I found lecture three to be very appealing for it made me think if there really is no definition for pornography. If you think about it teenagers and young adults’ perceptions of pornography are far different that middle aged people or the elderly. Even within the same age group of teenagers pornography varies. As stated in the lecture it is because it is so subjective, but everything in life can be considered subjective. If that is the case then can anything really be defined? I feel that pornography does not have a concrete definition for the simple fact that one person could feel that the movie, Eyes Wide Shut, is an example of porn while another feels it is a sex scene in a motion picture. Anything that involves sex is a touchy and controversial topic in this country and most people walk on egg shells when discussing it for a fear of offending someone whose values are different.
After trying to think of a definition for pornography I found myself hitting the backspace key several times for I was stumped. The lecture said pornography is, “I know it when I see it.” It all depends on the situation, the context, and if I feel offended by it. If it is something that I would feel uncomfortable watching with my parents or if it catches me by surprise then I would call it a porno. Pornography is like sushi for some people love it while others despise it (OK so I could have come up with a better analogy). Either way I feel that one is not right over the other for they have their personal opinion. This is why I feel it is so subjective because of opinion and freedom of thought. Without it this country and world would be boring.
The Calvin Klein ad dealing with the children in underwear is definitely not considered pornography in my mind nor should it be in anyone else’s. I bet every person who owns a television has seen a commercial for Pampers diapers or Johnson & Johnson’s baby shampoo. Most of their commercials deal with a baby and their naked butt. These Calvin Klein ads are not showing as much skin as these commercials, but no one would say that the adorable baby would be an example of pornography. Granted the children in the magazine ad are a bit older they still are not in any seductive or raunchy poses. They merely look as if they are having fun with each other playing in their underwear, which many young children do. It is natural to them and if parents let their children so often play with fewer clothes on then why is this topic up for debate? Until the children in the Calvin Klein ads are touching each other inappropriately or wearing thongs, then there should be no problem with these ads.