Want to make one short comment, because I'm pressed for time this morning, and will elaborate later...

I went to most all of the trial that the city had against Hugh Hefner, when it sued Playboy for obscenity, back in the 60's. The subject of pornography is both complex and simple.

I'll give you the complex side this morning:
One of the lawyers held up a piece of string, cross examining a psychiatrist that was on the stand. It was concluded that, yes... a piece of string could be considered... pornographic.

The question of where Mr. Bradbury would draw lines or where he would want society to draw lines in the area of pornography is interesting. Maybe one of the board members who knows him better could just drop him a letter and ask him.

When I think of Bradbury's view on these kinds of topics, I'm not aware of where he has explicitly discussed the topic of limitations on sexual expressiveness (Although I imagine he has not shied away from these questions somewhere in the past). So, I'm drawn to the story, "The Next in Line," where there are many passages indicating that the woman in the story is nude, while in the presence of her husband. If example is any indicator, Bradbury does not provide any graphic description of a sexual or titillating nature. She is just nude. I think part of it is that he does this to show that she has become, or is feeling, vulnerable to this idea of death. If he wanted to play up the sexual side of the nudity, he could easily have provided graphic descriptions of her body -- but he doesn't. That isn't the objective. A question in my mind is this: If a movie were to be made of this story, how much of the nudity would Mr. Bradbury want shown? Would it be total nudity without a sexual content? Would the nudity be concealed in shadows? I don't know.

For the record, I personally default to a non-censorship, 1st amendment free-speech position in theory. In practice, I don't think all pornography is a "victimless crime" and think there can be legitimate limitations or controls on the presence and availability of pornography (and violence) based on several kinds of criteria. But this is only my opinion (not worth further details) and may or may not coincide with Bradbury's positions on this.

The people that pornography hurts are the very people who are taught that sex is shameful. If they are comfortable with sexuality they handle it just fine. Looking at pictures of sexual acts damages no one. Being taught that it is wron and people fighting or supressing their nature is. Go back to ancient Indi and Japan the Kama Sutra and erotic drawings. These people were comfortable with it - certainly porn by today's standards - and they integrated sexuality with spirituality and were not damaged by it.
As for my being naive - I am 31 years old, happily married (with a 38 year old wife who shares my views here), a home owner, have a baby on the way and have had a hell of a lot of life experience and education.

I appreciate your thoughts. I guess I fall in the middle somewhere.

There are categories of "pornography" (child pornography, the connection of sex to extreme violence, for example) that seem to create a climate where pedophilia and violence can be encouraged. In these kinds of cases, I favor some governmental intervention. In the creation of some porn, underage girls are used, and some are put into horrendous situations where their lives/addictions can be threatened/encouraged to keep them in a subservient role -- allowing them to be used by greedy smut-peddlers. In these cases, I favor governmental intervention.

On the other hand, we are in a free society, and there is a range of feelings on what is and is not acceptable in this area. Greentown makes the point that sex and written/graphic depictions thereof have been around for centuries in all cultures. I would tend to agree -- except in the cases of oppressive religious/communist dictatorships (where I prefer not to be).

I do a lot of photography and have a lot of books on photography. In many of these books there are depictions of nudity. In many cases, I do not view them as pornographic, but some people might. I also have several art books I have collected over the years. In many of these, nudes are integral parts of the artist's portfolio. I would hate for there to be some committee of people who have the right to criminalize all nudity. So, for me, it becomes a question of where we draw lines, and who draws them.

Again, back to Bradbury's work: for whatever reasons, he has chosen to draw his own lines. When it comes to his ability to tell stories, Bradbury has chosen to do so without "pornographic" undertones.




[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 08-19-2003).]

Greentown:
Just walking out the door, but have to return a comment...

Did you ever hear of organization, SA?
There are thousands in the US that belong to this organization.
CLICK ON or TYPE into finder: http://www.sa.org/

What do you do with a bible verse that says,
"...the impure and immoral shall never inherit the kingdom of God".
Did you ever think for a moment why that is so? That is, if you ever read it.

