Jeffrey Wong is verbose and fervid in typecasting me as a moral crusader ([#1] Exposure helps us to mature [/#], Feb 24) I will wear that as a badge of honour, though I least deserve it. If one soul has considered what I have written and taken a positive step in the right direction then I should feel gratified.

I merely presented views that are not always articulated in today's hedonistic society, not only in the West but in Asia. I know this is a value judgement and while some like the writer may not agree with my position, most people will agree moral values have dropped.

I suppose what I wrote would touch raw nerves and judging by the writer's response I guess I am probably right. I least expected people with permissive ideas will agree with my views but I am sure many will agree no harm would result if my ideas were implemented. I doubt the same can be said of the writer's ideas. Already the experience in Singapore has shown youths with web-related problems, as Singapore newspapers have reported.

A report stated, "Some recent high-profile cases have pointed to the dangers of youths going astray because of their encounters on the Net." The number of young people aged between 15 and 24 visiting porn sites is staggering. One European study found that almost 240,000 of them actively visit adult sites. If this is okay to some, then I guess I rest my case. What more can I say?

Yes, they do show Bollywood movies in Australia. Some Indians here even have their own satellite dishes and receive television broadcasts from India. I must qualify I have not seen what Bollywood movies are presently shown in Malaysia so my comments on Bollywood relate to what I know in general. I have, however, seen some movies produced by Bollywood and my comments must be taken in that context. If my Indian and Malay friends are upset because I wrote against their favourite shows, I'm sorry, I can't help it if they fall into the same undesirable category.

In fact, I watched a documentary on what some Indians in India were doing to combat what they perceived as a social evil in their culture - the screening of Bollywood movies. And I mentioned they ransacked cinemas in extreme cases. I do not think Bollywood movies I have seen are anywhere near as bad as some European and Hollywood movies shown here. Television affects different people differently.

If the writer had read my article carefully he would know I never claimed there was a relationship with rising sexual crimes and the showing of Bollywood movies. I merely stated that "Bollywood is changing the rules and testing the limits of public decency." Isn't that true? If the Indians in India are themselves enraged, who is the writer to say they are wrong by inference? Anyway, the main thrust of my article was not about Bollywood but the negative influence of a sexually exploitative media in general.

Neither did I say Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad said there was a link. It will be interesting to find out the results of the scientific study Mahathir is urging be done.

As for the Muslims, I know their official position on the Bollywood controversy. However, I'd like to know if they, or those from other religions on the basis of what their religions teach (not their own ideas), think my article was off the mark.

The writer says I am inconsistent because I said "it does not mean Westerners are more decadent than Asians" and yet reported 100,000 unwanted babies are aborted each year in Australia. I was referring to the role of the West in exporting their decadent culture overseas and specifically to the Western entertainment industry. I quote, "But the Western entertainment industry broke social taboos and ushered in their brand of morality that really was decadent. Hollywood is not known for its scruples." Because certain segments of Western society are decadent does not mean all Westerners are. My criticism was leveled at Hollywood, and then again, perhaps I should also have qualified most film producers in Hollywood.

The writer said: "I cannot agree that we Asians including Malaysians could not countenance the so-called decadent influences of foreign media in this Internet age with self-control as Westerners so as to justify paternalistic protection and enforced government control." I did not convey that Westerners have more self-control than Malaysians. Or that Malaysians are less able to handle sexually explicit material than Westerners.

On the contrary, I have clearly stated that in Australia because of a liberal media, there have been social costs to society. My consistent view is that a medium that promotes sex to sell or entertain will make people promiscuous especially the young and impressionable, although all could be affected whether it is in the West or in Asia.

The writer is quick to associate my article with views which I did not express and by insinuation suggests I am repressive especially of people's sexuality. He missed and glossed over what I wrote that "Sex is a God-given gift to us. Let us protect it from those who abuse it for material gain." Did I say sex is bad or don't have sex?

It is because I recognise human sexuality, which the writer called an "elephant in the room" that I advocate we protect it. By protect, I mean do not let sex be abused or perverted. Masters and Johnson, well known for their research on sex, tell us the happiest and most fulfilling sex is between married couples. But relationships based on sex do not last.

I have already said what people do in their bedrooms is their business but what is shown on television is everyone's business.

Pornography and sex in movies do not do justice to sex in real life or promote morality. Often they overemphasise the erotic part of sex without consideration of other facets including the responsibilities between two people in a relationship or the idea of agape love. They promote lust. Often women are portrayed as sex objects and subjected to degrading acts.

I am in favour of good sex and believe more should be learned about the subject because a society with sexually fulfilled marriages is good for everyone. With the joy and pleasures of sex, must come responsibilites. Smut, to me, does not fit in the equation.

The writer's idea that "The way to maturity and control is exposure rather than protection and shelter" is naive and dangerous. It shows his lack of understanding, of the dangers of pornography and the subtle influence of sex in the media on people and the upshot of promiscuity, against the body of available evidence done by researchers on the subject.

If I have something in common with the writer, it is that I once thought like him about sex, perhaps even more liberally, so I know how he feels.