Restriction: Good vs. Bad
In Lecture 28, the idea of the FCC restricting certain materials to "Safe Harbor Hours" is one that seems as though it would be beneficial and useful. It is obvious that porn should not be shown on T.V. during the daytime hours but have the restictions that the FCC has placed on T.V. shows too tough? Are they censoring something that is worth the viewers' time and mental well-being for a moment while a message is being delivered in the meantime? The changing standards that the FCC provide for T.V. has had both a negative and positive impact on society as a whole.
It is no wonder why the FCC jumped on Janet Jackson and the incident that she pulled at the Superbowl in 2004. Her "wardrobe malfunction" lead to an array of news reports of the obscenity line that she had crossed and the massive amounts of displeased viewers who were watching the half-time show with thier kids. The laws and regulations that the FCC create for T.V. are meant to protect younger viewers from being exposed to the inapporiate materials. For this, the limits are fair and provide parents with the ease of knowing that the chances that their children are watching porn during the day are slim to none. However, what happens when those regulations go too far and take away from shows and movies whose message to viewers is the result of violent/obscene viewing?
Although one can see the positive aspects that the FCC has created for our society, the negative results often go unseen and are not agrued. It was mentioned in Lecture 28, that the FCC put a regulation on movies such as "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan". These are both historical movies and the fact that they are both motified for T.V. viewing because some of the scenes are gruesome shows that the historical message the director sought to get across is not going to be given to the viewers. These movies are both good examples of how movies can portray history well and that not everything in life is based on floweres and rainbows.
Although I think that the FCC was right when they created the parental guide viewing system, some of the movies/shows that they rated suffered greatly when their main points were removed or cut-out for T.V. viewing. Either show the entire movie or don't. It's not fair to the viewer who is trying to learn something when watching a historical movie based on a tragedy if they are only able to see part of it and not completely get the full effect that the director wanted. These ratings provide society with both positive and negative aspects and should be re-evaluated with depending on the genre of the movie that is being altered.
Sex-Ed Funds Turned Down?
After reading and listening to the Congressional Hearing concerning the pornographic content on the internet, it is not hard to applaud the people who have worked so hard and diligently on this issue. These senators and congressional heads are working to try to sovle a problem that has been growing ever since pornography was published on the internet. However, does it make sense that these people are working so hard on an issue that will probably never be completely solved in the way that they are trying to solve it? Although their great efforts show the compassion that Congress has for society's youth, the real solution to the problem of the internet, is sex education and how many schools across the U.S. refuse to teach their children "the fundamentals of life".
In the Congressional hearing clip, we saw different people take the stand defending their position on the problem with pornography on the internet. One of those people, James Weaver talked about how children should be "shielded" from content on the internet that they were not meant to see and how parents need to take this issue into their own hands. He also addressed the topic of how children and young adults may be using the internet porn as a way for them to teach themselves about sex, something that should have been taught to them in the educational system. This innocent mistake of a child who is curious about their body and the constant, immature, school-age talk of sex, is the real reason as to why kids will go on the internet and look up porn in the first place.
It seems like a simple answer for a way to cut down on the amount of porn viewing that society's youth does in present day, teach them about sex through sex-ed in the school system. However, the real issue here is how schools would get the money for this special class and what they would do to present it. Surprisingly, an article published on Stateline.org proves that some states could care less about having sex-ed in their systems due to the financial burden that it might create (http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=137&languageId=1&contentId=70529).
Now if a state were trying to get rid of the problem of too many kids seeing porn on the internet, and they knew that the could prevent most of it through the school system, then why would a state reject a federal grant that would help with this issue? This article summarizes the rejection that Maine, one of three states, made to a grant that would give them money to have sex-ed in the school system. It also says that Maine refused " to allow Heritage of Maine, a nonprofit, abstinence-education group, to put on its programs in Maine public school". This is absolutely absurd, because if these states (California and Pennsylvania included) just accept the money and gave student the proper education that they deserve, then the whole problem of kids going on the internet out of curiousity would be solved and done with.
