Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!unc!oliver From: oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) Newsgroups: net.books,net.sf-lovers,net.motss Subject: Re: Should book ads disclose sexual slant? Message-ID: <783@unc.unc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-Jan-86 16:47:58 EST Article-I.D.: unc.783 Posted: Sat Jan 4 16:47:58 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jan-86 03:17:48 EST References: <4729@hlexa.UUCP> <223@birtch.UUCP> Reply-To: oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) Distribution: net Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill Lines: 135 Xref: watmath net.books:2714 net.sf-lovers:11783 net.motss:2403 Summary: In article <223@birtch.UUCP> oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >In article <4729@hlexa.UUCP> hsf@hlexa.UUCP (Henry Friedman) writes: >1) Should ads for novels at least suggest whether the sex/romance >> is predominantly straight or gay? (I don't think this would be >> necessary if the main themes are not romantic, such as novels >> about social/political oppression.) > >Only if you are a prude or a homofobe. Sex is sex, romance is romance; if >you enjoy reading about "straight" sex without feeling "naughty" or guilty you >you should be able to enjoy a love story about two(?) individuals regardless of >their sex. > >>2) Should it make any difference? In other words, should it have >> mattered to me? > >I don't see why... Sex is sex.... On the contrary. It seems to me that there is an increasing tendency among folk nowadays, in their attempts to appear or to be tolerant of the behavior of others, to express a uniformly "nonjudgemental" attitude by exercising a lack of judgment altogether. Toleration need not imply approval; I do many things that my friends strongly disapprove of. They do not feel the necessity of forcing me to adopt their attitudes, and I do not feel the need to make them approve of my actions. Approval and tolerance are quite different, and as with all things in my opinion, should involve the use of one's judgmemental faculties, not the abandonment of them. As a case in point, all sex is not just sex. Whether it be heterosexual(1), homosexual(2), or autoerotic(3), there are a wide class of sexual activities which either represent profound emotional disease or are simply evil. To fear to express disapproval of an act for fear of appearing intolerant is a form of moral cowardice. Similarly, one's tastes, like one's moral stance, should involve some descrimination. To appreciate a fine wine it is necessary to recognise that there will be vintages which compare unfavorably with it, to your palate at least. There is no requirement to enjoy pears as much as apples; there is no requirement to care for pears at all - it certainly does not imply evil intentions towards pear orchards nor towards those who care for pears. To suggest that all wines or all fruit or all writing should appeal equally to ones taste is to argue for a dulled sensiblity and foggy thought. Thus, it is not at all necessary, nor even desirable, that one enjoy a recounting of any random sexual act. I suggest quite the opposite, that one has every right to object to buying a bag of apples and finding it full of pears. > >>3) Was it my fault for not remembering or knowing that Delany's >> sf writing has a gay slant? > >Only if you object to homosexuality getting "equal time". It is not your responsibility to keep tabs on the sexual proclivities of all those who put pen to paper. An adequate book review should have reflected the contents of the book. > >>4) Do I have a point in objecting to the way the book club advertised >> the book? > >No. It's like objecting to not mentioning any demonic, satanic, pagan, magical >subject matter. It sonds like PMRC's record labeling system. And we all know >how silly that is ;-) That depends on how much of a review one can expect from the vendor. I suppose that if you buy a bag simply labeled "fruit", you can't complain too much if pears are what's inside. You might write the company and let them know that their labelling is inadequate. I personally think that one should expect better of a book review. It is in the best interest of a merchant to please his or her customers, especially in things that cost little money or effort to change. To claim that an adequate book review is censorship is to argue that we should buy and read books randomly - a waste of time, effort, and money. > >>5) Was the book such a work of creative genious that it transcended >> such considerations? > >Don't know, have not read it (yet?). A book rarely transcends its content. > Oleg Kiselev. Bill Oliver Asst. Chief Medical Examiner State of North Carolina Upon Love Love brought me to a silent Grove, And shew'd me there a Tree, Where some had hang'd themselves for love, And gave a Twist to me. The Halter was of silk and gold, That he reacht forth unto me: No otherwise, then if he would By dainty things undo me. He bade me then that Neck-lace use; And told me too, he maketh A glorious end by such a Noose, His death for Love that taketh. 'Twas but a dream; but had I been There really alone; My desp'rate feares, in love, had seen Mine Execution. Robert Herrick, 1648 (in ref. 3) References: 1) Wilber, C G. A case of lust murder. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 6:226-232,1985. 2) Walter, R. Homosexual panic and murder. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 6:49-52,1985. 3) Hazelwood, R R, Dietz, P E, Burgess A W. Autoerotic Fatalities. Lexington Books, DC Heath and Co., Lexington, Mass., 1983. 208pp. All opinions expressed are mine alone and do not represent the opinions of any other official, nor any Office or Agency, of the State of North Carolina.