"Pornography of hatred"

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34099, 11 March 1976, Page 16

"Pornography of hatred"

Sir. — Regarding “Por-i nography of Hatred” by N.I L. Bare, I thoroughly en-l dorse his statement. Also I , regret that Mr P R. H. Mai- ( ing’s remarks appear to me]' just “double talk". If we are! to believe God’s laws as]; being factual, and positive,!: sex is not defiled, if it is I; kept within the marriage i( bed. God’s intention was]’ “one partner," not as many ‘ as we desired. Nor! (were we by Nature intended] (to abuse our bodies. If we! (do so, it is because we do; I not take strength from God; Ito resist our weaknesses,; land in this respect Christ is] ! the only answer to all] ] human problems, not just I I the trampling of our sexual; 'inhibitions. While on the I subject, 1 was completely I (startled by the sudden ex-! i posure of the mating of two 'horses on Shire horses oni ITVI last night. What next?] (Will we soon be viewing; 'two humans in the sex act?’ I After all, outside of our con-

sciences, are we not just animals? So why retain modesty, it’s so old fashioned, or is it? — Yours, : etc. RENEE STANTON. Bible Lady. I February 24, 1976. I [Mr C. A. Martin, Head of I Information Services, TVI, ! replies: “I respect the corresi pondent’s views and it is regretted that some elements ■of the programme gave offence. It was deliberately scheduled later in the evening for more adult audiences, but you may be interested to learn that I have received six letters in today’s mail seeking a repeat of this programme at a time when younger viewers can watch. Each correspondent praised the reproductive scenes which offended Mrs Stanton.”]