This issue of schools not providing sexual education to their students is something that occurs in NYS as well. The names of the schools will not be mentioned, however when one looks at the educational plan of some of the high ranked high and middle schools, they find that it is made mandatory for students to take atleast three years of health education before they graduate (sex-ed would be included in these classes as well). Whereas when the systems of some towns in Western NY who are more depressed than others are compared to towns that are more wealthy, it is apparent the the less wealth towns do not provide sex-ed classes for their students when they really should be.
The answer to the problem with youth's looking up pornography on the internet is one that can be solved through our educational systems. By not giving students the information that they need and should be aware of, states are just adding more on to an issue that can easily be resolved with just a minor amount of money spent on the state's behalf.
My Three Favorite Blogs
I forgot to put this post into one of my other posts for this week so I'm just going to do it seperately. I usually like to read other people's perspective on this class and what their opinions are about certain topics. Of course I, like most people, look for something that is similar to my interests when reading these blogs, however I am usually pretty open minded when it comes to trying to understand other views that people usually have.
The first blog that I like to read a lot is that of EatBreathThink, because I tend to agree with a lot of their opinions and reasoning when it comes to certain topics in this class. Their research is very through and I like how they also quote from the lectures themselves instead of the notes that are taken from the lectures. This is something that I need to work on more, as well as being as through as they are.
The second blog that I really admire is that of Techsex. I like how they reference some of the information to their real situations, which makes you think about how they are really connecting to the information that is being provided.
The third blog that I also admire is that of durk diggler. They show a lot of personality in their writing with makes some of the more dry information interesting. I could use this type of writing in my posts more to attract people to my ideas and make my ideas stand out in people's minds.
Influenced Videogames
Over the past week, I was intrigued to learn about some of the newer video games that have hit the market. Unlike the usual very violent video games that guys typically play, there now are games that are surround the idea of "getting laid" to win. Our society has been so affected by the constantly increasing amounts of pornography that has been influencing the younger generations that we now have an industry that is centered around the one thing that people would least expect.
Some video games from the have been scrutinized for the lack of clothing that the female players have to wear. One of those games, Tomb Raiders, has been in the news in the past years but this type of bad publicity has not really affected it's popularity. One can even dress a female golf player in an extremely skimpy outfit while she does something as innocent as playing eighteen holes of golf. However those games were not the ones that bothered me as much as some of those whose main objective is to have sex with certain girls after getting them drunk. Leisure Suit Larry, < a href= "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure_Suit_Larry"> </a>, is a game where the main player has to go around impressing girls, getting them drunk, and eventually having sex with them. Some of the tasks that the player has to do include having to go into a gay strip club and take pictures of a man walking around in just a thong to give to a bartender who, in exchange for this picture, will give you information on how to get to sleep with a certain girl. These practices may seem harmless and in good humor, but what happens when younger kids are playing this? The only message that I can see kids getting from these are, getting a girl drunk to sleep with her is the right thing to do, or sleeping around is ok. I know that this post doesn't really have much to do with this class I just couldn't help talking about it since we were dealing with the "pornification" of society in last week's lecture. I think it's interesting to look at how pornography and sexually explicit content is still making an influence on other forms of technology since it's first presentation on the internet.
Porn vs. Rape
Pornography and rape are two completely different issues that basically have no interaction at all and do not affect one another. In the Morgan article, the author talks about how porn has lead to the steady increase in crimes against women, and even goes as far as the legislative branch to say that there is no protection for women and that the legal system is unfair. There is little evidence that pornography is the catalyst for a rapist to go out and commit his crime, thus pornography does not cause men to discriminate against and become violent towards women.
The article that Robin Morgan has written is extremely one sided and is lacking in information to back up what she is trying to say. Her jugdement against the porn industry is not open minded and is the result of her research has shown that she has not fully examined all possible opinions. For example, she talks about how women in a Southern town planned to talk over a sex shop and humiliatingly photograph the men who walked into the shop as a way to embarress them about their dirty habits. If I'm not mistaken, I'm sure that this is an illegal practice because it denies people of their right of freedom of speech and the right that they have to do what they want. Most people who go into a sex shop are afraid to be seen as it is but to have them photographed without them willingly want it, is unfair to those people who are just looking for some entertainment. This view is that of a feminists or someone who is radically against pornography or sexually explicit shops.
