From: curtis@optima.UUCP (Curtis E. Dyreson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: sex in movies
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:22:30 GMT
Distribution: usa

From article <1992Sep2.140249.23873@ms.uky.edu>, by fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis):
>  As for "considerable harm" ask Rita Coolidge
> whose husband's frolic in filming "Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea"
> led to their divorce. 

Certainly nothing like this ever happened when explicit sex couldn't be
shown in movies!  Actors and actresses fooling around!?  Marriages ending?
Adultery?  Infidelity?  Perish the thought.  

> Take "The Awful Truth" for example. Toward the end, we have Irene Dunne
> snug in her bed. We have Cary Grant on the outside longing to get in.
> Irene Dunne lowers her eyelids fetchingly. There are hints of romantic
> ardor. We need no more. We have certain understandings as social creatures
> who are hep to the boundary lines of what one can fill with the
> ellipses of imagination. Current movies break down, ill advisedly I feel,
> those taboos. I imagine a world where manners and taboos were seen
> as protecting the helpless and gracing one's days, rather than as
> simple Puritanical hypocrisy.

I too, prefer the implied sex of "The Awful Truth" to the rollicking 
explicitness of "Basic Instinct", but I see nothing noble in condemming
the latter, nor do I see any merit to artificially constructing taboos on 
sex which are at odds with the mores of society.  

We differ, I believe, in our premises about the movie industry.  You 
view its role as responsible for portraying and reinforcing cultural 
ideals.  Such a view naturally buys the argument that movies shape a 
culture.  And if you show more explicit sex, well, that's horrible,
because that's not a cultural ideal (in a world of sexual taboos).

I view the industry as pandering to the desires of the masses.  Movies
reflect these desires but it is putting the cart before the horse to 
hint that they play any role in creating them.  Also, it would
be quite frightening if movies were used as an instrument of propaganda to 
enforce a particular viewpoint or lifestyle.  I mean, isn't this one
of the reasons that the Commies and Nazis are the bad guys and that
we have first amendment rights?  (Yes, I've introduced the Nazis since 
they were bound to appear at some point.)  I find the fact that the 
industry is at odds with groups who have such an agenda to be refreshing.

So we differ in our basic premises, and even though Jeff is one of the
few posters of enjoyable articles, I doubt we will agree on
anything other than that Myrna Loy is the be all and end all of 
cinematic sensousness.

> Follow-ups are requested to state as nakedly as I have their own
> answer to the above forked question.

Let the buyer dictate!  Show it all and let the individual decide 
whether he wants to fork over his hard-earned dough.  If implied
sex is what people want, then implied sex will win out.  If explicit
sex is what people want, then explicit sex will win out.  Don't be
afraid of giving the people the choice!  It's downright silly and 
undemocratic to take that choice out of the people's hands and ban 
explicit or implicit sex scenes. 

> Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 

Curtis Dyreson
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.horror