Oh the memories…

It's the end of yet another semester at UB and as such this course is coming to an end.  I have to say that I have never experienced such a level of freedom in taking a course before.  I think that you got out of this class what you put into it since Dr. Halavais allowed us to be so independent.  There was no one looking over our shoulder to make sure we were viewing all of the lecture or doing the reading, so if you chose not to I guess that's your loss. 

I felt that I was exposed to a whole new world that I knew existed but never understood.  I am not sure if I still have a complete handle on the world of pornography but I definitely have a working knowledge now.  I think that the most you can hope after taking a class is that you have widened your perspective on life and gained knowledge that you can use in the rest of your life.  The most valuable thing I have gained as a result of Cyberporn and Society is that I am more open-minded now and I have realized to a greater extent the need to have vaid and reliable resources on a subject before forming my opinions.

I am interested in seeing how this course and others like it evolve as the Internet and pornography change, and how government regulations change as a result.  Even though this course is ending I feel that my interest in the material will not be ending and I will continue to look for information regarding the innovation of pornography and its effect on technology.  On a different note I will also be continuing to blog, but will probably take on a range of topics now instead of just one. 

Mind your own business…

Are we all gossips at heart?  Why as people are we so concerned with other people's lives?

I am not sure if this is a new phenomenon or not, but I think it has become increasingly more prevalent for people to want to know everything about everyone.  If you consider that when Franklin Delanor Roosevelt was in enough the American public did not know that he was in a wheel chair because the press did not feel it was relevant to his administration it does make one think that this is a new trend.  Now we as Americans appear to have a desire to know everything about our public officials, television stars, movie actors, musicians, neighbors, friends, family, and strangers.  Where does it all end?

There are laws regarding privacy, but why should we need the government to tell us to mind our own business.  There are many exhibitionists out there who may be willing to sign their lives away for money, but just because you decide to be in the public eye I don't believe that means everyone has a right to know who you are dating, what kind of underwear you wear, what you buy at the grocery store or any tidbit of information you have not directly chosen to share with others. 

I think that the government has gone as far as it can in regards to enacted legislation regarding privacy, and so we as a society need to take a look at what drives our need to know.  Can people not find enough interest in their own lives?  If your own life is so boring and monotonous that you need to live vicariously through others I think instead of buying another tabloid, reading another unauthorized biography or viewing another illegally sold sex tape you need to make some changes in your own life.

You can’t watch TV until you go on the Internet…

When I started reading Thornburgh and Lin's chapter I was very interested in the idea of the Internet as an educational tool and a way to help teach our youth.  For me personally I primarily use the Internet to email, use UBLearns and school websites, visit corporate websites, and shop, which may make me sound shallow.  However, I do like to be informed but I still have not made the transition to using the Internet to learn what is going on around me.  My first instinct is always to go to print media whether it is books or newspapers and then I next go to radio and television.  I guess I am in a rut but I don't yet feel fully comfortable with trusting the Internet as a news source or a research source.  This is due to the problem of credibility that plagues the Internet.

It can be very difficult if not impossible to distinguish a credible well researched and documented source from one that is based purely on opinion and heresy or maybe pure fiction.  There are certain cues that can be used like .org and .edu being more trustworthy than .com, but this can only take you so far.  Thornburgh and Lin said "the use of the Internet to enhance and transform education for the nation's youth," but without knowing how to judge the validity and respectability of a source the Internet can not "enhance" the education of children. 

Giving somebody a useful and potentially powerful tool is not enough in order to achieve success.  Without proper knowledge of how to use it the tool is essentially useless and without power.  Educating children of how to use the Internet will help them to find the most effective and well-respected sites on the Internet.  Also as an added benefit children will be able to learn how to avoid sites that could potentially be dangerous to them and be educated on those pedophiles who are out there waiting to take advantage of them. 

I agree that other techniques need to be used to help protect our youth, but I don't think relying on technology is the answer.  The Internet is not the only arena in which children are at risk so children need to be ready and capable of recognizing a threat.  To do this parents and guardians need to take an active role and the public school system should also pay an active role.  I know that schools are concerned with angering some parents by informing their children on more serious topics, but I think teaching children street smarts and common sense needs to become a priority. 

