After completing the readings, below please make one of four possible arguments and back this argument up with a definition of either pornography or of child pornography.

1. You might argue that the CK ads are pornographic or not pornographic and back this up by comparing the ads to your definition of pornography.

2. Or you might argue that virtual child pornography should or should not be controlled the same way "real" child pornography is based on a definition of child pornography that you will provide.

Be sure to reference one or more the assigned readings in you response - the chapter assigned from They Say/I Say ("Yes/No/Okay, But: Three Ways to Respond") will provide you with effective strategies for forwarding your own opinion while simultaneously responding to the arguments of in these readings.

Posts are due Thursday evening.

I don’t believe that CK ad’s are pornographic because they are not doing anything involving sexual intercourse. Pornography only happens when any two individuals have any kind of sexual intercourse. The kids in the ad’s only know that they are posing for commercials and wearing jeans. I wouldn’t believe that they would be put up there to be portrayed as being a pornographic outlook. Although the societies that spoke out against CK ad’s may feel that the kids are portraying pornography because they are just kids that know very little and are put in a setting that may seem sexual. CK ad’s may have violated the pornographic laws of the United States in the 80’s because the setting the put the kids in. All they’re skin was showing except where the underwear covered them and then the jeans commercial was the same as they were only wearing jeans. 

Hassen Berry

I don’t believe that these ads are considered pornography. The children in these ads maybe wearing limited clothing but it is because of the clothes they are modeling. In this case these children are models for a famous clothing brand, they are not doing anything that would suggest that this is pornography. In my eyes, pornography is images/videos of sexual intercourse. These ads are doing none of that. The children in these ads are smiling and just modeling clothes. I do believe however that it may seem like pornography because the children are young and many believe they shouldn’t be looking seductive in some photos. But I do not believe that this is pornography. These children are modeling Calvin Klein clothing, thats it.

Lindsey Prato

I do not believe that the ads are pornography. Even though the children have only undergarments, there is no sign of anything sexual. In the Calvin Klein ad, it was said that there are 5 ways to determine a pornographic image in the USA. They are " focusing on the genital area, showing unnatural poses, depicting children as sex objects, implying that the children are willing to engage in sex, and suggestive settings." None of these are found in the pictures of the kids. the young kids seem to be having fun, which is not harmful. To me, pornography is being able to see sexual intercourse or sexual actions happening. This does not happen in the CK ads in which kids,whether toddler or young teens, are featured.

Tanisha Walton

Ayanna Green

I believe CK ads aren't pornography.  There's a difference between being sexy and sexual. Showing any type of skin, such as a male's chest, isn't going to make a person believe that the person is shooting porn. Pornography, in my opinion, is showing any graphic part of the body in an explicit way.  The models of CK are posing in a sexy way and are not offending people.  Everyone can easily tell which pictures or videos that they display are pornography and which are trying to advertise a product.  If that's the case, a lot of other ads would be considered pornography also.

Deonnia Sanders 

I do not think that CK ads are pornography. Pornography is deception behavior intended to cause sexual excitement. The children in the ads were not presented in an inappropriate way. That wasn’t his intentions either. Children are adorable and a lot of people use children in their  ads. Yes the children were in their underclothes but it was harmless, not harmful. So in my opinion CK ads are not pornography.

Jonathan Bezenah

The Calvin Klein advertisements are not pornographic.  The definition of pornography is creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.  The advertisements are not trying to create sexual desire for the models, but desire for the clothes.  The advertisements may use less clothing to highlight the specific clothing they are trying to sell.  Also, although they advertisements may appear sexy, or appeal to sex, this is not their only value.  Pornography's definition states that it is an activity that only tries to create sexual desire.  This isn't what Calvin Klein is trying to do.  Again, their focus is selling clothes.  Even though these ads seem pornographic, the use of less clothing, and the suggestiveness of the photos is to attract consumers attention, and buy the products.

Eric Kroepel

The advertising campaign for Calvin Klein is not pornographic, nor do the advertisements intend to expose any pornographic image. From Merriam-Webster Dictionary, pornography can be defined as: “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.” These Calvin Klein advertisements are not intending to cause sexual excitement; they are simply introducing their product into the market. How else would one advertise undergarments, putting underwear over jeans? Would one consider pictures of kids playing in their bathing suits at the community pool for the city newspaper “pornography”? I define pornography as: the intention to suggest sexual acts or communications through pictures, writing, video or audio. Sexual advertising is a fad in selling products; it draws attention to the advertisement and persuades the audience to be more desirable. No private parts of either sex are being exposed, nor do any of the actors suggest sexual contact. Everyone has their own opinion of pornography, but these advertisements only intend to grab the consumer’s attention and sell their product, not expose “pornography” on a commercial.

Rishi Bamba 

I believe that the Calvin Klein advertisements are by definition pornographic. In the article, it was stated that in America pictures are deemed pornographic if they "focus on the genital area, show unnatural poses, depict children as sex objects, imply that children are ready to engage in sex, and if there are suggestive settings." The parts of the definition that makes these advertisements questionable are the unnatural poses and suggestive settings. These models are shown in underclothings and posing in a way that can be interpreted as sexual. While I personally do not think that that is their motive behind this pictures or that they really are pornographic, the definition says so otherwise.

Paul Peregord

The CK advertisements are not pornographic. Pornography is media intended to stimulate sexual desires. Advertisements are media intended to stimulate the “I wanna shop” desires. The children in the ads are modeling clothes, not taking them off in order to get someone off. They're wearing less than full covering clothes in order to focus on the clothes they are wearing, the specific article. None of the photos are graphic or reveal any genitalia, they simply advertise clothes.

Erika Phillips

In my opinion the CK ads were not pornographic. In the last paragraph of the article it was stated that the ads with the little children was “to capture the same warmth and spontaneity that you find in a family snapshot,” from a Calvin Klein spokesperson. From Wikipedia the definition states that Pornography is a picture, movie or writing that is created to make people get sexually excited. I do believe that the children in the picture looked very innocent and it also looks like in their eyes they are telling their parents to buy them that kind of underwear because its comfortable and it makes them smile.

Kelly Klopocinski 

i dont believe that the Calvin Klein ads are pornographic in anyway. when I was reading this article i was seriously floored and i couldnt understand how people would even think that his ads were showing pornography. the children in these ad's are modeling undergarmets for Calvin Klein's underwear.  these children are not taking off their clothes and showing anything privite on there bodys to make it seem like it would even be considered pornography.  Pornography is writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement.  sure these are pictures of children in underwear, but they are modeling for an ad to SELL this underwear, not to try and stimulate sexual excitement. i believe there is nothing wrong with these ad's and Calvin Klein wasnt doing anything wrong by using children to show off his clothing and under garmets.

jazmine robinson 

In my option I don’t believe that the Calvin Klein ads are pornographic. They’re not doing anything that involves sex. Having some kind of sex or actually having sex is considered pornographic. Even though the children isn’t fully dressed is because there modeling. It don’t come off to me as pornographic because now a days that how companies advertise. There are commercial advertisements in underwear on billboards, commercials, and magazines so it’s perfectly normal and not considered as porn.