Calvin Klein models an playboy magazines

    In response to the first lecture of week two, I feel that the four children posing in underwear for a Calvin Klein ad is slightly innapropriate.   Children of that age do not have the abillity to make good decisions about whether or not they want to be posing in their underwear for the world to see.  Therefore, the parents chose to pose the children half naked for the ad.  This is morally wrong because the kids may grow up to have regrets about having posed like that for everyone to see.  Having said that, I do not think that this picture was pornographic.  It showed no sexual suggestion.  Like the casa blanka test, I know it when I see it, and this isn’t it. 

    I agree that defining pornography is difficult.  In fact, I didn’t realize how differently pornography can be defined by people until recently.  A few nights ago I was bartending and a man had a playboy magazine with him.  He was leafing through it with another man at the bar and surprisingly with a woman too.  They were all enjoying themselves and were giggling together.  I said that we do not allow pornography at the bar.  One of the men stopped what he was doing and just looked at me for a moment like I was crazy and then he said, “Playboy isn’t porn!” and then he laughed.  Then the group started agreeing and talking about how a Playboy magazine is not pornographic because there is no sex in there.  I was sort of surprised by this because, though I had never put much thought into it, I had always considerred porn to be any sort of suggestive poses and nudity. 

   It is hard to define pornography and I look forward to learning what other people consider to be pornographic material.


3 Responses to “Calvin Klein models an playboy magazines”

  1. Cyberporn and society » Blog Archive » Moral? Says:

    […] After reviewing the first lecture, and also reading through numerous blogs from our class, I came upon this one.  Not to say who is right or wrong on the matter, but I had a quite different view on some issues as well as similar.  In regards to the children in their underwear (from Lecture 3) Calvin Klein ad, I do not feel that this photo is at all sexually explicit or pornographic as well.  The children are not in sexual positions, rather in candid shots of how children are usually portrayed or seen, and are not exposing genitals or a significant amount of skin to be defined as pornographic.  I feel that most children of that age group are usually seen in their underwear in our society because they either refuse to wear clothes for independence reasons or just end up ripping it off because they are uncomfortable.  I think those photos for the ad are nothing new to the audiences that are viewing them.  Like stated in the lecture, views of pornography differ from each individual.  Individual audiences may have sexual gratification from the ads of young children, but another individual may be sexually aroused from a Cambells soup ad.  In addition, I am sure the parents of the children in the Calvin Klein ad did not have the intent for the photos to be viewed as child porn or pornographic in any way.  I feel the children will have no regrets for posing for these ads that present them in an innocent, playful way.  I think the parents are not morally wrong for allowing their children to pose because the poses are not sexual and exposure is minimum.  Children do not have the ability to choose a lot of things in their life and are guided by society and parenting, but  I feel that the participation in these photos is nothing out of the ordinary.  Now if the parents were allowing their child to touch each others genitals in their underwear, that I would question. […]

  2. stefiesays Says:

    I agree with what you said about the children modeling underwear. At that age they really don’t know what they are getting themselves into, for the most part it is their parents making the decisions and like you said they may regret it when they grow up. I also do not think that it is considered porn but just think maybe they are just too young to be doing what they are doing. Yes defining porn is very difficult to do and every person has a different definition. I like the definition Dianna Russell used saying “material that combines sex and or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone or encourage such behavior.” I am very surprised to hear that people would actually pull out a playboy in public especially just sitting at a bar drinking and talking. I don’t think people should look at magazine such as Playboy in public because many people are offended by it. I think I would consider Playboy as porn because they are naked pictures of women in there doing sexual things. I’m sure many others do not think Playboy and Playgirl are considered porn!

  3.]calzoncillos calvin klein baratos Says:

    I am not sure where you are getting your info, but good topic.
    I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding
    more. Thanks for magnificent info I was looking for this
    information for my mission.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: