Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)

D&D is no stranger to moral panics, and there's a new boogeyman taking the place of demons in the 80s: Momo, a fake picture of a fake sculpture about a fake trend.

D&D is no stranger to moral panics, and there's a new boogeyman taking the place of demons in the 80s: Momo, a fake picture of a fake sculpture about a fake trend.


Moral panics can arise from a popular trend that is unique to children and is foreign to some adults. Sociologist Stanley Cohen outlined the social theory of moral panic in his 1972 book titled Folk Devils and Moral Panics. It proceeds through five stages, beginning with a perceived threat to social norms; news media coverage; widespread public concern; authorities responding; and actions that result. This is precisely what happened with Dungeons & Dragons.
[h=3]Dungeons and...D'oh![/h]Joseph P. Laycock lays out what happened in the 80s with D&D in Dangerous Games: What the Moral Panic over Role-Playing Games Says about Play, Religion, and Imagined Worlds:

Anyone who was aware of fantasy role-playing games in the 1980s and 1990s was equally aware of claims that these games were socially, medically, and spiritually dangerous. A coalition of moral entrepreneurs that included evangelical ministers, psychologists, and law enforcement agents claimed that players ran a serious risk of mental illness as they gradually lost their ability to discern fantasy from reality. It was also claimed that role-playing games led players to commit violent crimes, including suicide and homicide, and to the practice of witchcraft and Satanism. In North America, the United Kingdom, and Australia, activists mobilized against these games. Several school districts and colleges banned gaming clubs and removed gaming books from their libraries. In the United States, activists petitioned federal agencies to require caution labels on gaming materials, warning that playing them could lead to insanity and death. Police held seminars on “occult crime” in which self-appointed experts discussed the connection between role-playing games and an alleged network of criminal Satanists. Dozens of accused criminals attempted the “D& D defense,” claiming that they were not responsible for their actions but were actually the victims of a mind-warping game.

There were several factors that led to D&D's moral panic, ranging from the disappearance of Dallas Egbert III while supposedly playing a LARP in the steam tunnels beneath Michigan State University )and the subsequent dramatic retelling in Mazes & Monsters) to a game called to task for straddling the line between adults and children. We discussed previously how D&D's target audience was slowly defined not by its creators (who were more interested in tabletop wargamers) but by market forces, with the Eric J. Holmes Basic set creating a curious dichotomy of younger players who eventually would graduate from Basic to Advanced...and their parents weren't happy with what they saw. Art & Arcana explains:

In no time flat, new allegations emerged, often driven by a casual perusal of the imagery: D&D was a clandestine recruitment vehicle for Satan worship and witch covens. TSR did little to calm these concerns when it unveiled another AD&D hardcover core book, the 1980 Deities & Demigods cyclopedia—a revision of the 1976 release Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes, but this time with all new artwork instead of the mostly public domain medieval header pieces and ornamental designs that had been used in the work previously. It contained a mix of sections nominally based on historical beliefs as well as pantheons of gods and godlings drawn from fantasy fiction.

Art & Arcana succinctly demonstrates what a "casual perusal" might look to a parent flipping through the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual (above). All this added up to a moral panic in which the media breathlessly reported the threat of children being corrupted by the game, police offered warnings, and worried parents blocked access. If this sounds familiar, it's because it's happening again with a modern twist.
[h=3]You Again?[/h]We've already discussed Momo, a photo of a disturbing-looking sculpture that encourages children to commit suicide. She's back again, this time attracting hundreds of thousands of views on Facebook, dominating the news, and even showing up in supposed Peppa Pig videos on YouTube aimed at children. It wasn't real then, and the Guardian explains it's not real now:

Child safety campaigners say the story has spread due to legitimate concerns about online child safety, the sharing of unverified material on local Facebook groups, and official comments from British police forces and schools which are based on little hard evidence. While some concerned members of the public have rushed to share posts warning of the suicide risk, there are fears that they have exacerbated the situation by scaring children and spreading the images and the association with self-harm.