Don’t be so childish…

While reading Jenkins' chapter on child pornography I was extremely interested about what age a person is considered to be an adult.  Is it after puberty? Is it 18? Does it depend on the individual?  There are those "ify" situations such as when a 17 year old female dates a twently year old male, which to me is a great deal different from a 35 year old male pursuing an 11 year female.  But where is the line crossed and since it is unreasonable to take each situation individually there must be some concrete guidelines set up.  Looking only at pornography and not at personal relationships it seems that the only option is to pick one specific age that people need to be in order to legally star and view pornography.  According to the government a person can be considered an adult at 18, so that seems to be the obvious answer to the age question. 

Child pornography and in general anything sexual involving children or minors is most likely the largest taboo in American society and the majority of other societies.  It is seen as so incredibly repulsive to many and the most repugnant thing a person can do.  However, for something so repugnant many people take part in Internet child pornography.  So may take part unknowingly such as viewing Traci Lords films, but it is safe to assume that the majority of these viewers are looking for child pornography.

In Jenkins' chapter he says "at some point, probably every individual on the planet has such an interest and often indulfes in the exploration that accompanies it," and by interest he is referring to a sexual interest with prepubescent children.  This sentence at first shocked, but then when I read on I understood that he meant that most people are intereste din prepubescent children when they themselves were prepubescent.  I have heard the reasoning before that pedophiles are emotionally stunted thus causing them to be incapable of a sexual relationship with their peers and instead being attracted to small children.  I can somewhat understand this reasoning, but I am just reluctant to let this "reason" be an excuse for such obscene behavior. 

Since child pornography is such a taboo it is not a topic most feel awkward and uncomfortable discussing it in public.  However, ignoring this topic will not make it go away and if people feel so strongly about this topic they need to not let their discomfort get in the way of educating children on how to avoid those who would take advantage of them. 

There is a world outside of UB

So I decided to look around and read some posts outside of our class to see what other people are thinking about porn in today's world.  I was thinking that I would find more conservative views than I did, which I guess I should have known that most bloggers would lean toward the left.  One that I found that interested me the most concerned the age for which the government should enforce pornography laws.  I think that the author had a good point that children are growing up faster, and it might not make sense to leave the minimum age at eighteen.  However, I am not sure that I agree that it is a positive thing that children are growing up faster in today's world and by lowering minimum ages for such things as pornography it might further perpertuate this trend.  Why do children need to grow up so fast?  Is it really beneficial to them?  If people are leaving longer then shouldn't children really being maturing slower?  I guess that in some ways children aren't growing up as fast since people have children older, marry later, stay in school longer, live at home longer, etc. but certain emotions may appear earlier than before.  These emotions being cynicism, pessimism, etc. and the general idea being that children are exposed to the darker and gloomier elements of life earlier.  I am not saying that porn leads to cynicism or pessism, but that by allowing children to reach milestones even earlier it can only force them to grow up faster when they may not be ready. 

Sometimes you need some SLAPS

How come nothing is cut and dry? Things would be so much easier if my fantasy world was allowed and there weren't such large grey areas.  This morning in my journalism class my professor discussed Miller v. California, and I began thinking about the trial from a new perspective.  I don't understand why we are put are faith in the Supreme Court to decide what has "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." 

If the Miller test is concerned with the average American then why do we let one demographic of society decide what us "average" Americans feel.  I understand that in all realms of political life it is mostly white, upper-class heterosexual Christian men, but it still does not make sense to me.  How can people that come from pretty much the same walks of life decide that they know what I find artistic?  I am sure they wouldn't know and I probably wouldn't know their tastes because it is so subjective. 

My point is that the water is still so murky in regards to laws affecting pornography, and I don't think the waters will clear up any faster by assuming one knows what the average American feels.

Are Senators the new messiah?

I was reading the debate regarding the CDA, and I have to admit I really had a hard time putting aside my biases toward organized forms of religion. I just can’t relate to people who believe that Senators who are supposed to represent an entire state’s popiulation are here to act in one particular group’s stead. I cannot and would not wish for any child to be exposed to pornography, but I don’t believe that in Chapter Nine any real solutions were offered.

