Do we need to set limits? *edited*

Angela_Grokes thumbnail
Anniversary 10 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 7 years ago
#1
Disclaimer : This is going to be a long post. Please be patient and read it before reacting.

The recent furore over Tanmay Bhat's tweets was something which forced me to think a bit on some matters. In recent times, all around the world, there are events occuring that don't necessarily portray humanity in very good light. Let's see it this way, the freedom of expression and liberty to follow one's will has been used much more than it earlier was and this has caused more harm to humanity than it has benefitted us.

Kanhaiya Kumar's protest with other students in JNU was something which was shameful. I am not even an Indian by birth but I have been living here for like 6-7 years now so the political conditions do interest me. What Kanhaiya did was not only treason in my opinion but also a misuse of freedom which the Constitution guarantees him. 

Next, Tanmay Bhat and his tweets. Now, I guess he does not like a specific artist but Lata Mangeshkar has given a lot to Bollywood. Honestly, even if I didnt like her I couldn't deny that her voice is melodious and soulful voice. But even if someone does not think like that, is tweeting that someone dies a good thing? Yes I get that it happens a lot around the net and these are celebs so it was taken way too seriously but if you look at other tweets by him you can see that the guy is clearly being disrespectful to everyone on the name of comedy. And BTW his content has followers!

Now, getting outside India we have singers like Nicki Minaj and celebs like Kim Kardashian who do anything to gain fame and popularity. Look, I get its their body and they can do anything but they should be aware of what effect their acts will have on the society. Anaconda by Nicki Minaj and that controversial photoshoot by Kim Kardashian simply do one thing. THEY OBJECTIFY WOMEN. They present women as sex objects while women are much much beyond it.

Finally my question is related to books and literature. In recent era, number of books which are published glorify rape, stalking and abusive relationships. They present women as sex object and nothing beyond it. Few books go to the extent of presenting sex as the sole purpose of love! Is that what our society has come to? Is that was entertainment means now? The baseless, void and emotionless portrayal of sex? And this content has lots of followers. People actually defend this under whatever light. 

So should we limit this freedom given to writers? Can we do it? Is it morally and ethically correct? If you ask me, I think imagination is a good thing and should not be restricted. But while writers should not be restricted till a great extent but there should be a limit where even imagination needs to be controlled. We must remember that anything has a good and bad effects. Sadly, the extreme liberty has started showing its effects on our society. 

What are you thoughts guys?

P.S. - If anyone felt offended by this, I am sorry.
Edited by Angela_Grokes - 7 years ago

Created

Last reply

Replies

8

Views

815

Users

4

Likes

12

Frequent Posters

slippedaffairs thumbnail
Anniversary 9 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 7 years ago
#2
I do agree, people now think lust is a synonym to Love.
They had made the love word in a form of enjoyment when it is a feeling, cherishable and pure. An emotional consent and connection rather than physical contact.


thegameison thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago
#3
Offense and the use of one's freedom of speech have both been on the rise simultaneously. Social media has given everyone a voice and they are exercising their right to voice their opinion on anything and everything. What I fail to understand is, someone else's opinion on someone who is not you, why should your finding that offensive be a big deal? That someone said something some other person does not like does not mean a thing. It has no political, social or moral angle until people make it. The only people who have any right to tell Tanmay Bhatt to shut up are people he has targeted. That is my personal opinion. Both offense and freedom of expression have been made too big a deal, and frankly, they have started to sound hollow in the current context of India to me.

About books and the portrayal of sex, I neither read romance (much) nor erotica. Romance is inevitable but reading erotica or not is obviously a personal choice. The concept of sex also is personal. I don't think I would like to read stories about people banging random strangers. But I don't think a Nicholas Sparks book would be particularly fascinating to me either. One's idea of romance and sex and whatever is one's own. There should be no limit on anyone's imagination, especially a writer. It depends on the audience whether they believe in the author's craft or not. Simply because you and I wouldn't want to read Fifty Shades of Grey, does not mean, in my opinion, that such books shouldn't be written.

