With this definition being said, like Klein said, the ad was intended to "convey the idea that glamour is an inner quality that can be found in regular people in the most ordinary setting; it is not something exclusive to movie stars and models" with which I agree. Also, these pictures are no way causing sexual arousal. The two boys on the couch, smiling, giving each other what seems to be a manly high five, portrays just that; how manly you'll be, wearing CK draws. The two girls jumping on the couch doesn't give off sexual arousal neither, but shows that you'll be happy to wear CK underwear. Klein's aim, evidently is to advertise his clothing, not show off half naked children as pornography.

We need to stop being to damn prude. Pornography involves people (one or more) committing sexual acts. Sexual acts include such things as intercourse, masturbation, and "bukakke." The main thing that ties these all together seems to be the idea that bodily fluids are being released. These CK ads are raunchy; they might be a little dirty. Comparison:Hell, they might help a pedophile get off, but aren't Victoria's Secret catalogues called "the poor man's playboy?" Isn't it possible for a man (or woman for that matter, but guys will admit to this more often) to see an attractive woman on the street, go home, and fantasize about her? Of course it is! Hell, people will get off to the weirdest things; does this suddenly mean that they're bad? No, good and bad are subjective. I'll even go further with some "Zen" (for a lack of a better word because I'm too tired to find out where it's actually from) and say that they're all illusions anyway. Analogy: A friend once said "because a group of bad people eat a particular pizza, does that make the pizza bad?" No, it doesn't. So the idea of these CK ads being bad since pedophiles "get off to them" (which they might not) doesn't apply.

Calvin Klein ads are not pornographic. Pornographic material shows more skin and is intended to arouse people of the opposite sex. The material in the Calvin Klein ads are done just to appeal to the audience. Ads try to appeal to you by making you think you would be pretty with their product or feel good. I agree with the pictures of the kids in their underwear because everyone wears some kind of underwear, they just have a fun happy childish look to the pictures. The guy ripping his shirt makes him look manly, its kind of portraying that if you have products designed by Calvin Klein that you will be manly. So in no way are these ads pornographic.

ummmmm-----opposite sex???? not necessarily; there's more pornography out there than you might think and a large portion of it is not to arouse the opposite sex, as there are many sexual orientations in our world. This includes pornography for the arousal of the same sex, both sexes, opposite species, and many more strange and bizarre sexual kinks. Although the Calvin Klein Ads are grotesque and involve minors, that does not immediately make them child pornography. All it does is make them visually unpleasant. Comparsion The youngest children depicted in the ads displayed on Times Square are not in sexually suggestive, in fact these two photographs are comparable to diaper advertisements. Do these not also depict children in nothing but undergarments? To say that the two are unequal is absurd. First of all, pornography is the sexually explicit depiction of the human body. Nudity and pornography are not the same thing. And neither is the obviously clothed depiction of minors in "suggestive" poses. Notice the term suggestive and sexually explicit are two separate entities.

From the readings, I have come to the conclusion that Calvin Klein ads are not at all pornographic. The meaning of what’s pornographic and what’s not pornographic has been truly misunderstood. Pornographic pictures and movies are when sexual gestures, body language, and nudity are shown throughout the advertisement. People need to comprehend the difference between modeling and pornography. Attacking the Ethos of the opponent: Now days someone sees a woman in a bikini or a man in a swimsuit and all of a sudden it’s considered a porn movie. Sure, there are many different instances where too little clothing is worn or obscene clothing is worn but this is not pornography and it makes a huge difference. Looking at it all realistically in today’s society being in a market where a lot of sexual references are being advertised and the idea that sex sells which is true, but people are just looking for something to bitch about! That's just my opinion.

Although I cannot approve of child pornography and the ideas it might influence, “virtual child” porn does not seem to do any actual harm. Better a child made on a computer be involved than a living breathing person who could be exploited by parents or kidnappers. Also, it is better to “potentially shield children from abuse since pedophiles could use this alternative source to fulfill their desires, however repugnant”. If a pedophile get’s their fill from virtual images they might not feel the need to molest real children. If “virtual child” porn was banned, chances are porn where real children are used will increase as it “is an already created and unfortunately booming market”. Finally, comparing child porn to works of art is not a stable ground to make an argument on. The reason for this being that a lot of art depicting children is from another time or culture where it was seen as acceptable at the time or it is cherished for it’s beauty or age rather than it’s content. Children used to be considered adults at a younger age than they are now (18 is the adult age in many countries, not just the U.S.) and were frequently married off at young ages. Although the thought of a dirty old man undressing a child with his eyes is more than a little disturbing it is not something he can be imprisoned for. The government feels that as long as the child is not harmed, it shouldn’t matter. The main point is to keep children safe, not to quell the urges of people that cannot be gotten rid of no matter how hard people try.Reading AssignmentsWriting Assignment**