Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale
From: tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.erotica - call for votes
Message-ID: <$C7}D*@rpi.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 90 06:55:42 GMT
References: <25CBBFBB.4E27@telly.on.ca> <730@banyan.UUCP>
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 43

In article <730@banyan.UUCP> tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) writes:
> A sexually explicit group such as this SHOULD NOT be put
> under the rec.arts hierarchy to prevent the unintentional
> offending of unsuspecting news hierarchy parusers.

Unsuspecting?  Just what would you expect when you saw the name
rec.arts.erotica?  That the last part was an acronym for Expect Really
Open, Tasteful, Inspiring, Clean Articles?

> It should be put under alt.sex instead.

No it shouldn't.  While alt is a perfectly legitimate hierarchy, and
was created originally in part due to the failure of soc.sex to be
created, it is time for the prudes to get their heads out of their
asses and stop being so damn uptight about perfectly natural aspects
of humanity.

> That's not a valid justification for moving the stuff under the
> unsuspecting rec.arts hierarchy.

Here's this "unsuspecting" stuff again, like the heirarchy is being
victimised in a dark alley.  It isn't.  Even if the material doesn't
meet _your_ definition of art it still meets other people's.  Don't
try to claim either that rec.arts.* is purely devoted to the classical
arts.  It clearly isn't.

Dave

@addendum
I was very amused when I went to a roller rink last month that retains
its Eisenhower-era decor to this day.  It was sad but laughable, and
also understandable, how signs of "Don't spread gossip" and such
attempted to instruct the youth of the period in the "proper morals"
of the rink's owners.  Even when I agreed with most of the messages I
still didn't really approve of what they'd done.  Perhaps the most
ironic part of the whole experience was observing that an angel (?) on
a very large mural had her breasts quite plainly lacking the covering
of her toga (and also notably lacking nipples).  Because it was "art"
and "religion" to these people, though, it was absolutely fine.  Damn
hypocrites they are.
-- 
   (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
               "Nice plant.  Looks like a table cloth."