Swear all you want because profanity shouldn't even be a thing

Maybe he's about to say "friendship." I doubt it, though.

We humans didn't always have a sophisticated written and spoken language the way we do today. No, we probably started out with mere grunts and groans. Only after a lot of trial and error did we decide that certain grunts and groans indicated particular things. And look at us now. We have hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a million, words in the English language alone. If that doesn't suit you, there are over 7,000 other languages to choose from on this planet, each with its own rich, diverse vocabulary.

But somewhere along the line, we decided that particular words are so powerful that their use should be regulated, restricted, or even banned outright. Some of these words are hateful insults aimed at races, religions, sexual orientations, etc. We call such words slurs. But many other "forbidden" words simply refer to distasteful topics or express extreme frustration. We call these words profanities.

I understand the stigma attached to slurs, which can be used to denigrate people and may even incite violence. But I have never understood—and will likely never understand—the concept of profanity. What a useless, anti-helpful idea. Who benefits from this? What possible gain is there from making certain words restricted or forbidden? Whose life has been improved by this? All I know is that there are people in this world who take great offense at profanity. And because of them, sentences with these "naughty" words have to be bowdlerized or lobotomized before they can be expressed. How dumb.

You know what really irks me about this? What really drives me up the wall? It's the pious, phony hypocrisy of it all. To me, the most obscene, hateful, offensive, destructive sentiments ever expressed by human beings have not been loaded with profanities. Instead, they have been couched in the perfectly "clean," respectable language of government and commerce. A political leader might issue an order that leads to thousands of deaths. The head of a pharmaceutical company might raise the price of a life-saving drug. An influencer might deliver false and even dangerous information to millions of followers. And not one of these people will use a single so-called "profanity." But we carry on as if "four-letter words" were the greatest plague ever released on humanity.

If you are one of those people who make a big show of being offended by profanity, I have no respect or sympathy for you. To me, it's akin to superstition. If you feel the opposite way, you can express that in the comments section of this article. But you'll have to make an awfully convincing case before I am swayed.

Ed Wood's When the Topic is Sex: "Use That Four Letter Word" (1971)

A charming cartoon credited to someone named Dial accompanies this article.

NOTE: This article continues my coverage of Ed Wood's When the Topic is Sex (BearManor Media, 2021).

The article: "Use That Four Letter Word." Originally published in One Plus One (Pendulum Publishing), vol. 3, no. 3, September/October 1971. No author credited.

Excerpt: "Words always have taken on different connotations in the way they are said and in many cases who says them. When it comes to sexual implications this becomes all too important. Most of us in our life time have seen one man greet another with, 'Why you old son of a bitch,' and they walk away happily laughing and slapping each other on the back. But at another time and said in another tone somebody is going to be laying flat on their back with a swollen lip or nose and perhaps be missing a few teeth."

Reflections: You might have a guess as to what this article is about, based on its title. It's Ed Wood's position paper on profanity, right? Eh, sort of. Despite its title, "Use That Four Letter Word" is surprisingly light on profanity. It's more about the significance that supposedly "dirty" words have in the sex lives of certain people. And then, this being an Ed Wood article, it wanders off into other territory.

Cartoonist Mort Walker coined the term "grawlix."

First and foremost, this is a vocabulary lesson. Ed wants us to learn three specific terms: coprolaliac, ecouterist, and erotographomaniac. My spellchecker only recognizes the first of these. "Erotographomaniac" is a fairly well-recognized term, but I could only find "ecouterist" in a very small handful of books and articles. Google kept thinking I meant "ecotourist," i.e. one who travels for environmental reasons.

Basically, a coprolaliac is someone who likes saying dirty words, an ecouterist is someone who likes hearing dirty words, and an erotographomaniac is someone who likes writing dirty words (or drawing dirty pictures) in public places like restrooms. Obviously, coprolaliacs and ecouterists can help each other out immensely, much like sadists and masochists, while the erotographomaniacs of the world are on their own. In this third group, Eddie also includes those who like taking polaroid pictures of their lovers. "He must necessarily have the pictures," Ed states, "or he will remain turned off." 

