Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov
From: dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: birth control
Message-ID: <4160003@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 18:19:00 EST
Article-I.D.: csd2.4160003
Posted: Tue Feb 26 18:19:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 02:43:49 EST
References: <724@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 26

[]

L S Chabot writes:

>Of course, some religions are opposed to birth control, so to discuss it on tv
>would alienate those religions' adherents, or at least anger those religions'
>leaders and prominent public figures.

	Well, I'm no great fan of religion, but I don't think you can
attribute this to religious influence. (Personally, I guess I'm an agnostic.
Like the story goes, "What religion are you ?" "I'm an agnostic." "Well,
I've never heard of that one, but I guess we all worship the same god.")

	Anyway, I think most religions which are opposed to birth control are
just as opposed to things like adultery, casual sex and violence, etc, which
we certainly get to see often enough on TV. And while religious blocs might
have some influence on network TV, I don't think they have much on movies
which are not targeted for a religious audience.

	So what can you attribute it to? I'm not sure. The simplest answer
would be that the bottom line is ratings and receipts, and for some reason
network TV and movie makers feel that mentioning birth control in a
sexual situation would be bad for r&r. What do the inhabitants of netland
think about this?

	Isaac Dimitrovsky