In Defense of The Ice Age Sequels

 The Ice Age franchise, despite being one of the most financially successful animated film series, has recieved mixed to negative reviews with each passing film. Specifically, while the first film recieved positive reviews from critics and audiences, the reactions to the sequels were mixed at best with the last film getting the most negative reviews in the franchise. Having rewatched all the films not so long ago, I find myself in the minority that find genuine enjoyment out of these film and think they have some merit to them. In this post, I'd like to explain why I like the Ice Age sequels despite their reputation.

The most common complaint regarding the Ice Age sequels is that they rely more on comedy than telling a story. This is understandable as the best moments from all the Ice Age films, including the first one, were the comedic ones. This is especially true with the character of Scrat, who is always a riot because he just can't keep hold of that one nut. The filmmakers knew that these films make the audiences laugh and kept coming back for the comedy aspect. This is not to say that the films don't have stories to tell though as each film continues the ongoing journey of Manny, Sid and Diego.

The Meltdown is about the herd treking to a boat when they see that the ice is melting and could flood the entire valley. Along the way, they encounter Ellie, a mammoth who believes she's a opposum. I think The Meltdown is the best of the sequels and is of similar quality to the first. In addition to being very funny, there are also moments where the visuals speak for themselves. I also really like the character of Ellie and just how fun and sassy she is. Crash and Eddie made for a funny duo and Sean William Scott and Josh Peck do great work voicing them.

Dawn Of The Dinosaurs follows up The Meltdown by focusing on Manny wanting to make sure everything is safe for his soon to be born child. In the midst of this, Sid adopts 3 baby T-Rexs and is promptly kidnapped by their Mom. Now Manny and the rest of the herd have to save him while treking through the dinosaur work with their weasel guide, Buck. This film is kinda underrated IMO because of who understandable Manny's motivation for wanting his unborn child to be safe. If you recall ftom the first movie je lost his family once and he's not risking that again. It's also no secret that Buck is the MVP of the entire franchise next to Scrat. He's wild, fun, a bit of a loon, but a master survivalist; and Simon Peg gives a magnificent performance of this character.

Continental Drift is about Manny, Sid, and Diego treking to reunite with Ellie and Peaches (who's now a teenager) after a powerful earthquake separates them. Along the way, the trio encounter pirates who are nothing but trouble. I like how the filmmakers decided to have pirate be the antagonists of the film as this just make the journey Manny, Sid and Diego have to go through more perilous. I also like Sid's Granny (played by the brilliant Wanda Sykes) and just how sassy she is.

Collision Course finds the herd treking to a volcano to redirect an oncoming comet that could bring them to extinction. All the while, Manny has to cope with the fact that his daughter is getting married and could potentially move away. I like how Manny and Ellie are still concerned for their daughter's well being and the filmmakers made a great decision in bringing Buck back. I also really enjoyed the Shangri-Llama and just how loose and bouncey he is.

One element that many people agree about these films is that there's a noticeable upgrade in quality when it comes to the animation. The team at Blue Sky Studios always strived to improve their animation quality with each passing film. Each film explores new environments for our characters to go through and many of them are gorgeously rendered and feel lived in. The dinosaur underground in DawnoOf The Dinosaurs looks amazing and feels like a luscious land full of towering dinosaurs. The character animation also became looser as the filmmakers doubled down on slapstick and visual gags. In addition to that, the textures of the characters looked more real and flowed more naturally. 

The characters themselves grow and change with each passing film, yet are still as fun and as entertaining as they were when we first met them. Manny has becoming more willing to interact with others and his past trauma has effected how he acts as a father to Peaches. While many grew tired of Sid's antics with each film, I found myself always laughing at him because he tries so hard to belong and be respected because his own family doesn't respect or care about him. Truthfully underneath his silly and inept exterior is a very lonely sloth who just wants companionship. Diego, once a ruthless predator, now serves as a good ally who's always got his friend's back. His arc in Dawn Of The Dinosaurs felt natural and had a satisfying payoff in the end. Ellie went from being a mammoth who believed she was a opposum to a great wife for Manny and a good mother for Peaches. 