By the way, if anyone is interested, the book I am currently reading is called Atlas Shrugged, there is a very fascinating speech in there about sex by one of the main characters. I'd post it here, should anyone read it, let me know what you think. I believe in that philosophy quite firmly.


thegameison
thegameison thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago
#4

Francisco D'Anconia's Speech: Sex and Morality

March 11th, 2008  29 Comments

"Do you remember what I said about money and about the men who seek to reverse the law of cause and effect? The men who try to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind? Well, the man who despises himself tries to gain self- esteem from sexual adventures-which can't be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man's sense of his own value."

"You'd better explain that."

"Did it ever occur to you that it's the same issue? The men who think that wealth comes from the material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think-for the same reason-that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of ones mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy on life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he's taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment-just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity!-an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience-or to fake-a sense of self-esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer " because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless s**t. He does not seek to . . . what's the matter?" he asked, seeing the look on Rearden's face, a look of intensity much beyond mere interest in an abstract discussion.

"Go on," said Rearden tensely.

"He does not seek to gain his value, he seeks to express it. There is no conflict between the standards of his mind and the desires of his body. But the man who is convinced of his own worthlessness will be drawn to a woman he despises-because she will reflect his own secret self, she will release him from that objective reality in which he is a fraud, she will give him a momentary illusion of his own value and a momentary escape from the morel code that damns him. Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives-and observe the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy. One proceeds from the other. Love is our response to our highest values-and can be nothing else. Let a man corrupt his values and his view of existence, let him profess that love is not self-enjoyment but self-denial, that virtue consists, not of pride, but of pity or pain or weakness or sacrifice, that the noblest love is born, not of admiration, but of charity, not in response to values, but in response to flaws-and he will have cut himself in two. His body will not obey him, it will not respond, it will make him impotent toward the woman he professes to love and draw him to the lowest type of wh**e he can find. His body will always follow the ultimate logic of his deepest convictions; if he believes that flaws are values, he has damned existence as evil and only the evil will attract him. He has damned himself and he will feel that depravity is all he is worthy of enjoying. He has equated virtue with pain and he will feel that vice is the only realm of pleasure. Then he will scream that his body has vicious desires of its own which his mind cannot conquer, that sex is sin, that true love is a pure emotion of the spirit. And then he will wonder why love brings him nothing but boredom, and sex-nothing but shame."

Rearden said slowly, looking off, not realizing that he was thinking aloud, "At least . . . I've never accepted that other tenet . . . I've never felt guilty about making money."

Francisco missed the significance of the first two words; he smiled and said eagerly, "You do see that it's the same issue? No, you'd never accept any part of their vicious creed. You wouldn't be able to force it upon yourself. If you tried to damn sex as evil, you'd still find yourself, against your will, acting on the proper moral premise. You'd be attracted to the highest woman you met. You'd always want a heroine. You'd be incapable of self-contempt. You'd be unable to believe that existence is evil and that you're a helpless creature caught in an impossible universe. You're the man who's spent his life shaping matter to the purpose of his mind. You're the man who would know that just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love-and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool's self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one's code of values. Its' the same issue, and you would know it. Your inviolate sense of self-esteem would know it. You would be incapable of desire for a woman you despised. Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire, is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love. But observe that most people are creatures cut in half who keep swinging desperately to one side or to the other. One kind of half is the man who despises money, factories, skyscrapers and his own body. He holds undefined emotions about non-conceivable subjects as the meaning of life and his claim of virtue. And he cries with despair, because he can feel nothing for the woman he respects, but finds himself in bondage to an irresistible passion for a s**t from the gutter. He is the man whom people call an idealist. The other kind of half is the man whom people call practical, the man who despises principles, abstractions, art, philosophy and his own mind. He regards the acquisition of material objects as the only goal of existence- and he laughs at the need to consider their purpose or their source. He expects them to give him pleasure- and he wonders why the more he gets, the less he feels. He is the man who spends his time chasing women. Observe the triple fraud which he perpetrates upon himself. He will not acknowledge his need of self-esteem, since he scoffs at such a concept as moral values; yet he feels the profound self-contempt which comes from believing that he is a piece of meat. He will not acknowledge, but he knows that sex is the physical expression of a tribute to personal values. So he tries, by going through the motions of the effect, to acquire that which should have been the cause. He tries to gain a sense of his own value from the women who surrender to him- and he forgets that the women he picks have neither character nor judgment nor standard of value. he tells himself that all he's after is physical pleasure- but observe that he tires of his woman in a week or a night, that he despises professional wh**es and that he loves to imagine he is seducing virtuous girls who make a great exception for his sake. It is the feeling of achievement that he seeks and never finds. What glory can there be in the conquest of a mindless body? Now that is your woman chaser. Does the description fit me?

