WASHINGTON, DC – Kansas Senator Sam Brownback has brought his anti-pornography dog and pony show to the nation’s capital. Its most recent performance on the Hill provided many of the thrills and chills that members of the adult industry anticipated.“I think most Americans agree and know that pornography is bad,” Brownback said during the opening minutes of his third hearing about matters sexual, setting a decidedly un-objective tone that was maintained until hearing end. “They know that it involves exploitive images of men and women, and that it is morally repugnant and offensive.”

But Brownback’s moral outrage about sexually explicit material is not the only reason that the chair of the Senate’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights considers the issue to be of vital importance to the nation. “What most Americans don’t know is how harmful pornography is to its users and their families.”

Having clearly stated his position, the Senator then proceeded to introduce witnesses to support it during the 90-minute hearing, including panelist Jill Manning, a Brigham Young University sociologist who opined that people masturbate exclusively to pornography, as opposed to books, music, or mainstream films, thus making the more exotic form of entertainment “potentially addictive.”

Manning proceeded to expound upon the negative effect of masturbation upon the human brain, arguing that a self-aroused state may render a person incapable of providing informed consent. As the Mormon trained sociologist sees it, pornography increases the risk of divorce, decreases the intimacy felt between married partners, and confuses sexuality by introducing activities she deemed unnatural, including multiple partner sex, BDSM, and sex with animals. Although porn has long been considered a “problem” only amongst men, Manning regretfully informed those assembled that approximately 30-percent of internet porn consumers are female.

According to fellow panelist, Pamela Paul, the stress of porn tears at the fabric of marital bliss on a daily basis, as men return home from work to struggle over whether to masturbate at the computer or have sex with their wives. “If they go to their wives,” Paul ominously warned, “just practically speaking, they have to make sure they have done all of the chores around the house they were supposed to do. They need to have a half-an-hour conversation about what they did that day.” Porn, by comparison, is apparently far more appealing to the shallow and intimacy shy American male who, in Paul’s experience, would far rather take “five minutes to go online” than interact with their own partner; something pornographic material is somehow inexplicably responsible for.

No representatives from or sympathetic to the adult industry were invited to speak during the hearing, something Free Speech Coalition spokesman Tom Hymes reports is “Typical of his (Brownback’s) hearings.” Had Brownback invited such a person, he might learn that adult content is popular throughout the 50 American states, including and especially the “red” ones.

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, a long standing opponent to sexual freedom and the adult entertainment industry, compared enjoyment of pornography with fatty foods and secondhand smoke. “America is more sex-ridden than any country in history,” Hatch insisted while complaining about the availability of saucy catalogues during the holiday season.

Although sympathetic to Brownback’s views on sex trafficking and child pornography, Wisconsin’s Democratic Senator Russ Fiengold, the only other senator to involve himself in the hearings, seemed cooler on the subject of adult content. “The subject of this hearing suggests that we can be faced with proposals that go well beyond what Congress can constitutionally undertake,” he cautioned.

Although Brownback has not yet proposed specific anti-pornography legislation, he has indicated that he would be amenable to laws encouraging families to file civil suits against porn producers whose materials they believe have caused them harm. Ironically, such legislation has traditionally been unpopular with the Republican Party when applied to the tobacco and gun industries. More in line with his party’s historic stance on such issues, although with a decidedly Democratic funding strategy, the senator has also mentioned the possibility of an anti-porn education program – paid for with federal tax dollars.

Although repeatedly discouraged by Rodney Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond School of Law, Brownback revealed what his ideal strategy for dealing with sexually frank material is likely to be: a ban on certain types that don’t qualify as obscene, perhaps by claiming that the material presents a public health threat. Smolla pointed out that the First Amendment has repeatedly been held by state and federal supreme courts to cover pornography not deemed obscene. The dean recommended drastically increased enforcement of current laws. “You will see results, no doubt about it,” he assured those assembled.

Not everyone was convinced that obscenity prosecutions are the answer to the perceived problem of pornography. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ attempt to convict Extreme Associates on obscenity has so far failed, and the recent Lawrence v. Texas ruling has caused many to believe that the thinking behind many obscenity laws no longer has legal validity. “After Lawrence,” Judge Gary Lancaster wrote,” the government can no longer rely on the advancement of a moral code, i.e., preventing consenting adults from entertaining lewd and lascivious thoughts, as a legitimate, let alone compelling, state interest.”