Eddie informs us that homosexuals are into saying and hearing dirty words, but only when they're having sex with "rough trade," i.e. straight male prostitutes who are strictly "gay for pay." But talking is a big part of the sexual experience for just about everyone, the article insists. "Even animals have been known to howl their delights at those times."

To me, the most interesting part of the article is when Ed Wood proposes an end to profanity—not by banning any words but by removing their stigma.

It is interesting, however, to think that coprolalia is one of the deviations which could be immediately stamped out throughout the world in the matter of a few seconds. All we would have to do is take the curse from all words, make them freely usable, put them in the dictionary and never again hold any taboo against them. For this all existing taboos on any kind of language must be removed.

I've often felt that the very concept of profanity is silly and counterproductive, verging on superstitious. Why should certain words—mere vowels and consonants, morphemes and phonemes—have any power over us? We're the ones in charge, after all, not the words. And yet, many people I know are greatly offended by profanities, and it's made me think more carefully about how I speak and write. I'll still use profanities, but I judge when and where to do so. Sometimes, depending on the audience you're addressing, using a "dirty" word may not be worth the trouble.

Next: "Necrophilia: Love of the Dead" (1973)

But what if Louis C.K. were a cartoon lion? What then?

My biggest artistic challenge: giving a lion a goatee.

This was my bible.

Have you heard of the comic strip Animal Crackers? You can be forgiven for saying no. This particular newspaper feature, revolving around animals who act and talk like people, was originally created in 1967 by cartoonist Roger Bollen. It's carried on today by Fred Wagner. When I was growing up, our local paper, The Flint Journal, didn't carry Animal Crackers, so I never read it.

My only brush with Animal Crackers occurred when its protagonist, Lyle Lion, showed up in a book called Draw 50 Famous Cartoons by Lee J. Ames. That book was like a sacred text to me when I was eight or nine, and I dutifully followed Ames' instruction and drew my own wobbly, lopsided picture of Lyle Lion using ovals and cylinders, but I was never compelled to track down this comic strip.

I guess this would be Animal Crackers' 50th anniversary year, but it's not getting much media attention the way Sgt. Pepper is. Shown above is the installment of the strip for July 3, 2017. It's based around a tired mother-in-law joke that would have been dated in 1967. No wonder Animal Crackers hasn't captured the public's imagination in half a century of continuous content.

I decided that what Animal Crackers needed was a more modern approach to humor, so I rewrote Lyle Lion as if he were comedian Louis C.K. That's not so far-fetched. Louie played a dog in The Secret Life Of Pets, so why not a lion? And, besides, it's not like any kids read the newspaper funnies anymore. Why can't the humor be a little more grown up? Naturally, the profanity from C.K.'s act can't be included in a daily newspaper, but this just requires some tasteful pruning of certain offensive vowels (as shown above).

Here's one more example to illustrate the concept. I promise you, my version could have been an episode of the FX series Louie.

I tried a different approach to the goatee this time. What do you think?

The true origin of a popular catchphrase

It didn't start with this guy, that's for sure.

"Bow chicka wow wow."

That little bit of onomatopoeia has slowly infiltrated the English language over the course of 20 years. Urban Dictionary defines it as (among other things) a "verbal means of referencing a sexual encounter" or "a poor imitation of pornographic like music." So the term BCWW can refer to sex itself or to the bass-heavy music heard in pornographic films, particularly those of the 1970s. The term has become so commonplace that there is even a song about it -- "Bow Chicka Wow Wow" by Mike Posner featuring Lil Wayne. 

But where did the phrase originate? Who came up with the idea of verbally mimicking the music from 1970s porno flicks? I distinctly remember the phrase first being used as part of a stand-up comedy routine in either the late 1980s or early 1990s. With a little "Google fu," I think I have tracked down the creator of this concept: a stand-up comedian named Jordan Brady. He performed this routine on an early 1990s stand-up show called The A-List. 

Jordan Brady doing his famous "bow chicka wow wow" bit.

This comedy routine was widely seen in the '90s, and kids started imitating it at school pretty quickly. But, somehow, Brady's name is no longer attached to this famous catchphrase. Hopefully, this article sets a few people straight.

At long last... ZOMBY!!! throws caution to the wind

Zomby's been cursing a lot lately, and I apologize for that. But it's been that kinda week, y'know?