Another aspect that was bothersome about this article was the fact that she said that the government should be changed to having an all female staff for the cases against women, instead of "old men who are getting ready to read a lot of dirty books with one hand" (140). This should be seen as a slap in the face to the entire male population because she is basically saying that men are incapable of properly handling a case where a woman has been violated, thinking that an all male jury would side with the man purely because of the fact that they are men too. Not all men are rapists and to pin that assumption on them is an immature action that should not be published for the public to be influenced with.
Overall, the main point of the Morgan article was to show that she believes that porn is what influences aggressive men to go out and commit a rape of an innocent victim. This point however is extremely skewed due to the fact that her sources of information is from feminists themselves who are already against men. This unfair means of publication should not be shown in a setting where a lot of people will be influenced mainly due to the obvious fact that the author does not know what she is talking about and does not have an equal balance of opinions
Are You Enjoying It?
By far, Lecture 24 has been one of my favorites. It basically talks about everything that I've ever thought about porn, the opinions that I've had and the ones that the students had in that class as well. It's amazing to think about how far this society has come to accepting porn as something that has become more of a passtime than it is a taboo. Society, in general, is now more openminded to pornography when compared to decades in the past where it had been viewed as a private, almost embarressing form of entertainment that no one spoke of, or for the most part even studied.
The "pornification" of the media today proves that people are becoming more daring in what they like to do and are more comfortable in how they like to express themselves. Like stated in the lecture, when sex-tapes first came out celebrities were embarressed to admit that they were a part of that or that they were even affiliated with that sort of practice. Sex videos, like that of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee's, were considered as illegal footage of privacy that was meant to be kept for personal use. The legal battles that resulted from the release of this tape was made for both partners to ensure that their reputation would not be ruined because of something like this. However in modern day times, sex tapes, like that of Paris Hilton, are seen as a cheap way to increase one's popularity throughout the country, leaving nothing left to the imagination. When Paris' tape came out it was her family who appeared to be most affected by this while she just seemed to smile and shrug it off as a publicity stunt. What message does this type of acceptance send to younger generations? One where it's ok to do "dirty" things just to get yourself ahead and in the ever infamous business of Hollywood.
It's pitiful when generations after us will soon be exposed to this type for reasoning when we grew up learning that anything that happens between two peopl, stays between two people. I remember being a pre-teen looking through magazines wanting to be like and look like the models on the pages before me. What will future generations idolize? Porn stars who have big assets and are able to willing flaut their "stuff" to impress those who are watching? Imagine living in a generation of young teens who are walking around wearing skimpy clothing to attract the opposite sex for nothing more than just a "fling" or having sexual relations with that person. Nevermind, we're almost already there now.
Internet Content and Sexually Driven People
The chapter, ” Internet Pornography : A Social Psychological Perspective on Internet Sexuality”, discusses a very interesting and highly popular topic. The main purpose of this chapter was to link the causes of human sex drives to the constant stimuli that people can experience when they log onto the internet. According to Fisher & Barak, there is a Sexual Behavior Sequence that any individual will have developed throughout their lifetime that, when applied to an artificial stimulus, will react the same as when the person is aroused naturally.
The point that this chapter makes is intriguing in the sense that it finally provides us with a bases and reasoning as to how and why people are directly affected to the pornography that they view on their computers. It makes sense that people’s “internal affective and cognitive responses” to internet material will determine what the future of their sex lives will be like and whether or not they will continue to use the internet for “help”. In other words, if the pornography that someone views on the internet is highly effective, then they will be more inclined to use this type of inducing force in the future. This is why the pornography industry is constantly growing on the internet and why people are now turning to this type of stimulant rather than using magazines like in the past.
Another statistic in the chapter that I thought was interesting was the increasing amount of violence and more provocative poses that now appear in both magazines and on the internet. This figure, about a jump from 1%-5% in the 1970′s alone, has shown how people have become more comfortable with their sexuality and how people’s yearning for more explicit content has also been directly affected by this. Personally, I feel that this increase in explicit content has had an irreversible negative affect on women and the expectations that people have for one another.
Candyman Operation: success or failure??