What do you do with all those people that are damaged by pornography? Did you ever talk to any? You think you got the answers? Ask a psychotherapist for the numbers and the heartbreak of stolen identities

You're talking about something you know absolutely nothing about....



[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 08-19-2003).]

Nard, I hope you're going to elaborate a bit on your earlier comment about how even a piece of string can be pornographic. You have my curiosity up. And I went to the sexaholics website, but only briefly. Why on earth would I want to stop lusting? I think it is a fun, normal part of life.

It's all about choice. Everyday, you make your choices. Children and adolescents watch our choices and emmulate them. It doesn't stop when they're 18, or even when their 30. Our children are the by-products of our choices. Those without children have slightly more leverage than parents, but they've still got to answer to someone.

More important: It's all about balance. Sex-adicts and sexual preditors have tipped their scales on the negative, just as a person who finds sex repulsive is the opposite extreme. Good healthy relationships need sex to make them complete. I beleive it's safe to assume that's the kind of sex Ray condones, just based on his writing.

Sex has many layers that encompass everything from true love to hard core pornography, so trying to generalize the subject can lead to what's been going on inside this post.

Just my 2 cents.

Isn't this message board supposed to be for messages about Ray Bradbury, his life and his work?

Richard:
This is a springboard about censorship, flying from the pages of Fahrenheit 451, and later encompassing where does blatant sex fit into censorship, and how Ray avoids it and it is always nestled in his prose as poetry and great art, (like, The llustrated Woman)....and then it broke off into so more things about censorship and values, and truth, and...well... here we are...!!!
You don't like?

Apparantly I'm a bigger doofus than is obvious. I thought I'd posted a reply to Greentown and now I don't find it anywhere. Well, at the risk of it showing up here or somewhere else, I'll try to re-post it from memory:

Greentown,

It sounds to me like you might've been offended by my post above. If so, I apologize. But if you'll take a closer look at what I said, you'll see that I was referring to your statements as being naive and not you. A laywerly dodge? Not at all. I have the utmost respect for you personally and didn't mean to imply that I thought you were naive. If you took offense, please accept my apology.

Now, to your statement that if people "are comfortable with sexuality they handle it (pornography) just fine. Looking at pictures of sexual acts damages no one." The question then becomes obvious, doesn't it? I mean, if people are comfortable with sexuality, then why are they looking at pornography? Maybe I'm guilty of painting with a broad brush, like Celestial is good enough to warn us about above, about sexuality, but I don't get it. What is it that people with a healthy view of sexuality get from watching other people have sex? I have a pretty good view about food and alcohol yet I don't get a kick out of watching other people eat or drink a beer. I'd rather be doing it. Why doesn't that hold the same with pornography?

I think Ray made a reference to this in his interview with Playboy (!) When asked why he steers clear of the the sexually explicit, he answered that if you have a great sex life, you don't have to invent one. (Richard, does this tie in to Ray work for you? I'm afraid it's the best I can do.)

Pete

Nard,

Where exactly can one find "The Illustrated Woman"? If anyone has the link, it would be you.

Imskipper:
The string thing...was what basically turned the case in Hefner's favor. The jury finally became deadlocked, and the case was thrown out. It wound-up that it wasn't that the pictorial on Jayne Mansfield and friend was pornographic, it was that, according to psychiatrists who treat people with sexual disfunctions, a string was just as sexual to some. This meant, who could draw a line anywhere in the sand, and say THIS is pornographic. (At least according to lawyers and psychiatrists.)

Celestial...

Oh my! Guess what!!?
The 'Illustrated Woman' appeared as a short story in.... Playboy.
To be exact, it's the March 1961 issue.

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 08-20-2003).]

"The Illustrated Woman" is also in THE MACHINERIES OF JOY.

"The Illustrated Woman" is also in that huge volume from 1980, The Stories of Ray Bradbury.