Obscene Publications Bill (Press, 12 July 1963)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Obscene Publications Bill (Press, 12 July 1963)
A series of letters in response to a review has sparked a debate on sexual morality and literature standards. In a letter dated 9 July 1963, a reader criticises the term "unnatural practices" as outdated and reminiscent of pre-Lawrentian views that equated any non-procreative sexual acts as immoral. They reference Havelock Ellis who argues that terms like "perversion" are antiquated and rooted in outdated traditions. They also note that the term "unnatural" has been omitted in the 1961 Crimes Act, following the Wolfenden Report's recommendation to avoid using such moralistic language regarding sexual behaviour. A subsequent letter from a contributor named "Reviewer" defends the older moral views and accuses Mr Sadler of promoting ideas that were prevalent in the 1930s, suggesting that literature exists that openly addresses sexual issues without being pornographic. "Reviewer" takes issue with what they perceive as Sadler’s flippant attitude towards homosexual problems, admonishing reviewers who fail to grasp the core of their material, implying such misunderstandings could lead to career repercussions. Another response dated 10 July from a contributor identified as "Clarion Call" expresses pride in their traditional upbringing, which emphasised respect for women rather than a perceived moral ignorance of past generations. They dispute the notion that reading impure literature is necessary for understanding human physiology, asserting that they have enjoyed a fulfilling life filled with decent literature and family, separate from what they describe as "foul" books associated with sexuality. Overall, the exchange highlights diverging views on sexual morality, literature standards, and the interpretation of historical values in contemporary discussions around sexuality.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand