Since I'm reading an old sociology textbook and actually using the gray, flabby matter in my skull, I thought I'd add a sequel to my earlier philosophy rant. Also, I have decided to redefine my somewhat clumsy terms "societally acceptable" and "societally unacceptable" with the simpler "deviant" and "normal." *clears throat* Here we go, kids:

Point 6: In the words of Kai T. Erikson, "Deviance is not a property inherent in certain forms of behavior; it is a property conferred upon these forms by the audiences who directly or indirectly witness them." A behavior is not deviant in itself, it is only labeled deviant in a specific context. A man dressing in women's clothing for purposes of humor - such as in the Marilyn Monroe movie "Some Like It Hot" - is deemed funny and admirable, while a man dressing in women's clothing because he is homosexual is deemed wrong or disgusting.

Point 7: Religions change while at the same time claiming that their values are absolute, and can therefore not be used to measure right and wrong. Much of the Bible is concerned with specific rituals and actions that should be made to please God, and with such seemingly irrelevant issues as sexual cleanliness, and it is widely regarded as the ultimate moral authority. However, priests and preachers of today's society rarely follow the minutae set out in it, preferring to regard it as a guideline. If the Bible were truly a moral authority as is claimed, everything in it should be followed to the letter, but this would be highly impractical. Society changes, and religion changes with it, while still purporting to be timeless and immutable.

Point 8: Moral condemnation is often used to reassure the condemner in his or her superiority. The American rural middle class, afraid of foreigners and the urban poor corrupting the country they saw as their own, associated alcohol and marijuana abuse with widely distrusted minorities - in the latter case, especially with Mexicans - in order to have them outlawed. Alcohol was so deeply entrenched in American society that the law was repealed a decade later; marijuana did not bounce back so quickly. But the middle class was secure in the knowledge that they were better than people who indulged in such deviant behavior, even though many of their own did so as well. This moral condemnation was more a division between rich and poor, rural and urban, than a true belief.

Point 9: Victimless crimes - offenses in which only consenting adults are involved, such as drug use, prostitution, or public drunkenness - are more a result of social power than of societal need. People or groups who find such activities to be offensive or undesirable ensure that the laws against them are enforced, even though the impact made by drugs and prostitution is arguably much less than that made by "white-collar crime" - usually nonviolent crimes commited by people of high status, such as corporate pressure on the government, bribery, maintenance of unsafe and illegal factories, employee mistreatment, and similar actions. However, because they are rich, influential, and not seen as the criminal "type", they usually go unpunished, while a young minority male is deviant by default; he is often viewed as criminal simply for breathing. Often the same people pushing for a crackdown on victimless crimes are simultaneously commiting white-collar crimes.

That's all for today, as I'm tired and hungry. IT Ninjas, Away! (I'm in a surprisingly silly mood, considering all the crap I just wrote about. By all rights I should be mightily depressed).