THE DAMAGING EFFECTS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
by Diana E.H. Russell, Ph.D.
Written September 2004

DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT OBTAINING MY PERMISSION.

Introduction and Background: I sent this manuscript to my editor at Routledge Publishers in September 2004. Unfortunately, I was very late in meeting my deadline for many reasons, especially my intense involvement in initiating a campaign against the richest landlord in Berkeley (after UC Berkeley) for his 15-year exploitation of minor sexual slaves imported from India -- among other crimes. My editor had just quit her position at Routledge to accept a job at the New York University Press, so my manuscript remained unread while Routledge searched for a new editor. By January of 2005, a new editor had still not been hired, so I wrote to Mary McGinnis, the Vice President of Routledge to ask her what I should do about this. I feared if I revised the manuscript before I had an editor, she might well request that I revise it yet again. Ms. McGinnis told me to go ahead and revise it. Meanwhile, she said she would also like to see my manuscript. Less than a week later, she called me and declared that, "There is no way that Routledge will be associated with a book of this nature." "Why not?" I asked her. "It's the branding issue," she replied. "What do you mean?" I asked her, but she didn't explain. I interpreted her statement to mean that she didn't want Routledge to become known for publishing such a shocking book. It included many sexually explicit child pornography stories written for pedophiles, as well as descriptions of child pornography, including gross cartoons, all of which were legal. I told Ms. McGinnis that I was willing to remove the material that bothered her, but she insisted that she had discussed the issue with members of the staff, and she wasn't willing to reconsider. She resolutely held to her position despite my continued pleas. Since my manuscript was late, I had broken our contract, so I knew she would have this excuse to disregard it. Of course, this wasn't a genuine concern for her, since she had told me that I should go ahead and revise my manuscript. She said that she would help me find another publisher for this book. However, she did not follow through on this promise. I contacted my previous editor at New York University Press to ask if she and this publishing house would be interested in publishing Stolen Innocence. It so happened that New York University Press had published the major social scientific book on child pornography in recently. So she said that there would be no interest in publishing a book that would be in competition with this volume. I considered suing Routledge for breach of contract, since the lateness issue was obviously not the real reason for refusing to give me a chance to revise my manuscript. A respected colleague advised me not to, because she believed this would make it next to impossible to find another publisher, as well as jeopardizing publishers' interest in future projects of mine.

Stolen Innocence: The Damaging Effects of Child Pornography
Chapter 5: The Economics of Child Pornography

Writing about child pornography in the late 1980s, Campagna and Proffenberg (1988) contended that it was "very big business" (1988, p. 123). They cite an informative interview with a child pornographer who provides detailed information about the large sums of money to be made producing and marketing child pornography (see this interview below).

By the year 2000, Lanning (2000) notes that commercial child pornography is not openly sold anywhere in the United States because of the strict federal and state laws that have been enacted (p. 63). Presumably, Lanning is referring to child pornography that is not online.

With regard to on line child pornography, Lanning maintains that it "is more readily available in foreign countries [than in the U.S.]. United States [male] citizens, however, seem to be the main customers for much of this material" (p. 63). Although Lanning does not explain why commercial child pornography is more readily available in countries outside of the U.S., it is probably because the U.S. is making more efforts than other countries to prosecute pedophiles and others involved in the child pornography industry. This interpretation is supported by Jenkins' (2001) contention that, "the Internet makes it extraordinarily easy for businesses to relocate to other nations with laxer laws, and it is more or less certain that this will be the course of action taken by child pornographers [in the United States] in the coming years" p. 201).

Unlike adult pornography, Healy (2002, p. 5) notes that, "the overwhelming majority of child pornography seized in the United States has not been produced or distributed for profit" (p. 5; Anna Grant et al., 1999, and O'Connell, 1999, concur with Healy's observation [p. 178]). For example, many observers have noted that pedophiles typically swap or trade child pornography pictures with each other, rather than selling it. However, Hick and Halpin (2001) report that some members of the pedophile community do now "seek commercial profit" for child pornography (p. 60). Lanning also contends that, "With the advent of the Internet, it does appear that profit-motivated, child-pornography distribution has returned and is growing" (p. 63).