Another element that I don't think is talked about enough is how good the voice acting is. Each of the actors give very good performances and have at least one moment in each film to truly shine. Ray Romano, John Leguizamo and Denis Leary all still do wonderful jobs voicing Manny, Sid and Diego respective. I like how Manny slowly looses his depand tone and becomes more eccentric, showing that he's not as depressed as he was in the first film. Sid squealing like a girl always has me in stitches and the tribal sloth number from The Meltdown is still one of my favorite scenes in the series. Diego leaving was handled brilliantly and he sounded both sad and sincere. I think Queen Latifah was perfect as Ellie, as she brought the right amount of sass and nuance to the character while also giving her some genuinely funny moments. Her shouting "Yabba-Dabba-Do!" as she rides down a branchiosaurus in Dawn Of The Dinosaurs gets a laugh out of me every time. Major credit should also go to the first film's director and Blue Sky's co-founder Chris Wedge for voicing Scrat. He's a real trooper having to scream and yell in the recording booth for hours voicing this character and none of them were in vain. KeKe Palmer did a really good job voicing Peaches, making her sound sassy like her Mom but also resourceful and fun. Peter Dinklage gave a stellar performance as Captain Gutt, making him sound charsmatic, intimidating and firece. 

All that said though, there are a few elements about the sequels that I don't think quite worked. I found Cretaceous and Maelstrom (the antagonists from The Meltdown) to be serviceable predators but not particularly interesting villains. The most interesting things about them are their names and designs, but they were never referred to by names in film nor did they even talk. While I like all the Scrat segments in these movies, I thing the stall the pacing in Dawn Of The Dinosaurs. Had they been removed, I thing more time could've benefited Sid's arc in the film. Did anyone else find it jarring that Peaches went from a baby at the end of Dawn Of The Dinosaurs to a teenager at the start of Continental Drift? I feel like we missed an entire movie focusing on Manny being protective of his daughter when she was still a child. Then there's the character of Louis, a molehog who has a crush on Peaches but is friendzoned for most of Continental Drift. He had a good arc in that film and was generally a likable character. Yet Collision Course did him dirty by reducing him to a blink-and-you'll-miss-it background cameo. Why? Maybe Josh Gad (who voiced Louis) chose not to return or the filmmakers thought it wouldn't feel right if Peaches ended up with someone outside her own species. I disagree with the latter strongly because if a mammoth can be raised by opposums, why can't a mammoth and molehog be a couple. Also, I found the dinobirds to be serviceable, but not as interesting as the main cast. The most egregious problem I have with the sequels though is that the humans are nowhere to be found. Why? Well apparently the filmmakers were going to reintroduce the humans in one of these films, but that never happened because they didn't serve a purpose to the story. It's unfortunate, but I still think it was a missed opportunity to have Manny, Sid and Diego reunite with the baby from the first movie now all grown up. Other factors I didn't think wrked that well include Crash and Eddie not developing as characters, Sid's family being the absolute worst (I know that's the point, but still), Julian just appearing in the last film already in a good relationship with Peaches.

Despite their faults, I still enjoy the Ice Age films as a whole. They're all wonderfully animated, funny and engaging films with fun characters and excellent voice work. I think these films, like the first, are fun for the whole family to enjoy and I expected nothing less from these films. It's unstandable these films aren't for everyone, but I still have fun watching them nonetheless.

Opinion: Lazy Writing Doesn't Exist

Lazy is commonly used to describe bad writing in fiction. Be it in a movie, a tv show, a song or even a video game, if it's bad, the first kneejerk reaction is to call it lazy. I myself am guilty of this, but as I've grown older I realize that that particular word is not only false, it is hurtful. To call a writer's work (or the writer themselves) lazy is to imply that they did not do there job. Not that they didn't do their job well, but rather they didn't do the job at all. Let's talk about that clear as day difference.

