On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 16:05:35 +0900, Kali McLaughlin wrote:
> On the broader matter of censorship, can you explain to me why gross
> violence seems tolerated in US media, but sex is not? Is it because USA
> is not a secular government? You would think that would make it more
> preoccupied with efficient and equitable essential services.
> Is the violence a code for the apocalypse?
Sex *is* tolerated in US media. According to the messages we are
seeing in the media, the idea of having more and better sex is strongly
encouraged. Drugs such as Viagara and herbal alternative aphrodisiacs
are widely advertised during prime time TV. Also herbal preparations
that supposedly enhance female breast size are being advertised on TV.
There are also many advertisements for exercise equipment that will
supposedly help women to develop more sensual looking buns. Also we are
seeing advertisements to use condoms, and these advertisements are paid
for by the taxpayers. We do have censorship against child pornography.
Kiddie porn isn't really about sex. It is about violence against children.
In the near future I believe that we will see much less "gross violence"
in the media. According to many of the so-called experts who are studying
the matter, the depiction of "gross violence" in the media tends to
desensitize people and drive them to committing very violent acts
themselves. This theory seems to be gaining ground. I realize we may
have widely differing opinions on the matter. IMHO, the subject is too
far off topic to be considered a suitable subject for discussion on this
list. My purpose for posting this note is simply to cite some examples
to show that sex *is* tolerated, and even encouraged in the US media.
All the best,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail sent by Arachne, www graphical browser for DOS
-- Visit the Arachne DOS Browser Home Page, http://home.arachne.cz
