Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles Subject: Porn: Causality, self censorship. Message-ID: <472@cci632.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 21:04:43 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.472 Posted: Mon Oct 6 21:04:43 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Oct-86 00:44:04 EDT References: <1578@mtx5a.UUCP> <41@oliveb.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Distribution: net Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 58 Keywords: not a flame, but long again... Summary: Who is doing what, and with whom. Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:438 net.legal:3822 soc.singles:379 In article <41@oliveb.UUCP> prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) writes: >In article <1578@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >>Phil's article is just too long to reply to point by point; it is also a So each point get's it's own response. >>is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we >>ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if >>there is. > >Yes, you *would*. (I like Bill T's answer to this paragraph). To you, porn >is "guilty until proven innocent", so it's just a question of finding a >palatable way to prove what you already "know". In the meanwhile, lets ban >it while we come up with some rigged data.... (I know that's not what you >think you are saying, but that's how I hear it). There are companies who have taken this approach, reguarding violence. 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. Watch it some Saturday morning. 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. Due to various pressures, "variety shows" have all but dissappeared from the airwaves, and given way to more violent shows. Some animators are actually beginning to re-introduce positive interaction forms, such as hugging, love, and romance. It may sound like I'm advocating censorship of violence. This is not the case. Ideally, it would be better to be able to always have a choice between sex, violence, neither, or both. These choices should be available in quality and quantity in print, film, and television at all times. Unfortunately, especially in the television and motion picture industry, there is a tendency to "over-trend". Some violent series gets good ratings in a certain time slot, and the other networks put even more violent material in the same slot. If one station shows sexually suggestive material on sunday night, the others will put the same type of material in the same time slot. The worst example is saturday and sunday, when all three networks are showing sports, and the syndicated stations are showing the cheapest material they can buy, like re-runs of Gilligan's Island. One should be able to choose one's own balance, based on what they view as entertainment. (yes, I have a VCR) Rex B.