A writer's job is to, well, write. Specifically, they have to turn the ideas in their heads into written words on paper. If that sounds easy, let me be the first to tell you having several years of experience in writing: 👏it's👏not. Even if you have basic spelling and grammar rules down, you still need to structure your work so that it's easy to read and follow. You also have to give your piece your own unique voice. How does your writing skills stand out from everyone else's? What makes your material worth reading? Another factor that comes into the writing process is learning to take constructive criticism and improving on previous works. And when I say criticism, I'm talking about feedback that's on the lines of "I didn't find this piece very interesting. Maybe add some comedy or character drama." That's the type of criticism you should listen too when you want to be a better writer. As for the ones you should ignore, that's where today's topic comes in.

The literal definition of the word "lazy" is being unwilling to work or use energy. Whenever I hear this word lumped into what's supposed to be constructive criticism, I roll my eyes and think "oh you don't know how wrong you are." Fart jokes are often called lazy because apparently anyone can do it. Tell me, can anyone you know make a fart joke funny every single time? Writers are also called lazy for ignoring plot holes. Can you name me a single work of fiction without plot holes so that writers can use that as an example? Then there's the times when writers incorporate pop culture references and are called lazy for that. So writers aren't supposed to make pop culture references anymore even though they've been doing in since Day 1?

See the problem with using lazy as a form of criticism is it implies the writers were just sitting on their couch all day and let the written work write itself. Maybe the writer included the fart joke because they thought it was funny. Maybe the writer ignored a "plot hole" because nobody needs to know everything that doesn't matter. Maybe the writer included a pop culture reference as a fun little nod to a previous work. You never know and you should watch what you say because being called lazy is not helpful: it's hurtful.

Why It Worked: Glory

 Introduction

Glory is a 1989 historical war drama based on the military career of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw and how he commanded the 54th Massachusetts Regiment in the Civil War. Directed by Edward Zwick, the film stars Matthew Broderick, Cary Elwes, Denzel Washington (who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this film at the 62nd Academy Awards), Morgan Freeman, Andre Braugher, and Jihmi Kennedy among a slew of other actors playing the soliders in the regiment. Distributed by Tristar Pictures, the film recieved critical acclaim (93% of 44 critics aggregated by Rotten Tomatoes gave an average score of 7.88/10) and made $27 million at the box office. I first saw this film when I was about 12 or 13 and rather than watch it in history class, I watched it on TV at home with my Dad. I've since rewatched this movie many times over the years and have come to appreciate it as a great film that perfectly captures the great impact Col. Shaw and his men had on the Civil War. So without further adieu, let's dive right into why this film is one of the best war films every made.

The Plot

As with all films based on real life, some liberties were taken to make the film more dramatic. I personally forgive any and all inaccuracies if the final product turns out to be a well made film; and in my opinion, this is a very well made film. As said before in the intro, this is based on Col. Robert Gould Shaw's career during the Civil War and how he commanded the 54th Massachusetts Regiment. The film opens with him recieving the offer to lead the regiment and after accepting, he trains the men to be battle ready while also dealing with the systeminc racism of the military at the time. This film takes the time to humanize not just Col. Shaw, but also the soliders in the Regiment and how they handle the systematic racism of the military. The film addresses the lack of proper foot wear for the black solider, how they were paid less than the white man and used for general labor as opposed to fighting in battles. The film manages to tackle all of these issues and more by keeping the focus on either Col. Shaw or the soliders. It also helps that the film has stupendous production quality. The sets and costumes look excellent and the Matthew Broderick looks like Col. Shaw leaped off his portrait from May 1863. The battle scenea are explosive and noisy, yet the focus is never taken away from either Col. Shaw or his men. And James Horner's score is awe-inspiring with that majestic choir and powerful orcastra. The best moment in the entire film is one that would not exist if this film were more "historically accurate." After Private Trip was caught trying to escape, he is flogged in front of the whole regiment. When he removed his shirt, it's shown that Trip has been whipped before with several scars on his back to prove it. As he's being flogged, he looks at Col. Shaw with a straight face as a single tear rolls down his face. If you're a history buff, you know that flogging was abolished in 1861, long before the regiment was formed. And yet this moment is necessary for the film because it shows something very important about Trip. He doesn't see Col. Shaw as any different than his former master. It's because of this that Col. Shaw spends the rest of the film trying to be better. This film, first and formost, is about how Col. Shaw and the regiment complimented each other and moments like this show that perfectly.

