place where children hang out, such as a video-game room or a pizza parlor, and spot the most lonely and needy kids almost instantly. They look for boys and girls who are starved emotionally by disengaged parents. Within minutes, they can have those children under their control and begin abusing them. The average length of time that exploitation occurs against an individual is seven years!24 Why does the secret not leak out? Because kids are intimidated by threats from perpetrators and fear of parents’ reactions.

Pedophiles often surf the Web looking for needy kids. That’s why letting your children have unsupervised access to the Internet is like a sleazy man showing up at your front door. He grins and says, "I know you are terribly busy and tired. How about letting me entertain your son or daughter for a while?" You let him in and he walks straight to the bedroom and closes the door. Who knows what goes on beyond your supervision? That is exactly what you are doing when you allow your child unsupervised access to the Internet or broadcast and cable television. It is an invitation to disaster. But this is precisely what the majority of parents have done, and many of them have lived to regret that lack of supervision. I’ll say more about that in a moment.

The other danger, as we have seen, is the availability of pornography at every click of a mouse. Children who regularly surf the Web will inevitably stumble onto explicit material. If a boy clicks on the word toys, one of the options that may pop up is sex toys. If a girl clicks on a site called "love horses," she may see images of sex between a woman and a horse. In order to entice children and adults to a paying pornographic site, the purveyors of porn offer almost irresistible teasers in the form of such things as free downloadable photographs. Concerned about this practice, the United States Congress passed a bill in 1996 that outlawed these obscene freebies. It became known as the Communications Decency Act. The Supreme Court in its "wisdom" struck down the law, claiming it was unconstitutional. Can you imagine the founding fathers intending to protect such filth when they wrote the First Amendment?

The assault on young minds continues unabated. In 2004, the number of children aged 10 to17 who had inadvertently viewed pornography online was 25 percent.25 Most of this exposure happened, no doubt, while doing school research online. While the majority of parents claim they monitor their children’s explorations on the Internet, Mom and Dad face an uphill battle.

Even if their parents monitor what goes on at home, any child can visit a local library and find the most awful material at his or her fingertips. Not only can they see the graphic sexual depictions on the Internet, but every other harmful image and idea is available to them — from how to make a bomb to instructions about committing suicide. When alarmed parents have demanded that filters and supervision be provided to protect their children from these Web sites, the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union have fought like crazy to oppose them. Predictably, these libertarians claim with a straight face that the installation of filtering devices would violate the children’s First Amendment rights.

Libertarians also say, "Libraries can’t be parents." Get the implication here? Parents are told, "You’re on your own. It’s not our problem." The provision of unsupervised computers represents the first time in American history that government-sponsored machines have been set up to harm children, and yet this is exactly what is happening. Unsuspecting parents drop off their children at local libraries, assuming they will be safe in a learning environment. They have no idea what goes on inside. Does anyone still doubt that the culture is at war with families?

Returning to our theme, perhaps it is clear now why I believe pornography is the most harrowing threat to your kids, and especially your boys. A single exposure to it by some 13- to 15-year-olds is all that is required to create an addiction that will hold them in bondage for a lifetime. It is more addictive than cocaine or heroin. Those of us in the field of child development know that the focal point of sexual interest is not very well established among young adolescents. It can be redirected by an early sexual experience (wanted or unwanted) or by exposure to pornography. A boy who would normally be stimulated by a "cheerleader" image of the opposite sex can learn through obscenity to find excitement in humiliating or hurting someone, or in sex with animals, or in homosexual violence, or in having sex with younger children. Many men who have succumbed to these perverse sexual appetites trace them back to the dawn of their adolescence.

Parents! Protect your children from this curse. You can do it. But you will not succeed if all your time and energy is devoted to a job or other outside activities. And while you’re at it, teach your kids that God’s view of human sexuality is not obsolete or old-fashioned. It is designed to protect us and to keep us clean and healthy. Don’t let anyone, neither the sex-ed teacher at school nor the makers of perverted entertainment in Hollywood or at MTV, undermine traditional biblical teaching. It is valid. It is true. And it bears the imprint of the Creator Himself.

With that, I’ll sign off for this month. I hope you understand that Focus on the Family is fighting for the family — and for your family. That is why we are here. Our motto is to "nurture and defend" families. Moms and dads, grandparents and guardians need all the help they can get to raise children in the fear and admonition of our Lord. We want to assist you in fulfilling that mission. But to accomplish that mission, we need the support and prayers of our friends. Funds continue to be tight. Your continued financial partnership would be greatly appreciated.

Let us hear from you when time permits. Thank you for your devotion to your own family. That is the primary source of strength of this great nation.

God’s blessings to you all.

