Spring 2009 - Issue 5

The Silversword: Home > Op-Ed > Unicorns and Lollipops: Profane Indignation

Unicorns and Lollipops: Profane Indignation

Mike Kasper, Editor

This column has been rated R due to strong language and adult situations.

It would be hard to argue against the power of the written and spoken word, yet it is something that all of us take for granted. It seems that the only time that a consideration concerning the scope of its power is taken is in an instance when an individual has taken offense.

Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits.

George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” debuted in 1972, and while the sensibilities of mass media are a bit different, here, almost 40 years later, the public ire regarding profanity remains stagnant. While societal norms have evolved to a point, the public forum has lagged behind. That is, while the majority of the list now resides in the colloquial lexicon, the taboo nature of these words remains unfettered. Using most of these words in an unfamiliar public setting will usually net the speaker some combination of dirty glances and judgmental thoughts. But that pales in comparison to what can happen to a media outlet that uses such “abusive” language.

However, this begs the question, “Why is this the way it is? What makes these words so special as to warrant such consideration?”

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the national organization that monitors the media and levies sanctions for profanity violations. On its official Web site, it defines profane language as “words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a ‘nuisance.’”

All vagueness of this definition aside, this paints the picture of a contextual judgment of what is said in the media, which obviously is not really the case. No matter what the context is, it seems unlikely that the word “fuck” will be making its way to a primetime show anytime soon. It is possible to depict sex visually and in an auditory way. It is possible to label it with many different variations (sex, sleep with, bone, etc). Just don’t call it “fucking.” Because that would change the context and all.

The difference between “offensive” words and their cleaner brethren is arbitrary. The only variation between the phrases “to fuck” and “to sleep with” is the negative reaction some will feel.

But what exactly is the purpose of an individual taking offense to such words? Even though the profane language in this article is solely in the context of attempted academic study, it seems inevitable that someone, somewhere will be unhappy.

This column should not be misinterpretated to be a plea to use these words in all situations with gusto. But rather, there is a hope that an understanding is realized that the offensiveness of these words is a power solely given by the offended. The self-righteous anger that some feel upon hearing “fuck” continues to allow the word to carry the weight of importance. The power of words is an important factor in society, but hypocritical criticism should not be part of our way of life. Get over yourselves.