rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/07/86)
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.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (10/10/86)
> 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. I'm not familer with the example you gave. On the other hand, romantic interest and affection are not purely sexual. Friendships, affection, etc, *are* vastly underplayed, and they *do* interact with sex. This does not necessarily mean that their effect is due to eroticism; I think it more likely that our society needs the erotic interest to legitimize friendship, affection, and the like, in its films and shows. Yes, this is a very sad state of affairs. Of course, the combination of ``mush'', some of which is very difficult for a child to deal with (insert stereotype of little boy turning away from love scene while little boy's sister is fascinated) and the general distaste among adults and children for scenes and situations which really hit home, and you've got a formula for the removal of love, affection, friendship, and genuine emotional intimacy from almost all films and TV. Look at the ``classics'' run at holiday time by some of the syndicated stations. They can be very difficult, even for a ``mature'' viewer, and most of the people who really watch them have seen them before. > 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. Didn't I see a TV Guide cover last week with the question ``Why is Romance Disappearing from TV''? > ... > Unfortunately, especially in the television and motion picture > industry, there is a tendency to "over-trend". Might this be related to the tendency toward polarization that Phil noted a while ago? -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.