Seaners main point on this blog is stressing the fact that the legal and penal system seems to unfairly show bias towards minors. His argument is that minors, although they maybe young in years, can be very experienced and some of them are not innocent, therefore should not be given the benefit of the doubt just based on age as sole criteria.

I understand his point, however this is the very premise that our juvenile justice system was born on. The debate on whether or not the juvenille justice system should be abolished or not is still one of interest and pointed validity. Some people agree with the above author, especially when it comes to things such as statutory rape and underage youths participating in certain activities that they know are wrong however they also are aware that they are not going to "do time" under our present system. 

To punish or rehabilitate youthful offenders will still be a everlasting cycle. It is my thought that as we see more of an increase in horrible crimes and schemes committed by our youth, that we will change to a more punitive system for offending youths. If you have paid attention to the recent news headlines, there have been a rash of youths committing very horrible crimes, especially in commemoration of Colombine. I feel that these kids should be punished as adults, but under our current system of Juvenile justice (the specifics of which vary from state to state), they will continue to be able to use age as a means of getting the benefit of the doubt.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

In reference to the statement I made in my last Blog about "liberals," I was not referring to any political entity. I was simply alluding to the idea that people who actually go out on that limb of defending child pornography in any way must have a line of thinking that is less constrictive than most people in society. I did not mean that political conservatives are against kiddie porn, while political liberals are all for it. I was speaking in terms of social constructs. If you picked up the contextual theme of my writing, i was speaking of people who simply are less constrained in social thoughts and ideas, not political views. Comparing the two different meanings of the word "liberal" is like comparing apples to oranges.

You are entirely incorrect when you wrote that I said that politically liberal people support child porn. I did not say that. I was not even saying anything about politics. And, for the record, I am politically neutral- meaning that there is no political party that I would side with. I think you were alluding to the fact that I must be a political conservative bashing liberals on my blog. I actually have NO opinion on politics at all, due to religious beliefs.

 However,I do not want to digress too much into that. The word "liberal" is not only used to describe a political stance, nor does its use automatically have political implications. I was just  using the term "liberal" as a descriptive, no political meaning intended.

I agree with the author of the above the above linked blog. The blog entry expresses the author's support of a zero tolerance law against child pornography. The blog also explores the irony of how society as a whole feels that child pornography is deplorable, however most of our society's popular entertainment forms are based around the sexualization of children and young teens.

I agree with the author's thoughts on child pornography being harmful and that its alleged benefits are far outweighed by the negative mushroom cloud of after effects. I think the very liberal people who support child pornography place a higher value on civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and expression, over the welfare of Innocents– the children.

Under what possible circumstance is it acceptable for any activity in which something that brings an adult pleasure but harms a child alright to participate in? Usually, the crimes that we consider most heinous are the ones in which defenseless children are victims. I think the difference with pornography as opposed to other crimes goes back to what was said in the early lectures, that poprnography is easily marginalized by the four P's. In the case, Privacy. Since people who enjoy child pornography tend to view it in private, then they may feel that it is not as harmful as other crimes against children.

The other topic the referenced blog speaks about is the sexualization of children in popular forms of media. The author feels that these should be banned. Her example is Britney Spears and the whole school girl bit Spears first did. I agree with this. but I think we could expand and apply this to the sexualization of children's toys, clothing and accessories, which now seem to promote the idealology to children that dressing in a sexual manner at a young age is attractive and acceptable behavior for young women. Which brings me to Bratz dolls, which I have recently banned my six and four year old daughters from purchasing. The dolls look like prostitutes, they have heavy make up, short skirts with stilleto boots, along with several sexually suggestive outfits. I just don't think it is necessary. I started noticing that my daughters were trying to emmulate these dolls, hiking up their skirts, wanting to wear heels, etc… I think as a society, we should not condone this type of negative imagery that poisons young minds to think that inapporpriate behavior is indeed appropriate, and what's more, attractive.  

Reading the Prince's most recent blog has left me kind of confused. His main thesis is that adding the element of interactivity to pornographic and/or erotica activities without a doubt enhance the attractiveness of pornographic material. However, the arguments that he uses to support his main thesis seem to support the thesis of why porno films are better than still pictures. I would like to give a few of my arguments that support the idea of interactivity within pornography.  

In this week's lectures, Dr. Halavais spoke of some things I had never heard of before, like teledildonics. Now that is what I call interactivity. I feel that interaction with porn has to be in another form other than just viewing the pornography. Some additional action would need to be taken in order to truly be considered interactive. I think it must also include two-way communication between two people. It seems to me that Prince is implying that viewing a still picture is not interactive, but viewing a motion picture is interactive. I do not see the difference. I would say that neither of those is interactive, because you are simply viewing. I do not think interactivity is measured by how aroused you are either, which seems to be another inference made by Prince.

From what I gathered from the lectures, interaction would be watching a pornographic image, still or motion with another person. Or it would be having a conversation about such an image. Or it could be acting out or fantasizing with some one by means of that image. I think interaction has more to do with “action” than just viewing material and determining which is more arousing.

I feel that porn does not "cure" someone with a highly sexualized behavior pattern, nor does it even provide long term satisfaction to an over sexed sexual appetite. In psychology, we learn that certain habits and behaviors that human beings have are in fact, cultivated by consistent reinforcement of ideas and imagery received by our brains from our sensory receptors. Therefore it is my position that encouraging someone with an abnormal sexual craving to continue to view pornography would be counter productive, and actually aggravate the situation. My position is parallel to Donnerstein's. There has to be a positive relationship between viewing pornographic images and aggression levels in men.

