|
The boy in the picture
appears to be getting ready to
eat some pizza. He is young and attractive, and the expression
on his face is one of pleasurable anticipation. It is likely that
people who look at this picture will experience incipient salivation and be
reminded that they are hungry. They may be more likely to order a
pizza.
At least, this was the hope of the advertising agency that made the
picture.
There are no laws in this country against displaying pictures of
people
enjoying eating. It is "OK" to enjoy eating and to watch
others enjoying
eating, even if watching stimulates the appetite. There
are laws, however, against displaying pictures of people engaged in
sexual
activity, and it is not considered "OK" to enjoy looking at such
pictures--especially
if doing so increases sexual desire! This metaphor can be
extended.
For example, what if the
boy were a girl? In some
Moslem countries it would be illegal to show her without a veil.
This illustrates how the religious outlook often proscribes
and prescribes
behavior when there is no rational basis for doing so. Religious
leaders are very strong on telling people what is "OK" and what isn't.
 It has been suggested quite cogently that religion thrives on instilling guilt because it claims to have remedies for guilt. If you sell snake bite remedy, providing free snake bites might make good business sense. And there have been times in the history of Christianity (mostly predating the technology that makes possible such vivid pictures) that the picture of the boy and his pizza would have been frowned upon because it would, supposedly, encourage the sin of gluttony.
None of this is to say that eating behavior should be completely unrestricted. Perhaps we could all agree that it would be inappropriate for the Secretary General of the United Nations to eat a pizza while delivering an address to the Security Council. We wouldn't want a mechanic to drop cookie crumbs into his customer's carburetor. We might teach our children that it is bad manners to smack while eating or that it is impolite to eat "in front of" one's friends without offering them something. On the other hand, there might possibly be situations in which all of the above misbehaviors could be forgiven. The point is that when behavior is proscribed or prescribed, it should be for good reasons. Efforts to ban pornography are seldom if ever made for good reasons. It is the position of The
Truth Tree that pornography
is essentially harmless. One hears that pornography is harmful
to
children. Where is the evidence for this assertion?
Arguments
are invited, particularly if they are accompanied by evidence.
|
