rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/08/86)
In article <1579@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> This is definately the case in the Meese commission findings. > >It is the case in the studies that the Commission had available. They >did not have the funds to commission studies of their own, beyond a few >surveys of what material as available. >The difficulty was >that, in the absence of paid and truly objective investigators (if there >are any such) the volunteers had to be selected from people whose experience >that there *were* problems might be reasonably well-founded. >> . . . . The insurance claims and police reports for >> theaters showing "Warriors" (mostly violence, practically no sex), "Last >> House on the Left" (very violent, rape), and several other "Gang violence" >> movies, have led many exibitors to not even bid on such films. > >Answered, by the Commission's acknowledgement of this fact, and the >point that ``if the stark implications of causality [were carried to the >extreme] few of us could justify doing anything not directly related to >feeding the hungry.'' And yet, the commission, and several groups supporting it, feel that due to the implications of causality, certain types of porn should be subject to certain types of governmental restriction. >If you feel this way, why didn't you speak at a public hearing, or bring these >studies (if indeed they exist) to the attention of the investigators? I was rather astonished to see how few of the studies already done, both on sex related, and violence related materials were not included, referenced, or even mentioned. I was also surprised to see the inferior research that was mentioned. Finally, the conclusions drawn from the research that was cited, had little, if anything to do with the research itself. >there is some testimony from >offenders (which may be self-serving) that trying to substitute material for >people can delay the urge to the offense, but will also strengthen it. In some cases, such material is actually used by tharapists to enable potential offenders to discuss these urges verbally. This same strengthening can be used in similar beneficial ways outside of tharapy. >> Films depicting actual murder, assault, or dismemberment, is illegal, >> except in the case of journalistic interest. > >But you can't determine whether an actual sex act on camera was consensual >or not. This is true of all film making, but it seems to be a problem in >certain parts of the sex film industry. (Deep Throat is the familiar and >hotly disputed case ...) There is a problem here. The basic problem is that cartoon characters enjoy more protections (as trademarks) than human beings. Draw a picture of Mickey Mouse, and you have to talk to Disney Studios. Take a picture of Vanessa Williams, and if she has signed the release, she has no further control, even when she's 80. >> Other countries, such as Britian, tend to take exactly the opposite view >> from the U.S. They consider sexually arousing scenes to be quite acceptable, >> while violence is very strictly monitored. Compare shows like Benny Hill, >> Monty Python, and the like, with American fare. > >Our Supreme Court, for better or worse, has held that the maintaining of >public decency and the avoidence of ``patently offensive material'' through >obscenity law is proper under our Constitution. The result being the "television code", and some FCC regulations. There are 7 words that you STILL can't say on television, radio, and probably even this net. >> Is it any great suprise that many of our young people walk around >> handcuffed together, with pins in their noses, listening to songs >> describing the "delight of pain", and consider violence a way >> of expressing affection? > >I consider this more likely a result of the fact that our society seems to >have lost the ability to teach about real intimacy, affection, and growth, >and has substituted sex for sexuality. Don't get me wrong: it's a real >problem. But it has occurred *after* the massive changes to societal mores, >not before. I would guess it's more likely a result of things like "Bugs Bunny" violence (Warner has cleaned this up themselves by the way), a regular diet of detective shows, car chases, "shoot 'em up" westerns, horror films, fist fights, and various other forms of subtle violence with a strong dose of reinforcement in the form of everything from cheers among the "live audience", to romantic scenes with the heroine. This by itself wouldn't do it, but when coupled with a decline in variety shows, intimate situations, erotic costumes, candid conversation about love, sex, and intimacy, all negatively reinforced by everything from "whoas and uh-ohs" from the live audience, to verbal, physical, and emotional abuse of characters depicting other than "good macho" and asexual mannerisms and dress, could tend to bend one's mind into confusing violence, sex, and intimacy. Listen to the "audience track" the next time you watch "Silver Spoons", or any other show with a "live audience" and an intimate situation. (I quote "live audience", because although there is a live audience, they are often prompted to react as they do, and selective amplification is used to get the "best reaction". It's pretty sad when "hero kissing girl" gets the same reaction as "girl announces she's pregnant". > from Mole End Mark Terribile Rex B. Balance requested by unbalanced person :-).