Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!nemo
From: nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Pornography
Message-ID: <5588@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 15:02:02 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.5588
Posted: Tue Jan 22 15:02:02 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 05:24:52 EST
References: <2770@ncsu.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 26

> ... you should get decent producers, directors, actors
> and screenwriters to make explicit movies, rather than banning them.
> -- 
> 
> Jon Mauney,    mcnc!ncsu!mauney
> 
 Here, here!  My dear mither once showed me a series of sexually
explicit films that ranged the gamut from holding hands to inter-
racial, drug-accompanied, and homosexual sex.  She also showed a
regular porno film, which stood out from the rest like a sore
thumb.  The rest were made by some California church, using consenting
members and their chosen partners.  One thing came through all of
them and that was the relationship the people had with each other
(or themselves or the group, etc).  Although explicit, and though
some depicted acts which I did not find stimulating, I would not 
call them porn.  (By the way, these were for gauging the observer's
stance on various sexual situations).  
While I find most "porn" simply boring, there is violence which I
find much more objectionable.  (take Dune, please)  I would much
rather more nudity and sex in film/TV than have the violence and
general idiocy which is commonplace.  Especially when I and my wife
have kids.  
As far as studies about exposure to violence and pornography go, there
are several psychological and legal ones which I will post when I dig
them up (anyone hear of Zamorra, eg?).
Nemo