Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!indri!aplcen!osiris!johnj
From: johnj@osiris.UUCP (John Johnston johnj@welch.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Computer graphic  porn
Keywords: more flame food - hit 'n' now.
Message-ID: <2905@osiris.UUCP>
Date: 19 May 89 04:39:12 GMT
References: <6138@ux.cs.man.ac.uk> <283@indri.primate.wisc.edu> <10707@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <3656@eos.UUCP>
Reply-To: mjr@welch.jhu.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Work. Worry. Consume. Die.
Lines: 25


	What never ceases to amaze me is this concern about pornography
in America - we are perfectly content to let our kids sit through 2 hours of
Friday the 13th part XVIII, then have a fit when someone asks about X-rated
material. The kids who assaulted that woman in Central Park didn't learn
that behaviour from an X-rated movie - they learn that kind of crap from
role models like Freddie Kruger (sp?). I have watched a LOT of XXX rated
material in my life, and never seen violence half as graphic or degrading
of the victim as can be seen in ANY "Motel Hell" splatter movie that teens
flock to see. People don't learn to hose schoolyards with AK47's watching
"Deep Throat" - that's more along the lines of "Rambo". It is interesting,
if terrifying, that most of the "violence heros" in movies are portrayed
as asexual robots.

	As far as worrying about whether computer graphics will be wasted
on making computer generated kiddie-porn : don't hold your breath. We'll
be lucky if we don't see computer graphics being used to render super
realistic decapitations, guttings, and stabbings that would be hard to
produce with "live actors".
	
	(actually, the  "hard woman" can ad gives a great hint of some of
the limitless possibilities of computer-generated erotica)(not porn).

--mjr();
IamhavingfunIamhavingfunIamhavingfunIamhavingfunIamhavingfunIamhavingfun