Cast & Characters

The cast for this film is excellent and each one of them brings such raw authenticity to their respective roles. Starting with Col. Shaw himself, this is one of Matthew Broderick's greatest performances in his career. He's so calm and generous, yet also a real commanding officer who knows what he's doing. I also love how Broderick portrays Col. Shaw during the heat of battle. He's scared, yes, but he's also very brave and willing to die fighting. Cary Elwes was really good as Major Cabot Forbes, a friend of Col. Shaw's. Him and Broderick have good chemistry and he's quick to object Col. Shaw's training methods. Yet by the end he finds that the men became great fighters because of Col. Shaw and respects him. Denzel Washington was fantastic as Trip and more than earned his Oscar. Trip is a relatable character that doesn't get along well with free black men but as the film progresses he comes to respect his fellow soliders as well as his commanding officers. Morgan Freeman is always a win and his performance as Sgt. Major John Rawlins is no exception. Playing a smart, no nonsense sergeant is something Freeman can do in his sleep and that speech his gives to Trip before their first battle was perfect. Lastly we have Andre Braugher as Private Thomas Searles, a free black man who grew up with Col. Shaw. Training was hard for Thomas, to the point where he broke down in tears. But as the film continues, he grows more confident and becomes a true soliders by his first battle. Andre Braugher gave a wonderful performance as Thomas and I really bought that him and Col. Shaw grew up together. Other cast members such as Jihmi Kennedy as Private Jupiter, John Finn as Sgt. Major Mulcahy, RonReaco Lee as the mute drummer boy, and more all do a good job of fleshing out the regiment and making them all feel like real people.

Where It Falters

I really have just a few nitpicks that aren't really deal breakers, but just things I would've liked to have seen in the film. Abraham Lincoln is mentioned alot in this film and yet were never see him in the film. Not saying he needed to be in the movie, but it would still be nice if we had a scene of him hearing about the Battle at Fort Wagner and being pleased with the regiment's efforts (despite them not winning). Also, I would've like to have seen one of the cast members (besides Col. Shaw, obviously) survive to tell the tale. Maybe Thomas or Jupiter, I don't know, I love the ending either way. 

Conclusion

Glory is a great film with a fantastic cast, amzing score, remarkable sets and costumes and excellent cinematography. This is a movie I find myself rewatching every now and again not just because it's a great film, but because its story is a great piece of history. Without the valiant efforts of Col. Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, the Civil War might not have ending in the Union's favor. So in closing, I'd like to thank these men for their service and for helping change history for the better. I salute you 🙋‍♂️

Opinion: Cuties is part of the problem with sexualization

 I do NOT support the sexualization of children in anyway shape or form. If there's one important thing you need to take away from this, it's that sentence. I never want to hear that this type of behavior is okay. Cuties, a film on Netflix that attempts to tackle this issues, falters heavily on its message. Yes, I saw the film. No, I don't recommend you watch it. I will encourage you to strap in because we got alot to talk about.

Director Maimouna Doucoure attempted to tell the story about the sexualization of children in today's culture. I say attempt because the actual execution DOES infact sexualize the characters in the movie (all of whom are 11). If the movie wanted to tell this story, it went about it the wrong way.  These kids should not have been filmed doing any of the provocative dances and the religious aspect of the feature isn't prominent enough in the feature. It's all kinds of uncomfortable and I was wrong to think the controversy was overblown. This movie is not worth watching for these scenes alone, but that's not the worst part.

No, the worst part is that Cuties' mere existence is a byproduct of a bigger problem. You wanna know why this film was made in the first place? To be blunt, it's because we as a society let this happen. Not just the movie, but the subject matter this movie tried to tackle. We let the sexualization of children go on for too long and we didn't notice until it was brought to our attention. Had we not normalize open sexuality in the first place, Cuties would've never existed in the first place.