I have always managed to find it interesting as to what provokes people to commit hideous crimes against other people. Lecture 19 dicusses this in the first half and then breifly touches upon the ethics part of pornography and the crimes that could possibly be a result of watching porn. However, pornography is one of the top causes of rape in the world and, like anything else that is a threat to society, should be illegal.
If one were to think of some of the crime-causing substances in the U.S., i.e. drugs and sometimes alcohol, then it would be understandable as to why the government has placed a ban or limit to the amount of people could have. Laws like these help to protect the public from the harm of others who may get out of control with these substances, hopefully decreasing the amount of crime that occurs. So if pornography can sometimes be seen as the cause of the unlawful rape of women and children, then why would the government place a ban on the more violent porn that is on the market? I think that it is disgusting how some people like to watch these violent videos for their own entertainment. Its also twisting to the stomach to think that porn has been seen as a “gateway” catalyst to unacceptable behaviors when people cannot control themselves any longer and have to take their frustrations out on innocent people.
If the government knows now that rapists are more likely to commit crimes after they have watched violent porn, then why wouldn’t they just make it illegal like anything else that could cause harm to the public? Pornography can be compared to mind-altering drugs, because I’m sure that after someone has completed their crime they are no longer the same person they were when they hurting someone else. It’s creepy to think that this seemingly innocent stimulus can cause so much hurt in society to the point where the government should really step in and try to stop this ongoing problem as best as they can.
Lecture 12 crazyness
Not expecting lecture 12 to be as explicit as it was (or I probably should have) I jumped into as I would have any other lecture (a bit late though, my apologies). After watching this lecture and taking into accout what they were talking about, I started to wonder, why do people who participate in gay pornographies paid so much more?
When thinking about it, sure, it seems unnatural or even taboo to show this kind of thing to the public. But embarressment is now a thing of the past for in modern day gay pride is more celebrated and recognized then ever before. Wouldn’t it make sense that nowaday there would also be a surplus of people who are willing to participate in these kinds of films in comparison to gay pornographic actors in the past? I believe that this is the case and that gay porn actors are not paid that much more than straight porn actors/actresses. What I did find interesting about this segment was the explanation of one of the actors who was actually straight in real life but was pretending to the gay for the money. This seems like it would be a smart idea if the money was greatly needed but otherwise would just be awkward otherwise. I was surprised when his wife was talking about how this didn’t bother her and how she even gave out pointers when needed. I give her props for being able to put up with all of that because I know that I would not be able to do this myself. I know that both of them probably respect eachother and understand that this is just acting, but the way their so casual about it can be seen as admirable or astonishing.
To watch your loved one perform an act, that I consider to be very personal and private, pubically would be like being cheated on with everyone knowing about it and even worse, paying to watch it. Like I said before I give his wife a lot of credit for still being with him and sticking through it. I guess theres something more there that both of them see in one another; something worth risking everything for.
No authority??
After watching the sex slavery video from frontline, I couldn’t believe how horrible that business is and how there really is no source of relief for these girls. Where are the police in those countries when some were well aware that all of this was going on?? What was even more disturbing was the fact that some of the police themselves were taking part in this business, whether it was giving information for money or buying a girl for a night. These men should be found and have all of their credentials taken away for the rest of their lives. Throughout the show, there was no positive aspects that could have possibly come out of this problem, except that there were clinics where the girls could have gone to get help when, if, they were ever freed. Why even bother with these places when the country’s own policemen turn their heads at this extremely disturbing issue?
I was glad at the end of the show that Katia was returned back to her family, but I was also upset that Vlad, her original seller, didn’t get any time in prison and that the judge just dismissed is as something that was minor. How can these countries put an end to this business if they themselves dont take the initiative to stop it? Sentencing Vlad would not have caused all of this to stop but atleast it would have put Katia and her husband at ease to know that he was serving time for his crime. I also did feel bad for the girl who decided to go back into the industry to try to help save her brother but was wondering if there could have been any other way to seek treatment and/or recieve money from the government for that accident. I had heard somewhere, but wasn’t sure if it were true, that the victims of the Chernobel accident could get some kind of treatment for cheaper prices, if not completely free, as a way for the country’s government to say sorry?. I dont know if that is true, but I would hope that another, more wealthy country, like the U.S., would look into that, and the sexslave problem, and try to put an end to both of these.