Santos (2001) is less tentative than Lanning in stating that, "Selling child pornography on the net can be very lucrative for producers and distributors" (p. 58). Samantha Friel (1997, Fall; Pornography by any other name?) identifies a new and growing type of child pornography entrepreneur: those who have no personal interest in sex with children. More specifically, she refers to the economic incentive that can be expected to encourage "the business-oriented pornographers who are just in it for the money" (p. 227).

For example, Thomas and Janice Reedy are pornographers who owned one of the largest child pornography businesses on the Net. The Reedy's company's computer database contained a list of 320,000 clients worldwide (p. 120). Thomas Reedy's father is reported as saying that his son was motivated by money, not child pornography (p. 120).

Although some of these business-oriented "producers, middlemen, distributors, and collectors may not molest children," Mehagen Doyle (1999, Bad apples in cyberspace) notes that "they all play a role in the sexual exploitation of children," and "perpetuate the view that children are economic commodities" (p. 124). In addition, in an effort to increase advertising revenue, pornographic website operators use popular names and terms to capture inadvertant individuals on their pornography sites when these individuals conduct key word searches using these names and terms (Doyle, p. 129). The owner of the site is paid a fee for every hit on their web site names. Doyle also notes that:

Friel (1997, Fall), Pornography by any other name?) suggests that business-oriented child pornography producers who are just in it for the money, have an economic and legal incentive to use computer-generated child pornography (p. 227). Whether they actually do so is a question for researchers to investigate. It requires considerable expertise to be able to differentiate computer-generated from non-computer-generated child pornography. To what extent this is even possible at this time, I do not know.

Money is also a crucial motive for service providers to make illegal sites accessible to their customers. According to one Net source: "The FEAR of losing users who access these illegal groups and the loss of the MONEY that these same users pay" explains why service providers do nothing to control child pornography and other illegal sites. This anonymous source concludes that "In effect, children are being exploited on the internet for profit" (www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5021/list.htm. Version 11/06/96).

Barry Crimmins, a children's rights and safety activist, elaborates on the above point by castigating America Online (AOL) -- the largest Internet server in the United States. He testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on Child Pornography on the Internet in ?1995/1985 about AOL's responsibility for facilitating pedophiles' activities on the Internet because of its profitability. He noted that AOL has "private rooms" that were "created by, and for, pedophiles. There were rooms promoting rape, incest, the exchange of child pornography, hate crimes, and every possible, and in some cases impossible, sexual activity. If one could imagine it, it was there" (p. ).

Crimmins also testified that "AOL has had a great deal of prior knowledge as to how its service is being misused." He therefore concluded that "AOL facilitates and profiteers on these dastardly crimes" (p. ). Crimmins proposed that "The profit must be removed from 'looking the other way'." He argued that "if AOL put a fraction of the effort into dealing with this problem that they put into spin doctoring their culpability, things would improve rapidly" (p. ).

British journalist Tim Tate (Child Pornography, 1990, p. 221) singles out the commercial and amateur computer-games' industry as being "quick to cash in on the easy money of electronic sex" (p. 221). Although he notes that, "The vast majority of such software is aimed at normal heterosexual men (sic)," he points out that some of this software "allows consumers to opt for juvenile 'partners' in the game" (p. 221).For example, Tate describes a computer sex game called "Softporn II" as "a fantasy scenario between a male (yourself [sic]) and the female of your choice," who can be an under-age partner (p. 221). Those who make this choice and then follow the computer program's "request to describe the physical statistics of their 'partner', are rewarded by a series of eroticised encounters...." (p. 222).

Sex rings typically use children for the commercial production of child pornography. In addition, a growing number of parents are also motivated by money to sell their daughters for use in child pornography. The following testimony by a pedophile called Stewart provides many examples of such parents.