Let's not beat around the bush: this world has become more perverted with each passing decade. Sure, humanity has always been pervertrd but things really took off in the 20th century. With the rising popularity of pornography and putting sex into mainstream movies, sex and nudity was slowly but surely being normalized until it became common place in the 21st century. Ever hear of the term "sex sells?" Unfortunately that's become the unofficial law of the land. Whether it's in commercials, music videos, movie posters, billboards, games shows or what have you, you will always find a suggestive looking woman or man posing with few clothes on. We're like flies being attracted to the bright bug electricutor. Even if we know it's bad for us, we can't help but go towards it. It's even gotten to the point where children are being attracted to it.

Kids have always imitated whatever they see, that's how they learn. In today's perverted world, if a kid sees Iggy Azalea or Miley Cyrus twerking, they're going to think that looks like fun and imitate it. 👏This👏is👏bad. Any form of provocative dance or gesture should not be imitated by children, and yet they do it anyway. Why? Because we don't monitor our children closely enough to make sure they don't imitate this stuff. I'm not just talking about having a filter on your browser. I'm talking about demanding the big media corporations discourage such vulgar and provocative behavior in their marketing. In order to proctect the children of the world from this kind of seduction, we need to actively say no to ALL forms of sexualization in media. Sex itself isn't bad, but it should strictly be between a husband and his wife: no exceptions.

I'm willing to be called a prude for the rest of my life if it means standing by my opinion that this world is perverted. Cuties was made to bring the issue of sexualizing kids to light, but in doing so it became part of the problem. I'd much rather this film be about something else than to try (and fail) to tackle a problem in our society. In closing, don't watch Cuties, don't let your kids watch Cuties and don't let the big media corporations get away with sexualizing them. 

It's Time To Retire The "Sex Scene"

Many movies and TV shows aimed at adults tend to incorporate sex scenes into the narrative. Many people have criticized the inclusion of these scenes and I can definitely see why. Even if they're integral to the plot, a sex scene is problematic for the actors involved and it tends to make casual audiences uncomfortable watching it. With the rise of more prominent women in shobiz, I think now is the right time to retire the practice of sex scenes in general.

The reason behind sex scenes being included varies from filmmaker to filmmaker. The most common though is because it stimulating to watch two actors have sex. To put it bluntly, it gives the filmmakers an excuse to make porn without directly calling it porn. The problem with that mentality is the same problem with pornography in general: it's degrading. It dehumanizes the people involved, particularly the women, to essentially make the porn stars for the sake of stimulating the filmmaker. Of course not every sex scene is like this, but even the exceptions aren't worth filming in the first place.

Take for example the attempted sex scene between Bruce Banner and Betty Ross in The Incredible Hulk. The scene itself isn't bad as it shows Bruce can't even have sex without Hulking out. However, that's a fact that could've been left unsaid because it was already established in the beginning of the film that he can't let his heart rate go up so high before he turns green. As such, the scene is superfluous.

Even movies about sex, such as Don Jon or American Pie, could've gotten their point across just fine without filming the actors having sex. Showgirls, the most notorious example of gratuitous sex and nudity, did not need any of those scenes to tell the story of a girl trying to get into showbiz. I know a remake is never going to happen, but if I were to remake the film I'd focus on the anxiety and stress Nomi goes through while being a glorified prostitute. Instead of showing her performing or having sex with guys, I'd show the aftermath with her drinking, smoking, crying, calling her parents and trying to get out. Maybe have it end with her being a born-again Christian as a little cherry on top.

Now I know what you're thinking, "but what about show, don't tell?" and to that I counter argue less = more. Contrary to popular belief, not everything in the story has to be spelled out for you. You don't need to see the characters going to the bathroom all the time, you don't need to see character stopping to take a cigarette break, and more importantly you don't need to see characters having sex. Even if sex if part of the story, you don't need to show it. 

Many actors have also come forward to say that they were uncomfortable filming sex scenes. While filming the sex scenes on Jessica Jones, they were filming all day and Mike Colter was getting back pains. While there was a mediator there to make sure everything ran smoothly, it's still a tedious process to shoot a scene that ultimately establishes what we already know: Jessica and Luke Cage are compatible with each other. There are many actor who refuse to film sex scenes because it goes against their beliefs and as such they aren't hired for the project in mind. This is unfortunate because it enforces the stigma that sex sells, which itself should no longer be tolerated especially today.

Instead of trying to making filming sex scenes more comfortable, why don't we instead try making the story more engaging without the need to have the actors take off their clothes? It's not artistic to film a lady giving a guy a blowjob; it's disgusting. It's not important to show characters having sex because they love each other; it's redundant. In closing, let's start a new era in filmmaking where the sex scene is not common in mature movies and TV shows. Instead replace it with good character interactions, a strong story, and some laughs along the way.

In Defense of Kangaroo Jack

Kangaroo Jack is mostly remembered as that edgy family film from the mid-2000s with a talking kangaroo. Critics hated it and yet it managed to make a decent profit at the box office and was even given a direct-to-video sequel. Having watched it recently, I found that I enjoy it as a funny buddy comedy with solid performances and great humor. Today, we'll be looking at what works about the film, what doesn't and why it ended up the way it is.

This film does tell a solid story about 2 guys who travel to the land down under to deliver a package to someone named Mr. Smith. While they were taking pictures with a kangaroo, it steals the package (which Louis put in his jacket, which he then put on the kangaroo) and now they have to chase him to get the package back. The story is very straightforward but culminates with a big twist at the end that puts the whole thing into perspective. It also helps that there are alot of funny jokes in this film, particularly the camel scene. Most people scoff at fart jokes, but I personally found it kinda funny.

Obviously the best part of this film is the chemistry between Jerry O'Connell and Anthony Anderson. They work so well with each other and their performances particularly shine when they're walking in the desert near the brink of dehydration. I especially love Anthony Anderson's wild and goofy performances and how much fun he's having on set. All the other actors give a solid performance with what they got, particularly Christopher Walken and Michael Shannon. Walken brings the right amount of menace and charsma to his character and Michael Shannon just hams it up every chance he gets.

The characters themselves offer quite a bit to like. Charlie is a good man who just wants to do the right thing and Louis is lots of fun and deeply cares about his best friend. Jessica is a smart, funny and resourceful wildlife expert and Frank is a short tempered gangster who relishes in putting Charlie down. The biggest standout of the cast though is Kangaroo Jack himself. He's such a funny little creature and the sequence in which his speaks and raps was just hilarious. Also, the CGI use to bring him to light looks pretty good. He moves like a real kangaroo and the jacket he wears throughout the film moves organically with him.

I really do think the cinematography deserves some credit in this film. Peter Menzies, jr (who also provided the cinematography for The Incredible Hulk) shot some amazing shots of the Outback, from the rugged canyons to the luscious oasis. I especially love the wide shots that showcase the vastness of this Australian desert. Overall, it's a well shot film.

There are a couple elements that don't work about this film. For one, I didn't care for the romance between Charlie and Jessica as I felt they didn't spend enough time together to form som chemistry. I also don't like who when Charlie thinks she's a mirage the first thing he does is grab her boobs. He totally deserved that canteen to the face. Another element I don't think worked as well was the climax. I felt it could've been more exciting, but as is it's just adequate.

Did you know that this film was originally going to be R rated? Shocking, I know but it's true. This film was originally going to have more cursing and violence and the kangaroo was only going to appear in one scene. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer saw a rough cut of the film and felt it wasn't working. So after recieving positive feedback from the kangaroo, the filmmakers decided to reshoot most of the film and tone it down significantly to appeal toward a family audience. Thus this film is one of those PG rated films that just teeters toward the line of PG-13.

