This type of education makes sense: teach children to use the internet responsibly and they will. It's perfectly logical and yet it is impractical. Yes, it is possible to teach children to be responsible while using the Internet, but who is to say that they will practice thier good judgement? The Bush administration is spending millions of dollars on teaching abstinence in the classroom: that pre-marital sex can have detrimental social and psychological effects on unmarried teens. However, I think the time has passed for the effectiveness of teaching abstinence through fear. Kids are more exposed to sex at a younger age than ever before, scaring them out of having it is just not going to work as well as it did years ago. The point is that sex is all around us whether we like it or not: it's in television, movies, advertising – everwhere. So teaching kids to use the Internet responsibly isn't going to keep them from viewing sexual suggestive material.

On top of the abundance of sexual suggestion, the Bush administration is pushing harder than ever for programs that teach abstinence, that sex is bad for you if you're too young. Often there is no correction of this by parents as many leave it to schools to educate their children about sex. So in a world where kids  view sexually suggestive material on a daily basis but are subsequently taught to ignore and avoid it, where do they turn to learn about sex? While searching for something completely unrelated to sex, a kid comes across a website that depicts some sort of sex act; because of their innate curiosity as well as the restriction placed on their knowledge by the educational system they may just wander over to the website and check it out.

 To effectively protect children from Internet pornography it is important to provide for them an environment that is conducive to sexual discussion. The ideal place for this would be the classroom that they learn about sex. And rather than teaching kids that sex is bad, why not teach them about sex, the risks, and show them how to have sex responsibly if they choose to do so. The obvious truth is kids aren't stupid, they know sex is a big deal and kids want to grow up at earlier ages all the time. Being a kid once myself I know that despite what I was taught at school about abstinence I still wanted to have sex with my boyfriend and do it responsibly. It didn't matter that they tried to put the fear of God in us when it came to sex, we were smart enough to know that we could do it if we wanted.

Not providing a safe, comfortable place to talk about sex openly is only going to drive kids to explore it in other ways, the internet provides the perfect medium to do so. Teaching them to surf conscientously may help them to have better judgement about what sites they visit, but that doesn't mean they won't further explore something because they aren't learning about it anywhere else.

What kind of rating system should we use? Well, in my opinion it should be extremely oversimplified. Have three or four basic categories similar to those used for prime time television, for example: safe for everyone, appropriate for those over 14 or 15, appropriate for those over 14 or 15 with some adult content, and appropriate for adults only (18 and over). Or perhaps we could even apply ratings similar to the ones used on movies.  Not that I'm saying that should be the criteria, but something along those lines seems practical to me. The difficult issue in this part of a rating system is deciding what ages certain material is appropriate for. There may be quite a bit of dispute in that department and understandably so. Different people have different values and beliefs that contribute to what they think is alright for their childs maturity level, and many believe that certain maturity levels are reached at different ages. But my point is, there has to be a specific system, and it should be simple. It shouldn't be complicated with several details because that will only make categorizing websites that much more tedious.

Who decides what rating a website should be given? Obviously we have to have some kind of government role in this, since if anything ever happened and they weren't a part of it they'd immediately attack on any grounds they could think up. So why not have a government website dedicated to rating websites? Simply put, whenever a commercial website is started up, the publisher has to go to the site and fill out a form (describing content, etc.) to get an idea of what their rating should be and submit it. Then some government employed worker drone looks over the form and the website and gives the final rating. For commercial websites already in existence, publishers would be required to do the same.

I know this seems like an awful lot of work because there are so many websites out there. But I think it's a good theory and a good start. I don't think that a rating system infringes on first amendment rights, it's not that the government is trying to stop freedom of speech, they are just trying to protect a ten-year-old from seeing things that a ten-year-old shouldn't be seeing. A rating system for websites is a valid as a rating system for movies and television, after all you can block out certain television shows based on their rating using cable, and I don't hear the networks crying freedom of speech.

After the President and First Lady's behavior at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll – where they strategically avoided being photographed with gay couples or children of gay couples in an effort to support there push for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage – do you think there is anything in store for the presidential family in regards to gay pornography? If they succeed in banning same sex marriage do you think they will attempt to ban same sex pornography as well?

Regarding attacks on LGBT people, do you think that if an LGBT person was attacked it would be possible for them to sue in any state? I'm sure there are lawfirms that support LGBT people…is there a basis for sueing or do you think that homophobic America would result in loss of the lawsuit or countersueing? Is it possible to be LGBT and still receive justice?

Back in the good old days of the Pilgrims and whatnot most people generally didn't experience sex at all until they were married, and even then it wasn't really something most of them did for pleasure: it was mostly so they could produce children to carry on their hypocritcal religion and family name. Might I add for the record that I'm sure there were those occasionally spicy flings, but all in all, sex was simply something one did to have help picking the crops. Despite the prevalence of pornography throughout history there were many people who were still not exposed to it for various reasons, perhaps they didn't have a computer or access to magazines or videos, etc. So the first time a person had sex they basically just flew by the seat of thier pants until they got the hang of it, and even by then I'm sure most people didn't know all the 'good tricks' that are out there just waiting to be tested. 

Along comes widespread, easily accessible internet pornography. And may I say, to demonstrate my agreement with Sam's opinion, that I was watching mild pornography long before I was sexually active, and truth be told I'd have been totally clueless my first time and may have avoided it completely had it not been for what I learned watching porn. I'm quite sure there are other men and women that would agree with me on that.

Of course there are some misleading things about pornography, fallacies if you will. The problem with porn is that it displays sex as something perfectly timed, in the perfect setting with the perfect music, everyone is "satisfied" etc. In all reality if someone expects that they can expect, for the most part, to be disappointed. Sex can often be awkward and humorous although there are times when the mood and setting are perfect, but the level of perfection that porn is on is pretty rare.

All in all, with that little piece being said I still think that porn plays a major role in sex education these days. There are certainly several things I would never have learned if it hadn't been for porn because they certainly don't teach us in sex ed. So I'm with Sam…thanks porn!

If only it were that easy. However, ease is not the case. What's the catch? The building housing the adult store was practically on the front lawn of the town's elementary school, the elementary school that I attended from kindergarten to 6th grade. So community members had every right to make a big stink about the adult store because half of their children walked or rode their bikes past it every day.  I'd have to say that when they place limitations on zoning for things such as adult bookstores its for cases like this.  Really what I'd like to know is what this guy was thinking opening the place on front of an elementary school. Not that I'm saying he would have lasted anywhere else in town, because I'm sure that people would have found reasons to remove him from anywhere within Eden's limits. 

It would certainly have been in his better interests to open up further away from the school, and it wouldn't have been that difficult because all three schools in the district are on the same road. There were plenty of other places that it may have been wiser to locate the store.  But personally I have to say that when I saw the first article on it in the Hamburg Sun I found the situation rather amusing.  Here's a guy who's renting a building to sell adult paraphernalia, but according to the owner of the building he was supposed to be selling antiques, that's what he claimed he was going to use the building for. Interesting dichotomy. One would assume that the owner might have strolled into the building once or twice over the course of the move-in to check on progress and noticed the obvious lack of antiques. Although apparently that never happened, and upon the grand opening of the adult store everyone, including the building owner, was shocked and appalled that someone would open up such an establishment, especially in front of a school.

Now, I can understand why people felt that way. Eden is a small agricultural town, the biggest event we have is the Corn Festival. It's relatively quiet and people just don't expect a place like that where we live. If we want porn we can go into the city or to Hamburg Turnpike. Besides, because of its location, if someone went there the whole town would see thier vehicle parked out front. So when someone tries to run a place like that in the middle of our quiet little corn town its bound to cause a ruckus, especially that close to a school. Much to the occupant's disappointment he was asked to leave because he was violating a law that said there could be no adult establishments within a certain distance from a school (can't recall exact distance). Following the whole porn shop ordeal many surrounding towns and villages wrote similar laws to protect from adult establishments setting up shop in their neighborhoods.

Only recently a pet supply store has opened up in the vacant space where the porn shop was briefly located, and the porn/corn jokes have died down. But we have not since seen an attempt to bring in similar business in Eden or surrounding communities.  It just seems like selling porn won't work in a small town, there's not enough privacy to provide for it and community members simply won't allow it. If that law hadn't been in place I'm sure community members would have dealt with the porn shop through other means that were not so lawful.

Like most other limits on our freedom, it is usually a majority or authority who decides the bounds of the limit. Obscenity is a perfect example of this. Generally communities as a whole decide what is considered obscene and what is not. And of course there can be a sharp dynamic in beliefs. For instance what is considered obscene in a small agricultural town will likely sharply contrast with what is considered obscene in Los Angeles or New York City. There is no set "standard" from which we can gauge levels of obscenity because everyone's perspective is different depending on their personal beliefs and values.

So everyone's idea of freedom is a little different, or a lot different depending on who you are. But the fact that a few people are deciding the overreaching standards for obscenity across the board, and the country, is more than a little disturbing to me. I think the more important thing about freedom, rather than trying to put limits on protecting people from seeing or experiencing unwanted things, is its allowance of us to NOT see or experience things that may offend us. If freedom is really what freedom is supposed to be, then we are free to do, or not do, to see, or not see, to be, or not be.