What changed to make Momo popular again?

Although the Momo challenge has been circulating on social media and among schoolchildren in various forms since last year, the recent coverage appears to have started with a single warning posted by a mother on a Facebook group for residents of Westhoughton, a small Lancashire town on the edge of Bolton. This post, based on an anecdote she had heard from her son at school, went viral before being picked up by her local newspaper and then covered by outlets from around the world.

This in turn propagated in the tabloids, led to celebrities chiming in (which created more headlines), and police and schools issuing formal warnings (which led to yet more headlines). YouTube says the claims are false:

After much review, we’ve seen no recent evidence of videos promoting the Momo Challenge on YouTube. Videos encouraging harmful and dangerous challenges are clearly against our policies, the Momo challenge included. Despite press reports of this challenge surfacing, we haven’t had any recent links flagged or shared with us from YouTube that violate our Community Guidelines.​

Snopes agrees. And yet Momo persists despite evidence to the contrary. It's entirely possible children are now being exposed to Momo not due to a pernicious Internet monster, but because the media has plastered her face everywhere. Like parents flipping through the Monster Manual or Deities & Demigods, all it takes is one picture of Momo next to a kid's video to propagate parental fears:

It’s important to note that we do allow creators to discuss, report, or educate people on the Momo challenge/character on YouTube. We’ve seen screenshots of videos and/or thumbnails with this character in them. To clarify, it is not against our policies to include the image of the Momo character on YouTube; that being said, this image is not allowed on the YouTube Kids app and we’re putting safeguards in place to exclude it from content on YouTube Kids.​

The rise of streaming video has its benefits, as D&D can attest. That's not to say that the threat of self-harm or of children being upset by pernicious Internet videos isn't a concern. But like anything else, parents should exercise judicious restraint over what their kids do by educating themselves before blocking YouTube...or throwing out their D&D books.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca


log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
You aren't. I made a reference to hearing similar arguments to yours originating from people I consider to be bigots, but I never said you were a bigot. You did explicitly state that you feel your beliefs to be superior to others', which smacks of bigotry, but for the record I've never called you a bigot. You seem to be really enjoying this pretend martyrdom of yours, though, so I'll leave you to it.

Please. I'm all for splitting hairs over fine distinctions in wording, but if you are saying my belief "smacks of bigotry" and if you are saying my arguments are the arguments you hear coming from "bigots" don't pretend that the implications are any different than saying that I'm a bigot. It was more than clear immediately where your thinking was going. Passive aggressive is still aggressive. Innuendo is not less an ad hominem than out right saying it.

As for your parting shot, I can only note that again you don't debate: you only evade, insinuate and insult.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Oh boy, where to begin...

At this point, things would get technical, but I see no pressing need to go there.

On topic, I don't think Patricia Pulling is quite as innocent as you make her out to be here - worthy as thinking the best of her might be. I did extensive research on this for a college paper, and she's definitely involved in the falsification of the evidence herself. I don't think she was disingenuous, but I don't think she was simply bereaved either.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
On topic, I don't think Patricia Pulling is quite as innocent as you make her out to be here - worthy as thinking the best of her might be. I did extensive research on this for a college paper, and she's definitely involved in the falsification of the evidence herself. I don't think she was disingenuous, but I don't think she was simply bereaved either.

That's a fair point, and something that I wasn't aware of. I'm sure I could do some mental gymnastics and argue that, for instance, she only felt the pressure to falsify evidence in the first place due to the over-exaggerated influence provided to her and her group as well as the spotlight they suddenly found themselves thrust in by those who sought to manipulate her and exploit her bereavement, but sometimes bad actors are bad actors, regardless of the past trauma that might explain, though not excuse, their behavior.
 

Celebrim

Legend
...but sometimes bad actors are bad actors, regardless of the past trauma that might explain, though not excuse, their behavior.

I think in this case its fairer to say that a small collection of bad actors lead astray the group, than it is that the group pressured her to view the situation this way. The fault lies with the group only on its willingness to be so easily led and be credible of extraordinary claims.

I don't know if I can go much further down this line, since I'd start getting really religious here and not merely mentioning it in passing. There is a point of her behavior that I would have expected other religious people to recognize as a warning sign, which sadly when it is not recognized as a warning sign invariably leads to 'Occult Scares' if not checked quickly by someone in authority.

That's about as close as I can hit the point here, but as a (different) general point more widely applicable to the board, it's very easy for groups to be led astray by in-group members, particularly when those groups have extensive acts of outward piety that act as barriers to entry and likewise act to provide assurance of sincerity of belief to other members of the in-group. Televangelists rely on this sort of thing - Jimmy Swaggart and Tammy Fae Baker for example were extremely good at summoning spontaneous tears, often taken as an essential outward sign of piety by Charismatic movements. As an even uglier example, Harvey Weinstein hid years of rape and assorted degrees of lesser sexual assault and harassment of scores of women behind an outward front of mouthing feminist pieties, to the extent that several noted feminists were protecting him and giving him awards even with full knowledge of his reputation because of his value as the public face of the movement. And this is itself hardly a new thing, but a modern twist on a very well known 'rakish' behavior that is frequently at the center Jane Austin novels - the man most skilled at flattering women and acting gracious toward them is often the one that least has their best interests at heart. Or consider the recent case of Zak S for that matter.

And, I better just stop here, because there is only so much I think the board is capable of talking about without blowing up. Point is, the individual has to be careful not to get swept up in the mob, and the group has to be careful not to let the individual turn the group toward mob behavior.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

M.L. Martin

Adventurer
I don't know if I can go much further down this line, since I'd start getting really religious here and not merely mentioning it in passing. There is a point of her behavior that I would have expected other religious people to recognize as a warning sign, which sadly when it is not recognized as a warning sign and invariably leads to 'Occult Scares' if not checked quickly by someone in authority.

You'd know much better than I would, but I always had the impression Pulling was comparatively secular, as opposed to the rest of those involved in the scare. Am I mistaken?
 

Celebrim

Legend
You'd know much better than I would, but I always had the impression Pulling was comparatively secular, as opposed to the rest of those involved in the scare. Am I mistaken?

Without scrounging around for a set of papers I last read 25 years ago now, I couldn't answer. I certainly didn't know her personally. I do know that she misreported newspaper articles, gave contradictory accounts of events, engaged in deceptive editing, misreported her credentials and so forth. Not all of it was necessarily intentional deception and some of it could have been legitimate mistakes, but as a pattern of behavior it gets increasingly hard to disregard it. I could speculate on her headspace but I don't think it really matters.
 

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
I saw an article in the local newspaper about "Momo Challenge coming back on social media; nobody knows why". The kids / teens I asked about it could not explain what the Momo Challenge is. They did think the picture was creepy and would encourage them to turn the page, not read whatever was written with it.

It seems that this is a meta-rumor: a rumor about rumors that are supposed to be circulating out there.
 


I have a copy of The Devil's Web: Who Is Stalking Your Children For Satan?, by Patricia Pulling. I'd say that title alone is enough of an indicator of her beliefs. You can get it pretty cheaply online, and it's a fascinating, sometimes funny and sometimes scary, window into the Satanic Panic.


But one can't talk about the Satanic Panic and crusade against D&D without mentioning Dr. Thomas Radecki. He used "science" to back his claims that D&D was harmful, testifying in court to such. He would later have his medical license revoked multiple times, and end up currently serving jail time for prescribing opioids in exchange for sex.

You'd know much better than I would, but I always had the impression Pulling was comparatively secular, as opposed to the rest of those involved in the scare. Am I mistaken?
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top