Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!west
From: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Fun Sex in Movies, Moral Heavies
Message-ID: <717@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 21:37:21 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.717
Posted: Mon Jan 28 21:37:21 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Jan-85 21:41:44 EST
References: <600@pyuxc.UUCP> <1280@hou4b.UUCP> <529@mhuxt.UUCP> <1285@hou4b.UUCP> <2779@ncsu.UUCP> <712@utcsrgv.UUCP> <1093@hcrvx1.UUCP>
Reply-To: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 49
Summary: 

A reply to Tracy Tims reply to my article on Jon Maurey's article. (Got that?)
    I believe that the original posting referred to movies that were were
concerned only with graphic sex.  If this was a misinterpretation, then take
my reply in the light of what I thought the original meant.  As for calling
healthy sex scenes pornographic, my apologies.  I have yet to see a graphic
sex scene that I thought was particularily healthy, but I don't (1) tend
to see that sort of film often and (2) I certainly feel that 'healthy' sex
scenes can exist.  However my original comment stands.  I don't feel that
we are likely to see movies that are totally concerned with sex that 
show sex as a warm and loving thing between warm and loving couples.

  This idea that we must let the good ideas drown out the bad is fine and
dandy on a theoretical basis, but when we consider the sheer volume of
what we would both classify as pornography, I have my doubts as to whether
the benefit from the good ideas is likely to come anywhere near to making
up for the damage caused by the bad ideas.

>Did you ever stop to think that because of the taboos (which Jon Mauney has
>pointed out) about sex that most people can't think clearly about it and
>hence cannot distinguish legitimate eroticism from pornography?

  My views are not based on the fact that sex is good or evil or anything.
My view on censorship is based on the fact that as far as I can ascertain,
the vast majority of extremely sexually explicit films do not promote a 
healthy attitude towards sexuality. 

>I assert:  I like to see sex on the screen, as long as it's done with depth
>and sensitivity.  Is that pornography?

No.  It's just incredibly rare.

>I think that you, as one of the moral heavies on the network, should define
>more precisely what you think should be censored, so we know just what you
>object to (and how repressed you are 8-)).

Moral Heavy?!? Ha!  To repeat, my views on sex are irrelevant to this
discussion.  I am concerned that the vast majority of sexually 
explicit films promote an attitude that is definitely unhealthy.  Since
this is unlikely to change in the near or far future (the situation, not
my attitude :-)), I support an attempt to supress the worst aspects of this.
If we could censor the "unhealthy" sex in movies alone, that would be fine,
but since we are unlikely to be able to do that, I support censorship
based on the "traditional" standards. (such as hard-core scenes get cut,
and so on.)

P.S. I can't be repressed, I haven't yet been pressed.  :-)

Tom West
 { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west