Overall, Kangaroo Jack is at best a funny buddie comedy and at least a guilty pleasures of some sorts. I totally understand why some take issue with this movie being an edgy family film, but for what its worth I found it to be all good fun. Thanks so much for reading and I'll see you soon ;)

Why I'm Done With Pornography

This has been something I've been struggling to confidently say for years. When I tried to go cold turkey before I would eventually relapse and the cycle would repeat itself. This time however I feel more confident in saying that I have no desire to look at pornography of any kind any more. If I were you I'd get some snacks and strap in because this post isn't going to be a deep dive into how my addiction started, how it has affected me in the long run and what ultimately made me decide it just wasn't worth it anymore.

When I was a kid (maybe 9 or 10), I picked up a Men's Health magazine and on the second to last page was an ad for a sex pill with a bare chested woman laying on top of a man. This was the earliest memory I can think of when I found that women being partially or completely naked looked cool. It then lead me to look up basic phrases on the Internet such as "naked women" "nude girls" and "sexy girls" among others. I went down the rabbit hole that was pornography and was hooked for almost a decade and a half.

The most common side effects of viewing pornography on a daily basis differ from person to person. For me it was having a skewed perspective on all the women in my life during my high school years. I never had a girlfriend in high school and I thank God I didn't because I either would've treated her like an object or cheat on her with another girl I found prettier. While my sexual urges never caused me to rape anyone, it did make me come across as a creep more than a few times. I once asked a lady I didn't know what sex was at the public library. If I wasn't a minor, I'd would've gotten maced at best or arrested at worst just for asking a question like that. I also had this bad habit of giving one girl in particular various gifts in a stupid attempt to get her to like me back. It got to the point where she rightfully told the school counselor about it and asked me to please stop. I'm glad I did because I was probably one unwarranted advancement away from being put on a restraining order. The most embarrassing moment for me though was trying to share a shower with either my sister or my aunt. Yeah, there's being a dumb kid and then there's being a straight up pervert. I'm more than ashamed I did any of those things and I thank God I've been forgiven for all of them.

Another major side effects to viewing pornography daily was it made me defensive and secretive about it. When I was first caught, it was embarrassing and rightfully so. It's like being caught with your hand in the cookie jar. And yet even after I was caught, I still viewed it in secret because the root of the problem wasn't handled properly. I didn't just watch porn because I liked it; moreover, I watched it because I was a lonely depressed kid with little friends and a severe lack of understanding of my purpose in life. This continued well into my adulthood when I was now stuggling to get a rise from something that was bringing me less and less enjoyment as time went on.

If I could point to the number one worst side effect of pornography, is its negative influence it had when it came to sexual encounters with strangers. I can most definitely say that despite meeting up with many strangers both men and women, I NEVER had a good sexual encounter. They were all varying degrees of filthy, unengaging and overall unsatisfying. While I knew pornography was not representative of real sex, I didn't know how underwhelming casual encounters were until I actually had them.

So, what changed? How did I go from a struggling addict to completely apathetic towards porn in general? Well, it was a number of factors, but the biggest was becoming a born-again Christian. While getting baptized and recieved the gift of the Holy Ghost didn't immediately cure me, I did slowly but surely start to drift away from porn as the years went by. Another key factor in the decimation of my addiction was having good relationships with a bunch of female friends and co-workers. The women in my life today are all smart, funny, caring, patient and understanding and they make me feel more appreciative of all the great women I've had in my life (such as my Mom, Grandma, my older sisters and teachers). Most recently, I've come to the realization that pornography is everything I said I didn't like in my last post about eye candy. Men and especially women in pornography are essentially reduced to sponges when put in front of the camera. Similarly, erotic drawings serve no other purpose than to arouse viewers with characters from an existing IP partaking in lewd acts. I've also come to the realization that if I spend so much of my time watching, writing and drawing porn, why don't I use all that time to create something original and fun?

Sure enough it was these factors that made me decide it was time to finally kick the bucket for good and start living my life. I just turned 24 over a week ago and I know for a fact that I don't want to spend another decade and a half dabbling in pornography. This is going to be the start of a new chapter in my life and this will hopefully lead to much better things down the road.