W
hat follows my dear
and long-suffering
readers is an hon-
est and frank discussion about
words considered by many to
be profane or vulgar. This is in
no way meant to be a gauche or
crass attempt to use obscenities
for the sake of entertainment.
While I present these terms with
no apology - indeed, I would
argue that none is needed - this
is a “hot-button” issue for many
people.
* * * * *
Riddle me this: What makes a
word “profane?” Where does the
line get drawn between honest
language and, in the words of
Mr. Spock in Star Trek IV: The
Voyage Home “colourful meta-
phors?”
We have simple, direct words
for acts like sleeping and eating,
but for acts of reproduction, we
limit ourselves either to cum-
bersome medical terminology
such as copulation, coition, or
to such effusive euphemisms as
love-making, intimacy and so
on. We have similar issues when
describing the frankly universal
act of expelling solid waste from
our bodies: Evacuating, passing
stools, defecating, excreting and
of course, “doing number two.”
Side Note: One must, in this
instance, feel some sympathy for
poor, put upon number two. How
such an august member of our
numerical system got couched
with the burden of our fecal de-
posits is frankly a mystery to me.
Anyway, this kind of sanitized,
euphemistic circumlocution
reveals a deep seated embar-
rassment and a shame of natural
bodily functions that borders on
the unhealthy.
On the other hand, words such
as shit - and, it must be said -
fuck, have an honesty and di-
rectness which betrays no such
puerile embarrassment, nor do
they suffer from excessive discur-
siveness.
Let this piece of intel rattle about
in your brainbox for a moment:
What if we discovered a culture
who expressed embarrassment
over breathing, or stretching and
yawning when tired, insisting
that we use words such as “re-
spire” or “pandiculate” to de-
scribe those acts? Methinks we’d
chortle over our frappuccinos at
such bizarre nonsense.
It strikes me as equally bizarre
and nonsensical (not to mention
a little worrying) that we try to -
linguistically at least - sterilize
the act of sex, an act associated
with pleasure, joy and the cre-
ation of new life.
Perhaps a historical example will
illustrate my point more clear-
ly. In 1960 Penguin Books was
taken to court for the publication
of the novel “Lady Chatterly’s
Lover” by D. H. Lawrence. The
prosecution maintained that the
book had broken the Obscene
Publications Act due to its use
of vulgar language, most specif-
ically the word “fuck,” used to
describe sexual acts between the
characters. During the trial, the
sociologist Richard Hoggart was
called to testify to the literary
value of the book. He argued:
28