Fundies upset about undies

The furor over Calvin Klein's children's-underwear ads is about homophobia, pure and simple

by Michael Bronski

On February 18, Calvin Klein unveiled a new line of designer underwear for young children. The centerpiece of the accompanying ad campaign featured photos of two young children -- you can't really tell their gender, although the ad copy reads "boys' underwear" -- clad in briefs and shorts, dancing on a sofa. The kids are smiling and look silly; the photos look unrehearsed. It didn't take long, however, for critics to answer the unasked question: What's wrong with this picture?

The Reverend Donald E. Wildmon of the American Family Association, one of the most vocal of the Christian right's advocacy groups, complained that the ads could provoke child molesters and called for a boycott of all Klein products. "Whether you like it or not, you have pedophiles in this society. Anything that could get them excited is detrimental, irresponsible, and reckless," he told the New York Times.

What's interesting about this is that the photos are innocent -- at least to the untrained eye. Certainly, they're no different from anything you might see in a family photo album or an ad for diapers, swimsuits, or skin-care products. In the second photo it is possible to "read" one boy's finger next to his Calvin boxers as his penis, but such an interpretation is not obvious. Also, remember that this campaign was approved by advertising and sales executives at such prominent publications as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Martha Stewart Living. It's probably safe to assume that the average viewer saw nothing untoward in the images.

So what's all the fuss about? The answer lies in Wildmon's protestations that these ads have the ability to provoke adult sexual behavior. And while he does not explicitly specify homosexual behavior, it is impossible not to understand his remarks in the context of a long-standing tradition of homophobic attacks perpetrated by him and his right-wing allies.

The child molester, the man in the raincoat who lurks on the dark fringes of playgrounds, has long been a symbol for the perceived dangers of homosexuality. Indeed, the myth of the queer-as-child-molester has strong roots in US culture and politics. In 1978, Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign sparked a backlash against gay rights that we are still battling today. Wildmon's attack on the Klein advertisements is simply the latest in a series of ongoing attacks on gay people and gay rights that use the protection of children as a cover for homophobia.

In early March, Beverly LaHaye, president of Concerned Women for America, invoked this myth to rail against the battle for same-sex marriage. "If the homosexuals achieve their agenda, then the pedophile movement, which has been waiting in the wings, will have their opportunity to force their own agenda on this country," she warned on her California radio program.

Last July, gay freelance journalist Bruce Merkin, noted for his reporting on AIDS and gay youth, was arrested for "intent to commit child molestation" after he went to meet an online correspondent he thought was a 13-year-old gay boy who had asked Merkin for help in dealing with his sexuality at home and school. The "boy" was a Sacramento vice cop, who was posing as a boy as part of an Internet sting operation to nab pedophiles. According to the Bay Area Times, a Sacramento judge ruled February 24 that Merkin would have to stand trial even though any sexual content in their correspondence was initiated by the "boy" and was never responded to by Merkin.

Why are these attacks on any connection between queers and kids happening now? One of the reasons is that, in the past decade, issues affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered youth have begun to be discussed publicly through the efforts of organizations like the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators Network and programs such as Massachusetts Safe Schools, Los Angeles's Project 10, and an ever-growing network of gay/straight alliances in high schools. Some deeply cherished (heterosexual) beliefs -- that all kids and teens are straight, and that they're potential victims of queer molesters -- are being challenged.

But there is another, more culturally pervasive reason: our society has reached something of a crisis point in its ambivalence toward children. On the one hand, the rhetoric about protecting kids has grown louder. Legal efforts aimed at doing so range from Internet censorship to television-show ratings to the creation of sex-offender registries. Yet at the same time, children and young people are seen as inconsequential, expendable, and even dangerous.

Need examples? Although numerous child-advocacy agencies have sounded an alarm about the harm being done to children by welfare reform, federal and state governments have done nothing to address the issue. Many social and educational programs that help children, such as remedial and special education, are being reduced or even eliminated.

More shocking are the radical changes in the way children and teens are treated in the court system. In the past five years, the number of juveniles (those under age 18) being tried as adults has increased 36 percent. There are now 74 inmates on death row for crimes committed when they were under 18. In a highly publicized Chicago case, two boys, seven and eight years old, were arrested and charged with the brutal murder and sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl. Charges were dropped several weeks later, when semen stains were found on the girl's clothing and police had to admit that this evidence ruled out the prepubescent boys.

In the midst of this cultural ambivalence, queers are being demonized as the ultimate threat to children. What is frightening is that the hysteria around "protecting" children from imaginary threats is diverting attention from the true attacks on their welfare -- the dismantling of laws, programs, and initiatives that offer kids real protection and help.

And yet, cries of child endangerment cause so much cultural anxiety that the ensuing hysteria can be difficult to counter. Even Rosie O'Donnell denounced the Calvin Klein advertising campaign on her popular television show. This argument now carries so much weight that Calvin Klein immediately discontinued the campaign rather than ride out the public criticism.

I don't relish defending the rights of a multibillion-dollar company interested only in marketing its merchandise, but there are larger issues at stake. Gay-bashing under the guise of child protection will never go away until we as a culture can discuss the lives and needs of children openly and honestly -- and include recognition of their sexuality, freedom, and autonomy. Keep in mind that the rhetoric of "protection" is never sincere. In the early 1970s radical feminist Ti-Grace Atkinson said, "Whenever I hear men talking about protecting women and children I know they are talking about control." More and more, when we hear rhetoric about "protecting children," it is really about controlling homosexuals.

Michael Bronski is the author of The Pleasure Principle: Sex, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom (St. Martin's Press). He can be reached at mabronski@aol.com.

---

Respond to this article.

---