Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!orca!tekecs!mikes From: mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Sexual Attitudes (questions about Stuart Gathmans article) Message-ID: <7639@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Sep-86 22:36:01 EDT Article-I.D.: tekecs.7639 Posted: Mon Sep 15 22:36:01 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Sep-86 23:27:18 EDT References: <54@houligan.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 94 > > from a posting by Stuart Gathman: > > > When I first heard about the horror of pornography, I went out and > > found a copy of Playboy. I avoided the pictures (hoping to have a happy > > marriage someday) and read several articles. ... [a few lines omitted] > > ..... Note, Playboy is considered very mild pornography. The real > > stuff is better compared with sewage than garbage. > > Let me ask a couple of questions: > > 1) How does looking at pictures of naked ladies in Playboy have *any* > effect upon your potential for having a happy marriage in the future? While it may seem compulsive to some, this type of activity is avoided by many because it is believed it can lead to viewing people (women especially in our society) as sexual objects rather than as equals, people, and partners. Also, the sexual intimacy experienced in marriage is held to be sacred and special. Like a lesser form of adultery or fornication, viewing pornography is believed to lessen then special nature of marital sex. Thirdly, many people do not find any reason for supporting what is thought to be a practice that is degrading to people (again, especially women in our society) everywhere. Larry Flynt's arguments aside, I can't think of a single porno- graphic publication that has done anything positive for our society (though it will have little if any direct effect on my marriage). In my experience this may be a litte compulsive, as I *have* viewed pornographic materials fairly extensively, and still have a great marriage. Still, I agree with the sentiment, because it can certainly do my marriage no good, and could (and has, in my experience) harm others'. > 2) Why is it that religious types say things like, "God created man in > his own image", "The body is a temple", "Sex between a married couple > is the most beautiful experience", and others like that. Yet, movies > and pictures of naked people, whether sexual acts are depicted or not, > is called filth, trash, sewage, garbage, sick, perverted, and so on. I think most of your list of adjectives is the product of very restricted minds, not necessarily religious ones. There is nothing "wrong" with the human body; there is only something "wrong" when people use it to play with your mind or for the sole purpose of encouraging lust within you. Everyone has their limits. I loved the movie "Witness", and did not find the Kelly McGillis' topless scene at all gratuitous; it fit right in with the movie. On the other hand, the movie "Stuntman", while an excellent vehicle for Peter O'Toole, disturbed me because I felt like I had been taken for a ride (in many ways, which was the intent of the movie; the use of sex in the movie is what disturbed me). Other people I know, however, are uncomfortable with Sigourney Weaver's "underwear scene" in Alien. It all depends on who you are. Still, as a more static standard, I see no reason in viewing a movie (etc.) that is not going to edify me in some way (even if it only distracts me for a while, like Fantasia or Starwars, etc). In short, it is not the bodies that are sick or perverted or trash, but what the purveyors of the images hope to instill into you. > I've always felt that this contradictory attitude causes, rather than > prevents, many of the sex related problems of society. Venus de Milo is > art. Miss September is porn. Why? I don't think we're going to solve the issue of transendence in art (that is, art is that which transends its vehicle -- otherwise it is just a blob or a bunch of colors). Miss September is to be viewed sexually; the Venus de Milo is to be viewed with an eye for Beauty (big "B"). Various pages in Gray's Anatomy are to be viewed for neither, but solely for their informational content. The first and the last are not art, since the focus is on the instance not the larger class. The second is art, since it is able to evoke qualities of Beauty; not just the beauty of a single woman whom men would wish to possess, but the Beauty in all women and in all things. Its kind of like Jazz: "If you got to ask, you can't be told." Also, your comment about your supposed contradictory attitude about sex causing social sexual ills is nonsense. Given the current state of upheaval about just what exactly causes sex related problems in society, I don't think you can make anything more than hot electrons out of your statement -- but perhaps you'd like to try to document it? > It's odd that murder and other violent acts are illegal to do, but considered > great TV fare. Sex (at least some varieties) is legal, but considered trash > and so on, thus not fit for TV. Murder and other violent acts are not depicted in the same explicit way on general TV that you would have sex portrayed. Implicit sex and implicit violence *are* portrayed about equally, though (compare, say, Miami Vice to Dynasty or any daytime soap). Just like movies that portray really explicit sex, I don't enjoy those that portray really explicit violence (say, Scarface or the Texas Chainsay Massacre). > Burch Seymour -Gould C.S.D. at ....mcnc!rti-sel!gould!bseymour -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0