My other issue is that I can’t tell whether or not I see the merit in a debate unless I am given all the evidence, which in this case would include the pornographic visuals. However, if they “woiuld not show these pictures to the Senate,” how can I judge whether or not I think that these are truly obscene pictures or not?

I do agree with Professor Fred Cate though that “we must be cautious in excluding communications media from the full protection of the first amendment. To do with today’s electronic information technologies would create an exception that would make the rule of freedom of expression meaningless.”

I am not saying that I have come up with any solutions on how to keep children away from obscene material that is not suitable for them, but I don’t think eliminating academic papers, non-violent pornography, or profanity from the Internet is acceptable. The only solutions I have to offer is stricter parental controls on the Internet. I do not think that everything in this world needs to be suitable for children and I believe that there are some areas such as the Internet that children should only view wiht parental guidance. Shouldn’t the questions be why are these children allowed to just surf all day on the computer without any parental control?

That’s obscene… or is it?

Obscenity in today’s society is a word that means a wide variety of things to many different people. Obscene material can include that which can elicits lust, and also may include language considered taboo. Laws concerning obscenity vary by state, and cover everything from the sale of pornography to minors to using profane language in a public setting.   Since the laws vary from state to state it adds to the confusion already present regarding obscenity because it is a hard term to get one’s hands around and fully understand.  “The I know it when I see it argument,” just doesn’t cut it and if laws are to be instituted then lawmakers need to form a more concrete definition of the term.   

Most state obscenity laws consider the sale and distribution of pornography to minors, the showing of pornographic material in public, and child pornography as illegal and obscene.  Other things deemed obscene under state laws are a product of the demographics of each individual state. Obscenity can be extremely objective and it would be difficult to find two people who would have the same exact definition of obscene material. The main challenge lies in finding a middle ground in the vast amount of opinions present in society.  However finding the middle ground does not necessarily signify the end of the problem.   

Advocates of obscenity laws do so because they think that reading sexually explicit materials or watching sexually explicit actions will bring harm to them. Others support these laws because they are personally offended by sexually explicit materials on a moral, religious or some other level. However, these are not legitimate reasons to force one’s opinion on the rest of society.   The supporters of obscenity laws seem to be in favor of censorship—and I believe that any censorship is clearly and unequivocally dangerous to society because it violates a person’s constitutional guarantee of free speech and freedom of expression.

Maybe lawmakers have gotten closer to defining obscenity but objective terms like this are defined by context, time, and the “audience.”  However, it is impossible to form a definition for every situation. 

No means yes… You know you want it

Girls are taught from a young age that men don't want to marry the girls who act too loose in public or act in a sexually aggressive manner.  This is not a secret to men either so they know that even though their partners may want to have sex with them they will try to hold back as not to appear whorelike.  It sounds like a game and in some ways it is a cat and mouse game in which men are the chasers and women the object that they are seeking.  Men then start to believe that women need to be coerced to have sex and that women don't know how to manage their own sexual desires. 

This myth is perpetuated in the plethora of pornographic images that are available to men in which men convince women to have sex with them.  Women are portrayed as repressed innocents who need men to come along and awaken their sexual desires by aggressively persuading them to have sex.  This does not necessarily mean that all men will become violent rapists who threaten to murder women if they will not have sex with them, but it refers to men who use others means to force women to have sex with them.  The man's tactics can include remarks such as "if you loved me you would do it," "don't you want to be with me," "if you don't want to have sex with me I can find someone else," and other such statements that lay the proverbial guilt trip on women.  This may not fit the traditional definition of rape, but rape occurs according to Morgan anytime a woman is not the initiator of sexual activity.

Pornography plays a detrimental role in rape because it perpetuates the belief to men that women don't know what they want and are not intelligent enough to know whether or not they wish to partake in sexual activity with them.  Pornography may not have an effect on those men who violently rape women especially those who use knives and guns, but it can and does have a tremendous impact on other men.  These other men are the ones who use more subtle methods like verbal persuasion instead of an obvious physical threat. 

Censorship may not be the answer but society needs to take a much greater look at the impact of pornography on male attitudes toward women regarding sexual activity.