"God, no!"

"Then you can judge, without asking my word for it, how much chasing of women I've done in my life." 

LoveToLaugh thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Group Promotion 2 Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago
#5
I do not want to talk about the JNU case. Nope. 

About Tanmay Bhatt, however, I admit I haven't actually seen the video and I am not particularly a fan of this guy. I don't even know too much about his body of work. BUT... Didn't he receive physical threats from the MNS over the video? How is that okay, in the name of whatever? How are direct, violent threats okay? It is fine to not like his work. It is fine to criticize the guy. But violence must always be condemned. 

Yes, a lot of people spew bigoted sexist, racist crap in the name of "freedom of speech" and that is a problem. But that problem does not exist because of too much freedom or whatever, it exists because we live in such a society. Asking that problematic content does not exist excuses the many problematic aspects of the things we do, say and accept in our daily lives and ultimately stifles debate. I know a LOT of people who are very committed to freedom of thought, speech and expression and are very much against banning of any book, who have also trashed a Fifty Shades of Grey because the book romanticizes abuse. That kind of debate is necessary, because media ultimately reflects society. And there would be no space for debate, if we started setting limits on what people can and cannot say. Issues would effectively get pushed under the rug. 

*edited*

PS - I am sorry if this came across as somewhat harsh. Not my intention, and I do respect your opinion. Thanks.
Edited by LoveToLaugh - 7 years ago
LoveToLaugh thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Group Promotion 2 Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago
#6

Originally posted by: thegameison

Offense and the use of one's freedom of speech have both been on the rise simultaneously. Social media has given everyone a voice and they are exercising their right to voice their opinion on anything and everything. What I fail to understand is, someone else's opinion on someone who is not you, why should your finding that offensive be a big deal? That someone said something some other person does not like does not mean a thing. It has no political, social or moral angle until people make it. The only people who have any right to tell Tanmay Bhatt to shut up are people he has targeted. That is my personal opinion. Both offense and freedom of expression have been made too big a deal, and frankly, they have started to sound hollow in the current context of India to me.

About books and the portrayal of sex, I neither read romance (much) nor erotica. Romance is inevitable but reading erotica or not is obviously a personal choice. The concept of sex also is personal. I don't think I would like to read stories about people banging random strangers. But I don't think a Nicholas Sparks book would be particularly fascinating to me either. One's idea of romance and sex and whatever is one's own. There should be no limit on anyone's imagination, especially a writer. It depends on the audience whether they believe in the author's craft or not. Simply because you and I wouldn't want to read Fifty Shades of Grey, does not mean, in my opinion, that such books shouldn't be written.

By the way, if anyone is interested, the book I am currently reading is called Atlas Shrugged, there is a very fascinating speech in there about sex by one of the main characters. I'd post it here, should anyone read it, let me know what you think. I believe in that philosophy quite firmly.


thegameison


I agree. But I do think that freedom of expression is a matter of grave concern, and especially in the current context. A lot of people, and especially women, face terrifying backlash and are trolled every time they say something that goes against the tide. People should be free to expresss themselves without having to risk violent, and often abusive, threats and without subjecting themselves to life-threatening consequences. 

thegameison thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago
#7

Originally posted by: LoveToLaugh

And that wouldn't happen if we started setting limits on what people can and cannot say. Issues would effectively get pushed under the rug. 


How can limits on what one can and cannot say be set, and how will that be accord with freedom of speech?
LoveToLaugh thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Group Promotion 2 Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago
#8

Originally posted by: thegameison


How can limits on what one can and cannot say be set, and how will that be accord with freedom of speech?


Exactly? That is what I am trying to say. It Isn't okay to set limits on what people can say - and also impossible because how do you do that without resorting to violence? (Maybe I was not being clear because I meant setting limits would stifle debate.) 
thegameison thumbnail
Posted: 7 years ago
#9
Ah, the fault is mine. ðŸ˜†
I get your point now!