The Economics of Child Pornography: A Child Pornographer Experience* [*Footnote: This is an excerpted version of an interview in Campagna and Poffenberger, 1988, pp. 123-127]

On the basis of an interview with Stewart, university professors Campagna and Poffenberger described him as a 43-year-old freelance producer of child pornography "with market ties to national buyers and organized crime" (p. 123). He had been "identified by a United States postal inspector in 1987 as 'one of the kingpins in child pornography on the East Coast'" (p. 122). Campagna and Poffenberger note that "his observations about the dynamics of the national market in child pornography coincide almost precisely with those provided by other pornographers interviewed" (p. 123. Stewart was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary when the authors wrote their book.

The interview makes it clear that Stewart is also a pedophile who masturbates to the child pornography he makes, and has sex with underage girls (but never "with kids under 12").

STEWART

"I was never involved in no pornography." Stewart, (p. 123)

"Child pornography is a very big business. It wouldn't be hard for you to start if you knew where to sell them. That's the key. Somebody has to put in a good word for you to sell them. You might have some pictures to show, about ten sets. If you had ten sets, you'd make a phone call to either Pittsburgh or New York. They'll come down here and look at 'em. If they like what you got, they'll buy them right on the spot. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but chances are you'll get to $25,000 if the girl was cooperative and pretty. She has to pose as you want her to, pose for about 250 pictures or so. Some of them can be real gross, with a dog for example.

"The parents are always there when the pictures are taken. Every time I did this I made real sure the parents signed a release. But let me tell you this: I was never involved in no pornography; I was just involved in taking nude photographs. The release form was a legal document drawn up by an attorney. Mostly it was to keep me from getting blackmailed. If I photographed some hop head's daughter and she blew her money on drugs and came to me saying she wanted more, this form saved me. I had a note from you [sic] saying I could bring your kid to my cabin. I tried to cover myself pretty good but still got stopped quite a few times by the police just for harassment.

"I would take the pictures, give them to parents, and they would sell them. I never sold any of these pictures directly to customers, just to buyers who resold them to customers. If the kid is exceptionally good looking, you can use her two or three times. She puts on a little wig, a change of clothes, maybe some makeup. Let me tell you something else about kids. I have found more cases where their uncles, or especially their dads or brothers, have had sex with them....

"You'd be surprised how many girls between sixth and eighth grade go for older guys. I don't know why. I have never threatened a girl, forced a girl into anything. A camera is a big part of the attraction. You can go to strange places - like I used to hit the beaches up in New Jersey a lot. I'd have a radio, camera, and see a couple of nice young girls laying there on the beach, so I'd say "Excuse me miss, but would you watch my camera while I take a swim?" Later I'd come back with two ice creams for them. It's as simple as that. You start asking to take their pictures. If you ask for some cleavage they'll show you the whole breast. My conquests sometimes happened like this, I'd meet one young girl do something to her she'd like, and she would involve another girl who would get another girl, and so on. I'd get five for the one I met. It usually led to pictures, but I always had their parents' permission. I knew these pictures were being sold by the parents. They'd give me a percentage. What you do with them is your business. If you got $15,000 or $25,000 for them, then I think you should be very generous with me. Give me $5,000 or $8,000 in return after you sell the pictures. I've never been cheated. They all treat me fair and come back for more pictures. The parents came from all kinds of backgrounds; clerks, steel workers, plumbers. You signed the release form before I'd even talk to you to show I didn't solicit you. So, no matter what you say in court, I got the form you signed drawn up by my attorney. You can probably use your kid three times in pornography. Sell the pictures in the states, Canada, and once overseas. If the girl is local, the pictures are sold on the West Coast or, chances are, in Canada. I kept a lot of the pictures I took of girls in my cabin for my use. My studio was on a farm where I could develop my own films and photos.

"I would take about 250 pictures. That's a set. There's 100 pictures in a book, and the parents would pick out the best ones. There was a limit as to how far I went. Nothing but the legs spread. I never let sex interfere with my business. I've been in the business of photographing nude girls for about 25 years. I've had thousands of girls as models for my books. The reason I got so popular was because I didn't do nothing to the girls. They really trusted me....

