TALKING DIRTY

3/11/04

Irrational, damned-foolishness is again rampant in Washington. I speak of the current campaign against “dirty” words. The words don’t bother me much; I’ve known them since a child; I’m offended more that highly paid politicos are using those words pandering for votes. So I’m going to write about “dirty “ words. I’ll not print the words here, but I’ll come close. I’m sorry if I offend.

As a very young man, I tried my new-found vocabulary in the presence of my now sainted Irish grandmother. I was firmly chastised, but grandmother provided a valuable lesson. People, she said, can be dirty, nasty or bad; words cannot. Words are made of letters that aren’t bad. Words have meanings which aren’t bad. But, words can be used in ways that are impolite or hurtful. Grandmother taught that life would be more peaceful or enjoyable if I avoided profanity or obscenity , except when necessary. I have attempted to follow her teachings, though not always with success. I prefer forbidden words for some uses.

The four letter word for copulation is particularly useful. In its various forms, it can be used as a verb, as a noun, adjective or exclamation. It is short, easy to use, and easy to spell. If written it is considered vulgar, obscene and sometimes illegal; if spoken in public, a misdemeanor worthy of fine and imprisonment. If spoken on radio or television, it can be cause for revocation of a broadcasting license and a fine of $250,000. But , I can legally spell the word if I simply replace a couple of letters with asterisks. Now, it isn’t rational that an asterisk is more moral than a letter of the alphabet. In fact, spelling is immaterial. New research shows literate users recognize words by form instead of spelling. That is, if the first and last letters of a word are correct, the word will be correctly understood, regardless of the order of the interior letters.

There are dozens of verbal shorthand words or sayings that mean the same as the written word. Some may be considered crude or impolite, but are not illegal. Foreigners might have trouble translating “effing” or “frigging,” but nearly all English speaking Americans will know what it means. Some might even know the meaning of the expression, “hide the salami.” Jersyites and New Yorkers surely will.

That a word is obscene because of what it represents isn’t particularly rational, either. After all, preachers rail against fornication; medical people and others can describe sexual intercourse in a dozen different ways. Are we to penalize all who speak of “knowing in the biblical sense?” The English speaking public should also understand that the new regulations on obscenity cover only worlds in our native language; it is still legal to be vulgar or obscene in French, German, Italian, Spanish or about six thousand other languages. Presumably, if you don’t know what a word means, it can not be vulgar or obscene. Wouldn’t this same presumption be valid in the case of children?

If we discard the obvious foolishness about spelling, pronunciation, meaning, or understanding, with what are we left? Historically we prohibited certain words to “protect” women and children. The politicos now profess to protect only children, though it is notable that they have made no real effort to protect Spanish speaking children from Spanish language obscenity. Parents might better protect by keeping their kids away from media on which such words appear, though I suspect that children don’t need such protection. Most young people, like most Europeans, see the mindless American crusade against sex and obscenity to be quite stupid. And a large percentage understands political pandering, even if they don’t know what pandering means. It means, kiddies, some guys in Washington are trying to do one of the forbidden things to the taxpayers. But don’t you dare say it; some people might be upset!