Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat
From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Legitimizing Affection
Message-ID: <1608@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 12-Oct-86 22:29:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1608
Posted: Sun Oct 12 22:29:24 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Oct-86 06:45:32 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 62

I am doing a Bad Thing and I know it: this article originated in the
``AG's Commission'' discussion, which many have probably tuned out of, but
it seems like an article of general interest to this group.  (Flames by
mail, please!)  I've edited it a bit to refocus it.

> Warner Brothers, after observing the effects of violence in "Bugs Bunny"
> cartoons, has removed so much of the violence, that there almost isn't
> a plot. . . .
> Disney studios has also cut much of the violence from their productions.
> Not because of federal or state intervention, but based on their own studies.
> 
> The same research indicates that material with certain types of erotic
> content can actually have a positive effect even on children.  Variety
> shows, chorus girls, and shows which depict romantic interest, actually
> have been shown to improve the way children react and interact with
> each other.  "Pepe Le Pew", for example, had a good effect on children.
> The concern over violence did not surface until after parents had pressured
> these companies into taking the "mush" off the air.

On the other hand, romantic interest and affection are not purely sexual.
Friendships, affection, etc, *are* vastly underplayed, and they *do* interact
with sex.  This does not necessarily mean that their effect is due to
eroticism; I think it more likely that our society needs the erotic interest
to legitimize friendship, affection, and the like, in its films and shows.

Let's try that again:

	It seem like our society cannot present affection and friendship
	and love unless it is ``legitimized'' by sex.

Yes, this is a very sad state of affairs.  Of course, the combination of
``mush'', some of which is very difficult for a child to deal with (insert
stereotype of little boy turning away from love scene while little boy's sister
is fascinated) and the general distaste among adults and children for scenes
and situations which really hit home, and you've got a formula for the removal
of love, affection, friendship, and genuine emotional intimacy from almost all
films and TV.

Look at the ``classics'' run at holiday time by some of the syndicated
stations.  They can be very difficult if you let them touch you, difficult even
for a mature viewer, and most of the people who really watch them have seen
them before, or are not really watching.

> Some animators are actually beginning to re-introduce positive interaction
> forms, such as hugging, love, and romance.

Didn't I see a TV Guide cover last week with the question ``Why is Romance
Disappearing from TV''?

But why must affection and hugging be dominated by sex, even when it is
involved?  There are certainly times when it is dominant, but there are
times when it is not.  When was the last time that two men hugged on TV?
On the winning team after a ball game.  Father and son, perhaps.  Maybe old
war buddies -- maybe.   Not much beyond that.
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	mtx5b!mat
					(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
						mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
					(mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me)
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.