".... I've had people look me up and ask me to photograph their kids. You can make a damn good living doing this. I made a lot of bucks on what the parents gave me for a percentage. If I had been involved in pornography all the way through from taking pictures to selling them, I'd be a very, very rich man. I never had sex with kids under 12. I do believe in taking anything I can get. I don't believe in God, only in what I can see and touch. I don't believe what I do is that wrong as long as I don't force anybody or blackmail them....

"I consider my photos to be art. Did I tell you that I sold a picture to Hallmark Cards? I sent them a profile of a little girl with the words, "I love you daddy." I've also had some of my pictures displayed at fairs. Pornography isn't my bag. You're talking about a lot of time if you get caught. Plus there's other things involved. I don't want no little girl coming up to me in five years and calling me a dirty old man. I just took pictures of girls masturbating, that sort of stuff.

"If you brought your kid to me, asked me to photograph her, and agreed to put it in writing, then I'd pose her the way I think the pictures would sell. But I wouldn't pose her with another guy. She would just masturbate or use something on herself. Most of these girls are very young, undeveloped, don't forget. Is this pornographic? It might be suggestive, I don't know if that's pornographic. It might be. I really don't know, never gave it a thought. Nudism is one thing. Pornography is another. Anything that shows a sex act is pornographic. The best thing you can have is two girls together. If you can get twins, you're in the money. I've photographed twins. They sold real well.

"The people that buy these pictures don't travel just to look at one set of pictures. They won't cross the state line unless you have 10 or 20 sets. Organized crime from New York will send someone down to look at the pictures. They make offers for the pictures right then and there. I don't ask no questions. It's too damn dangerous. These guys, I think they get all the profit 'cause they're paying for the pictures. Whoever publishes the books ... does a good job. It's a nice technicolor book, no name on it. The pages are glossy. It's a well‑made book and would cost you about $50. A new book comes out all the time. They're numbered so you can get the whole series. You couldn't go into a book store and buy one ‑‑ not unless you're known. They have everything under the counter, if you know where to go. Anything you want, tapes, 8mm films, kids with dogs.

".... Once the kid has been photographed a few times, that's it. The parents have to go out and find new talent. It's a very touchy thing when you're dealing with a kid. I never photograph any kid right after I meet her. I have to get to know her first. I'd take her into another room and talk with her. I'd tell her to use a bad word and if she would come back to her parents and tell them the word, I wouldn't touch her, wouldn't photograph her, 'cause that means she'll tell the people next door. If she didn't tell, I would explain how far up the ladder I wanted to go, ... and how far I wanted her to undress. I never exceeded these steps. There were many girls who would say no and I'd drop it at that point. The parents were always there. Nothing was ever forced on the girl. Parents would invite me to their house. I'd get to know the girl and see how she acted. They had to have a certain look on their face. That's really important. They couldn't show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show happiness or love, take my word for it. To get that look, I'd give them something, from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have to be able to express excitement in the pictures. Props help a lot, like mirrors and stuffed animals....

"A lot of my clients came from nudist camps. Nudist camps are the biggest part of it. You can go to a nudist camp, take the mother and daughter at the same time. Mothers and daughters posing at the same time is the biggest money maker in pornography. Say if a mother has two daughters. Get the mother in bed with the two daughters. That's the biggest moneymaker. You're talking big bucks - as much as $50,000.

"Mothers are a bunch of assholes - most of them - because they sell their daughters. A mother is the greediest son of a bitch in world. There's some good ones, like the ones that try to get daughters into commercials with my pictures. The others are dogs. They don't care how far you want to go. I've had mothers ask me to bring in dogs to lick their daughters because that kind of picture pays more. They wanted pornography. It don't matter to them just so the girl isn't hurt.

"It's a business. People buy it. Who's to say it's wrong? .... I'll photograph anything or anyone in the privacy of my home from 6 months to 96 years old. I don't give a goddamn who knows it or how many pictures I take. I'll fight it in court if I have to. Pornography with little kids, five or six years old, is a no-no.... I would mind if you took pictures of my daughter 'cause you're not in the family...."

2) A CHILD PORNOGRAPHER DESCRIBES HIS BUSINESS

"I don't think I am that damaging to the child because I'm honest about what the whole thing is about."