That being said I'll move on. Senator Pappas has a point in saying that children are not entitled to practice their first amendment rights, although she could have said it in a less demeaning way. She should have said that children should not be allowed to practice all their first amendment rights for their own protection. In this sense I completely agree with it. Children are vulnerable and highly impressionable (meaning younger children <10) and allowing them to do and say as they please can be damaging to their health and mind. By limiting their rights we, as adults, teach them reasonable boundaries within these rights. For example just because they have the right to free speech doesn't mean they can approach a teacher they dislike and start spewing vulgarities. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying kids shouldn't be allowed to freely express themselves, I'm saying that they are boundaries to this for their protection, because obviously young kids may want to express themselves that may be inappropriate for their age.

Even adults have self imposed limits to their first amendment rights, just as a child does not mouth off to an adult, an adult should not be disrespectful to another in a position of authority. Until children reach an age where they can make rational, logical decisions on their own, they are expected to act as their parents raise them. So, as apalled as I am with myself in saying this, I agree with Senator Pappas implied point. As far as her comment asking how children's first amendment rights are relevant? Aren't everyone's rights relevant?

The episode followed a young woman just entering the business through her "audition" and the beginning of her first film.  During her audition they discussed her do's and don'ts with respect to what types of sex she would perform and they had no problem with what she would not do.  It also showed her at a doctor that many porn actors are referred to where she was required to have monthly blood tests and regular pap smears. The young actress was very excited about her first film because some porn big wigs were filming it and she was thrilled about her opportunity to impress them, that it was her big chance.  An interesting point about her story was that it played a telephone conversation she had with her father.  His main concern was that she was safe and that she didn't have to do anything she wasn't comfortable with. Later she told the interviewer that her mother was a little leary about her job but her father thought it was "totally cool" and that she's always pointing out that it's the "safest possible environment to have sex".

The married mother spent a great deal of time talking about her family and how wonderful her husband was.  He also said that he didn't mind her job, because it was just her job, it wasn't her real life. She also explained that she wanted her son to have as normal of a life as possible and she planned to explain to him what she did when he was older, they showed him on camera with his mother (he was a toddler) and her husband talked about what a great relationship she has with her son.

The producer for Vivid Entertainment was a mother of two teenage boys who were well aware of what their mother did for a living.  My impression of the woman was not that of a porn producer, but more of a PTA mom. She nor her kids were ashamed or embarrassed by what she did for a living, though in one case a friend of her son was not permitted to come to the house because their parents did not approve.  From what they showed she lived in a very nice house (it showed her sons playing video games on a huge plasma tv in two matching leather recliners) and she made a point of saying that there was no porn paraphernalia anywhere in her house.

I think this episode of Secret Lives of Women sent a powerful message about pornography: it's not all bad. There are women out their who may look like any other woman out there, a wife, a college student, or a mother, who are in the pornography industry and make a good living doing it. The safe environment was also very emphasized as well as the people they worked with. They were described as fun, friendly, caring, etc. This show certainly shined a light on the brighter side of women in pornography and showed that it can be a safe and diverse environment and a lucrative business. 

Despite my cynical beliefs, I am a firm believer that everyone has a right to believe what they want as long as they don't push their beliefs on me. However, there are many out there who would disagree with that. Jehovah's Witnesses are never shy about coming to your door to convert you, TV evangelists scream into a microhphone about how each and every one of us 'sinners' has to be saved and the way to saving is through his/her wallet. Kellogg and Graham had new ideas so naturally people were intrigued by them, everyone wants to hear something new after all. The fact that they blamed masturbation on so many problems when there was no medical evidence at the time to disprove it thrilled people; a simple solution to their problems: stop masturbating!

So admittedly we are talking about the 19th Century here, people were always looking for ways to say something was bad for you and listening to anyone who would tell them anything. But now its the 21st Century, time to open our eyes and see the light. Science has disproved every one of Graham's and Kellogg's masturbation myths. Any kind of genital mutilation, unless done by choice, is absolutely wrong. Filling kids' heads about what will happen to them if they masturbate is something that our grandmother's did, not us. Sex is not evil, masturbation is not evil, lust is not evil. (Sex and orgasm have actually been found to ease stress, relax menstrual cramps, and relieve headaches.)  They are all normal, natural, and healthy. During the 19th Century the ideas of these men may have been believeable and acceptable but today they are ridiculous.