регистрация / вход

A Response To Gastil On Porn Essay

, Research Paper I do not agree with Gastil that pornography affects creativity and diminishes humanity. He argues that looking a naked body reminds us of our treasured ape image. He tries to state that the human body is something that makes us revert back to animal instincts, thus creating a violent and sex crazed society.

, Research Paper

I do not agree with Gastil that pornography affects creativity and diminishes humanity. He argues that looking a naked body reminds us of our treasured ape image. He tries to state that the human body is something that makes us revert back to animal instincts, thus creating a violent and sex crazed society. I disagree; the human body does not cause regression in evolution, if clothing was not around and all people were naked then humans would not become sex crazed at the site of naked body. If pornography were banned then society would have more occurrences rape, as this becomes the only avenue for people to vent their sexual frustration.

Censorship does not only diminish the human spirit of ingenuity and creativity it also pits cultures against one another. Censorship blocs many avenues of artistic merit that many people have yet to experience. If Gastil had his way the statue of David would not be presented. If nudity causes a regression in human evolution then why is the David a piece that inspires so many young and new artists. Even if Gastil states that the spread of obscenity through the popular arts and up and down the streets can be interpreted as a reflection of the victory of science over religious belief, he fails to see the classic arts as non-scientific (Classic being during the renaissance).

He claims that it is the moral right of the majority to ban obscenity in all facets of society so man can be more civilized. He envisions a future where, because of popular arts, younger and younger children are having intercourse and where violence is an everyday accepted occurrence. Violence and sex in the visual arts need not to be met by harsh censorship but by more openness on the part of these in charge of conveying morals to children. Children should be taught what is acceptable and what isn t in reality. Obscenity should not be blocked out because it is what most people pay to see, so who s to say they are wrong for making it.

Questions raised:

1. If censorship IS neccasry how and to what exten should it be implemented?

2. Who shuld be blamed for these obsceneities, the companies producing them or the people buying them?

3. Why is censorship the only avenue for recourse?

ОТКРЫТЬ САМ ДОКУМЕНТ В НОВОМ ОКНЕ

ДОБАВИТЬ КОММЕНТАРИЙ  [можно без регистрации]

Ваше имя:

Комментарий