The example given in the reading of the young woman who was raped is fitting. The conclusion the reader is to draw from this case is that because these men had been already sexually stimulated by exotic dancers, which represent the safe way to release sexual drives, they would not have raped that girl. However, this is not what happened. The girl was raped. I ask myself, if we could change the setting of this situation to, for example, a mall or a bank. If those two men had just walked out of a mall and saw this young lady, do you think they would have raped her? Probably not. By being at a strip club, sexual aggression was already triggered in their minds which led them to following through on the act, as final fulfillment of the complete fantasy package, coupled with raw, primal human urges and drives.

This hypothetical situation thus supports the idea that pornographic images do not help, they hinder. Not only that, they may aggravate a bad situation into something worse, maybe even lethal.     

When thinking about pornography in accordance with these four categories, it kind of gives pornography a softer, kinder appeal. In other words, maybe it is not so bad. I have decided to devote this entry to defending porn and using these four categories to support my position.

In regards to surveillance, pornography can be used as a way to see sexual things from a different point of view. It can even be used in relationships to determine if you are doing things right, or if you look like everyone else. Lastly, it can be used for entertainment. Why can't pornography be used just for fun? The ideal of porn as just entertainment is believable because if I pulled up a pornographic image now on my computer, I feel that it would have little negative social effects. It could be just for fun.

I do understand the point that Dr. Cooper is trying to make. He is saying that both activities, using cocaine and using pornography, could become addictive and could cause various social problems from the use thereof. However, While the two social issues may share some common similarities, I feel that they are quite different.

I have not studied the crack explosion in depth directly, but from an indirect perspective, I saw that the crack explosion has proven to have a detrimental effect on the individual, which reverberates to the family unit, neighborhood, and then city life, with social implications reaching into economic status, “crack babies” and “crack kids”, crime and poverty. The crack explosion for the most part, is the most extreme example. Yes it true that engaging in pornography could break up a family, but in most cases, it is not as extreme as when a family unit dissolves due to crack use. There is no such thing as a “porn baby”, where if a parent is addicted to porn then the unborn fetuses of that parent will grow up to be hopelessly unsocial and addicted to porn also. It is true that pornography can lead to another avenue of abusing children and placing them in harm’s way through child pornography. But there is not a proven causal relationship between porn and pedophilia. Whereas with crack, there is a causal relationship between crack usage and harm to children (the unborn fetus, for example).

I could go on with examples. However, my main focus is not to completely discredit Dr. Cooper’s comparison. I think that porn is addictive and it can be detrimental to people and families. But I feel that the comparison is exaggerated to an extent. I think that pornography could be considered a vice, but so could many other things, such as eating a diet with too many carbs, lack of exercise, or watching too much television. But as with porn, these things are not nearly as harmful to be on the same scale as crack cocaine.

 The part about what happened to these women afterwards really stayed with me. The one woman, upon returning home still needed money to support her sick family. She felt that her only resort was to go back and prostitute from where she just escaped. It is reminiscent of the late 1800′s in the United States, when Africans were freed from slavery, only to stay and “slave” on planatations, as they had no other means of supporting themselves. And then there was Katia. Looking at her upon her return home you could really see damage done to her, to her body, to her psyche… heartwrenching.

 This story really touched me, so much so as that I am at a loss for words(for once). What I am thinking as I am sitting here is that, I know people break the law sometimes out of necessity, if you will. In other words, people may steal food or else they will starve. For example, the people in New Orleans who were stealing water from closed stores. This is still breaking the law, but it is understandable. I do not understand why or how these women degraders, traders,- lets just call them ”women killers”, as they destroy these women physically, mentally and emotionally,- are moved by monatery profit so much so as to do make this their profession.

I know that “sex sells” and that the “almighty dollar” rules the world, but this is so extreme to me. It just seems like these traders are not even human. I named this entry modern day slaves, but that title itself seems quasi-peridoxical. You would think that as we as society continue to “modernize” in every way, that our thinking and thought patterns would be far more progressive than this. We should have learned from our history of enslaving in the past that this is just not right. If we truly are living in “modern times”, the word “slave” should be obsolete. As of right now, history just continues to repeat itself, maybe its just a new modern twist on top of the same old ancient ideology.

In short, I know I was behind and I will not be behind next time. I do feel that I write well thought out, well written blogs. I am aiming for an A this next marking period.

Viewing Frontline helped me to see that the porn industry can be compared and contrasted with the cigarette industry. Pornography now finds itself categorized with other legal “vices”, that some higher power has deemed, “not good for us.” Take for example cigarettes. Cigarettes are considered to be unhealthy for us. However, there is a consumer demand for cigarettes, even after their harmful effects have been publicized. This is partly because of the fact that cigarettes contain nicotine which is highly addictive. Pornography is also theoried to be highly addictive and progressive, meaning that once you start viewing pornography your “tolerance” for sexual material will continue to grow and build. There is also a pull for legislation to ban cigarettes, because they are harmful to people’s health. Likewise, the porn industry has been under attack by legislators since its growing popularity.

One major likeness between the cigarette and porn industries is that they are both booming industries that play a crucial role in America’s economy. The pornography business is linked to many other industries such as television, internet, movies and magazines, to name a few. These industries are linked and owned by even larger industries, creating a trickle down effect. For example Vivid Video is owned by Direct TV which is owned by GE. Why is this such a big deal? 4 million homes a month watch vivid video. This makes their monthly intake huge, which effects GE which has a major effect on the economy. If pornography was to be taken off of the internet, television, movies and magazines, the economy would drastically slip and fall apart.

This would also be true of cigarettes. If cigarettes were banned, this would effect the major corporations and trickle down to the state and local governments that profit from the sale, all the way down to the street merchant who sells cigarettes.

Cigarettes and Pornography are both socially unacceptable “habits”, however it is my opinion that they will never be taken off the market because they play sucha major role in our economy.