tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (01/28/85)
>>Jon Mauney states: >>If you want people to think that sex is a warm, loving exchange between loving >>partners, then you should get decent producers, directors actors and screen- >>writers to make explicit movies rather than banning them. >Tom West responds: >Nice idea, but I don't think we'll see that sort of thing. Why? Probably >because warm, loving exchanges between loving partners don't require >explicit movies. The only people who make pornographic movies are the ones >whose attitudes towards women aren't particularily great. If they were, they >wouldn't be making the movies! Well, we do see that sort of thing. There is more frequently in mainstream cinema excellent sex scenes between warm and loving couples that are quite a turn on to [some] men (me) and women. (Empirically verified.) Also note that you seem to think that healthy sex scenes are pornographic. Why? I would say exciting, erotic, and a fun turn on, but *not* pornographic. There are too many negative connotations associated with the word pornographic. "If they were, they wouldn't be making the movies!" is a nonsense statement, if by "pornographic movie" you mean any film with graphic sex. I'll go out and make a sex film to disprove you if I have to. (I'll call it _Unix_Do_Dallas_. Anyone want to help?) I have a wonderful attitude towards women. Did you ever stop to think that because of the taboos (which Jon Mauney has pointed out) about sex that most people can't think clearly about it and hence cannot distinguish legitimate eroticism from pornography? I assert: I like to see sex on the screen, as long as it's done with depth and sensitivity. Is that pornography? I think that you, as one of the moral heavies on the network, should define more precisely what you think should be censored, so we know just what you object to (and how repressed you are 8-)). Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!... Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!... Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvx1!tracy
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (01/28/85)
Of course, if you make a film that has beautiful, sensitively erotic
sex scenes that are at all explicit, you'll run afoul of the Ontario
Censor Board if you want to show it here. Either they'll demand that
parts of it be cut outright, or just rate it so that only adults can
see it. (We wouldn't want teenagers to know what healthy sex looks like,
now would we?) You'd be much better off, economically, making a violent
film - they don't seem nearly as concerned with censoring violence.
Oh, and you have to be careful of topic too. Louis Malle's "Pretty Baby"
was banned outright - not allowed to be shown at all - because it dealt
with the topic of a child prostitute, which was deemed "not suitable for
Ontario audiences". There wasn't even any explicit sex in the film.
As someone pointed out, all of the films that exploit Brooke Sheilds
(Blue Lagoon, etc) can be seen in Ontario, but the one film she did
that explores the exploitation of children (Pretty Baby) cannot.
The amazing thing, to me, is that the majority of the population of
Ontario seem to support this sort of mindless censorship. This is one
reason I'm glad I'm leaving.
I realize that this article is a bit off-topic, but I get rather upset
about this sort of stupidity. For people who don't live in Ontario, just
think of this as a reminder of what happens when censorship is applied by
a bureacracy. To people who advocate censorship of pornography: Would
you like people with this sort of judgement defining what you can and
cannot read?
Dave Martindale
{decvax,ihnp4,clyde,utzoo,allegra}!watmath!dmmartindalewest@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (01/29/85)
A reply to Tracy Tims reply to my article on Jon Maurey's article. (Got that?)
I believe that the original posting referred to movies that were were
concerned only with graphic sex. If this was a misinterpretation, then take
my reply in the light of what I thought the original meant. As for calling
healthy sex scenes pornographic, my apologies. I have yet to see a graphic
sex scene that I thought was particularily healthy, but I don't (1) tend
to see that sort of film often and (2) I certainly feel that 'healthy' sex
scenes can exist. However my original comment stands. I don't feel that
we are likely to see movies that are totally concerned with sex that
show sex as a warm and loving thing between warm and loving couples.
This idea that we must let the good ideas drown out the bad is fine and
dandy on a theoretical basis, but when we consider the sheer volume of
what we would both classify as pornography, I have my doubts as to whether
the benefit from the good ideas is likely to come anywhere near to making
up for the damage caused by the bad ideas.
>Did you ever stop to think that because of the taboos (which Jon Mauney has
>pointed out) about sex that most people can't think clearly about it and
>hence cannot distinguish legitimate eroticism from pornography?
My views are not based on the fact that sex is good or evil or anything.
My view on censorship is based on the fact that as far as I can ascertain,
the vast majority of extremely sexually explicit films do not promote a
healthy attitude towards sexuality.
>I assert: I like to see sex on the screen, as long as it's done with depth
>and sensitivity. Is that pornography?
No. It's just incredibly rare.
>I think that you, as one of the moral heavies on the network, should define
>more precisely what you think should be censored, so we know just what you
>object to (and how repressed you are 8-)).
Moral Heavy?!? Ha! To repeat, my views on sex are irrelevant to this
discussion. I am concerned that the vast majority of sexually
explicit films promote an attitude that is definitely unhealthy. Since
this is unlikely to change in the near or far future (the situation, not
my attitude :-)), I support an attempt to supress the worst aspects of this.
If we could censor the "unhealthy" sex in movies alone, that would be fine,
but since we are unlikely to be able to do that, I support censorship
based on the "traditional" standards. (such as hard-core scenes get cut,
and so on.)
P.S. I can't be repressed, I haven't yet been pressed. :-)
Tom West
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west