This anonymous child pornographer who works in a bar, was interviewed about his business by Campagna or Poffenberger. He claimed that he never sexually abused the children he photographed. He did not volunteer whether or not he also sexually abused other children and the interviewer failed to ask him about this. He comes across as very callous and untouched by the children he photographs even though he recognizes that his actions are damaging.

Question: Is pornography profitable today?

Answer: Even today, the most money is made in child pornography because it's hard to get and willing children are hard to come by. First of all, young boys are not that much of a moneymaker; they're pretty much out as far as good money is concerned. The ones that make money are those who are professional. They look at it like a business.

Question: Do the kids make money?

Answer: Ah, most of the time the kid is brought in by a parent. The parent is propositioned with money.

Question: What kind of money are we talking about?

Answer: Well, it goes anywhere from nickels and dimes to big money: $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 a spread. A spread, you're talking 500 to 1,000 photographs shot at different times in different setting. Outdoor, mockup playground settings, this type of thing. Girls, say between the ages of 8 and 13, are the very salable objects. Twins, identical twins, are the prime pictures, the most salable.

Question: Why it that?

Answer: It's in demand. Identical twins are an unusual setup; specifically young girls without overdevelopment and preferably with little or no pubic hair on their body, etc. A good spread, done well from a professional standpoint with lights and backdrop and producing artistically "good photographs," is worth twenty grand - $20,000 for 1,000 pictures.

Question: So I would bring in a girl - my daughter. Would I bring her to you?

Answer: I would act as a middleman. I'd deal with you and with the photographers. I'd set the price with you.

Question: And how would you do that? What are your criteria?

Answer: The criteria would be, first of all, they'd have to be nice looking girls. Clean, couldn't look like urchins or trash. They had to look like the girl next door. Pigtails, the whole nine yards. You'd come to me and we'd negotiate a price.

Question: How would I know to go to you?

Answer: Most of the time you'll find that some people come into my bar and start talking about pornography. From their comments you'd figure out they weren't against it. Somebody would ask ... for instance, do you know where I can get some photographs of a woman and donkey or a dog or young kids. You'll find it's the upper‑middle class that has the money to spend on these pictures....

Question: So if I wanted to buy some pictures of twins, how much would it cost me as the consumer?

Answer: For 500 of the best, you'd have to spend $2000 .... These might even be people you know, their kids....

Question: And they won't be duplicated in other places?

Answer: That arrangement can be made, and if it is, of course, the price goes even higher....

Answer: If I arrange with you to take these pictures of your daughters[,] I'd give you $5,000 for the session. You bring the girls in, make sure they've done their hair taken a bath, and have a change of clothes. We'd want a cheerleader's uniform complete with boots, nightgowns, different underwear, school dresses, bluejeans, bathing suits. They bring their own attire most of the time. I take the pictures, give you $5,000 after the session is over with. Generally the girls are rewarded with their own little color television or maybe a bicycle.

Question: Would you agree with the parents on all that?

Answer: You agree with the parents on the money. Then you tell them, "Listen, first of all you will sign a waiver, a legal waiver that says we have your permission to take these pictures of your girls." That's a prerequisite. That's the only businesslike way to do this and it keeps your can out of prison. Secondly, I want to talk to the girls. The prerequisites there are that the parents will be at the location but they won't be in the same room because the kids feel safer with them in the immediate vicinity but they don't want them in the same room while they're being photographed....

Question: ... How would you get these kids to cooperate? Are we talking about perverse things like sexual intercourse?

Answer: No. The first thing you do is assure the girl that there's not going to be any physical contact between her and the photographers or with anybody else. This is strictly a photography session. If you lay it on the line, most kids believe you. They're harder to con than adults. After they are assured you're on the level, they could care less.

Question: What happens then?

Answer: You tell the girls beforehand, "Listen, honey, you know I made a financial arrangement with your parents. We also plan to reward you." They get the reward, like a television, when they are through. If you treat that business as a business, you have very few problems. There are people in the business that want to sexually abuse the kids, try to get in animal acts, perverse things [like that] in front of the camera. This type of thing is no good. It doesn't sell and brings a lot of heat down on everybody. There's no sense in it....

Question: Okay, so if I rent my children to you for an afternoon. Is that against the law?

Answer: I'm sure they'd find a law to match the act. Somewhere I suppose it's against the law. But a good businessman takes every precaution.

Question: Would you research me if I said I had a couple of kids to photograph?

Answer: Certainly. You'd give me your name and phone number. After finding your address in the phone index, I'd call the telephone company and credit union to see if you paid your bills. Find out where you work. Somewhere along the line I'll meet someone you know and I'll find out what kind of person you are....

Question: What happens when the session is over?

Answer: You go to people that are in the book publishing business that you've known for several years. Tell them you got some very nice pictures - for example, of two cute blond-haired girls and you need $20,000. It's just that simple. I had to give up maybe $10,000 for the pictures so I have to make a little. They come, look, and usually take around 500 of the best. Half are just discarded. This includes the negatives.... They don't want any competition from anyone for the same product. They're not stupid, not when they pay that kind of money.

Question: Who are "they"?....

Answer: They are businessmen who own publishing companies. They are connected with organized crime. Obviously, since it's a contraband article, not available on the newsstands, you're going to have to pay $25 or $30 for one of these magazines. There'd be about 15 or 20 color photographs and an equal number of black and white.

Question: And these magazines generally do not deal with sex acts, just nudity?

Answer: Right. You're dealing with voyeurs, not perverts as such. You are talking about a local businessman who wants to look at a young girl. Your local insurance agents. They are the ones who can spend the money on these photographs.

Question: Were you part of the distribution?

Answer: No, all I did was sell the negatives and photographs....

Question: Did you have to pay a photographer?

Answer: I paid a photographer because it's cheaper than buying $7,000 or $8,000 worth of photography equipment....

Question: That's pretty profitable after overhead.

Answer: Yes, it is. Most of the photographers in that line are homosexuals, so you don't have to worry about them fooling with the girls.

Question: Were you there at the sessions?

Answer: Absolutely. It's my neck, my butt, and my money that's riding on the line. Damn right. I'd usually be out of sight but nearby with the parents....

Question: Did the parents know what you were going to do with the photographs?

Answer: Sure. This was plainly stipulated in the legal instrument that they signed....

Question: Did you ever have problems getting people?

Answer: No. It's just word of mouth. There's no real problem finding parents who are interested. None at all.

Question: Did you ever have more business than you could handle?

Answer: You have more people wanting that easy money than their kids are worth. Some of these young girls are ugly. How do you tell a parent, "I can't take pornographic pictures of your kid because she's ugly?" A touchy thing.

Question: Did it bother you to be involved in this sort of activity?

Answer: Didn't bother me because I figured, in all likelihood, that the kid has been abused a lot more than I'll ever abuse it. At that age, girls are a lot smarter than men give them credit for. They know what's going on. I have no respect for the parents, but it's a business. They come to me. I don't go looking for them.

When you explain to the kid, "Your mom or dad needs the money and that's the only reason you're here," most will accept that because they know basically what's going on at home. The worst psychological damage occurs in the parent-child relationship. I don't think I am that damaging to the child because I'm honest about what the whole thing is about. For me it's money. For, the kid, it's taking care of their parents. For the parents, it's the money.

Question: Would you use the same kid again and again?

Answer: Normally no, because twice around is about all the circulation the pictures can stand. You've saturated the market at that point with that face and body.

Question: Who was easier to work with, mothers or fathers?

Answer: Mothers.... Daddies cherish their little girls. Mothers are hard core. They're in business to make money.

Question: Was there ever any anguish shown by these parents?

Answer: Yeah. There was this one woman who had a real sweet girl who said, "Lord I hope this stops here." I said, "It's up to you whether your kid becomes a prostitute or a junky. You need the money so you sold your kid." That's what it boils down to. Sometimes cases like that make a parent think really hard what their kids is all about. Maybe they're better off. Who knows?

Home | About Diana Russell | Pornography As a Cause of Rape (book excerpt) | Publications | Other links |