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