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Chairman and Founder

P.S. As a postscript, I’d like to make a comment concerning a recent "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast, during which I decried the killing of human embryos for research purposes. That broadcast was motivated in part by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s regrettable announcement in July that he supported an increase in federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Many of us feel Senator Frist has violated his own commitment to the sanctity of human life. These experiments will result in many deaths. Secondarily, once embraced, they will also most certainly lead to human cloning — and the "creation" of life for the purpose of harvesting body parts. I am unalterably opposed to such attempts to "play God" with the lives of tiny human beings.

At one point during my program when I discussed these concerns, I mentioned the unspeakable horrors inflicted upon prisoners in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. My intention was not to draw a direct correlation between Nazi war crimes and embryonic stem cell research, but rather to highlight the fundamental ethical compromise upon which both practices are based. Well, the resulting outcry by the liberal media was predictably vicious! My statements were deliberately taken out of context and essentially "spun like a top" by the mainstream press.

In response to these distortions, I’d like to clarify what I said and why I said it.

Those who want to destroy tiny human embryos attempt to justify their actions by suggesting that we might discover cures for some diseases as a result. All of the promising data to this point has been produced with adult stem cells, in which no life is lost. Even if embryonic stem cells turn out to be beneficial, the argument to kill them is based on a utilitarian ethic — that if something good might result, the action is somehow moral. We know from history that this is not true. That is my concern. The horrible Nazi experiments on humans who were deemed to be of lesser value were in part conducted for scientific knowledge.

How about it? Is it morally acceptable for science to sacrifice one human life in the hopes of saving another? Universally, civilized societies have answered that question with a resounding "no." What reputable scientist today would sanction what happened in the 1930s, when African-American men with syphilis were left untreated to study the savages of the disease? We have collectively condemned the practice of "using" humans in experiments when that research would harm or kill the subject — regardless of the possible "good" that may result.

Let me say again that in staking my position, I did not equate the Holocaust with stem cell research, despite the media’s effort to say that I did. But there was a philosophical link between them. Some of the critics of my remarks have denied that Nazi atrocities were motivated in part by perverted science. They are wrong. One modern-day investigator recently concluded, "We cannot deny that the work carried out at the time has helped the advancement of medicine."26 Who among the German people carried out these atrocious experiments? It was done by the respected and elite members of the German medical and scientific communities. This is certain — when ethics and morality are removed from medicinal and scientific research, horrors like those committed in Germany are the inevitable result. The quest for scientific gain didn’t make those experiments right, and neither does the drive behind embryonic stem cell research

You would think that the rest of the world would learn from history. Sadly, this utilitarian view of human life still prevails in some circles today. When we sacrifice the defenseless for the greater good of others, the value of all human life is diminished. If you are fortunate enough to be born with the ability and position to defend yourself, good for you. If not, others may determine that you are more "useful" as a research guinea pig.

It has been encouraging to me to note, despite the viciousness of the media, that many of today’s most respected observers of our culture have stepped forward to defend our position. Many of them are Jewish leaders and personal friends. Movie critic and national radio host Michael Medved said, "… it’s clearly not fair to distort Dr. Dobson’s substantive arguments to score cheap political points."27 Fellow national radio host Dennis Prager noted, "Dobson was not comparing actions — he was comparing ideas: namely, the idea that because good may result from an immoral action, the action becomes moral. He is, of course, right."28

In a letter defending me in the Wall Street Journal, my good friend, Dr. William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, remarked that "Dr. Dobson was warning against the moral consequences of a "utilitarian approach." He went on to say once "you remove ethics and morality, you find yourself on the road to Nazi Germany."29 In conclusion, he noted that over 60 years later, German officials still remain wary of such human experimentation as embryonic stem cell research because of their own horrific past. Their Green Party noted that "We Germans, in light of experiences during the years 1933 to 1945, should be sensitive, even supersensitive" to medical activities that threaten human dignity.30 I was likewise heartened by the words of scientist Dr. Dianne N. Irving, who completed her doctoral dissertation on embryonic biology from Georgetown University. She said, "I don’t know Dr. Dobson, but it is clear to me that [he] owes no apology. In fact, he is to be commended for courageously ‘telling it like it is.’"31

I’ll say it one more time in summation: There is a dramatic difference between the destruction of 5-day-old embryos and the sadistic, tortuous experiments that were carried out on Jewish men, women and children during World War II. Nevertheless, the philosophy behind these killings is the same. It is to use the deaths of the weaker to benefit the strong. It was horribly wrong in World War II, and it’s wrong now. I’ll continue to speak this truth even if it brings me mountains of criticism, and even if the mainstream press refuses to report my views accurately.

*(Note: Referrals to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family are for informational purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)