The effort to answer the question as to whether my fellow country women, men and children are colossal prudes will inevitably require allusions to what some pious Yankees consider vulgar language. In other cases, our research inevitably leads also to consideration of the display of nude or semi-nude females in night clubs, on the beach, on television, in catalogues from suppliers such as Victoria’s Secret, or in the print media. To all the ardent followers of Billy Graham and his less than bright son Franklin, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, the thought that we are even considering asking the question is horrid, horrid news. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, it proves that anyone even asking this question about our being prudes demonstrates that the bulk of American citizenship is headed straight for the eternal tortures of hell.
The basic question asked in this essay, is whether lucid and rational people around the globe believe that, in general terms, many Americans are sterling silver, 24 carat gold-plated prudes? Of course, this ancient essay writer has a strong opinion on this question. Rather than to wait for his answer in the denouement of this piece, it is the long standing opinion of this writer that a large proportion of the United States population is afflicted with the symptoms of prudery in colossal proportions. In effect, the answer to my question is, “Hell yes!” and “You can bet your backside (hips, buttocks, etc.)” that prudishness affects a large share of the United States citizenship.
After completing the foregoing sentence, a period of calm, thoughtful, introspective reverence encompassed me. My belief is that this period of calmness was heaven sent. By referring to “backside, hips and buttocks, etc.,” it is absolutely clear that prudishness has started to make an occasional inroad on what is left of my mind. My parents, my siblings, all my acquaintances in the filling station business, at AT&T, in the Communications Workers of America, in the American and the British armies and various other friends will know that, when asked about American prudishness, my proper answer would be, “You bet your ass it exists in prodigious quantities.” Everyone has my abject apologies for even flirting with the far out edges of prudishness. My position is now clear, it is hoped. Circumlocution is always a treacherous business when opinions are sought.
There was one other occasion when in an attempt to be nice to people, there was a disastrous involvement with language that failed to carry my message clearly. In other words, prudishness intervened. On November 8, 1945, the Army of the United States was to provide me with an honorable discharge. The ceremonial procedure was to take place at Scott Field, Illinois, which lies about 30 miles east of St. Louis. The day started with my catching a 5AM streetcar which made a connection to the Scott Field bus in St. Louis. My arrival at Scott was somewhere around 7AM. There was not much to do to effect my discharge but to type the separation papers and to have the gold “ruptured duck” sewn on my uniform blouse. The “duck” was really a walking eagle. It let people know that the wearer was a dischargee from military service.
In my mind, the whole procedure should have been completed no later than noon. That estimate of time was off by at least seven hours. The delay was caused by legions of sergeants who demanded to know why there was no re-enlistment on my part. They said my departure at this critical time seemed to border on treachery or on treason. My position was that the war was well over and it was time for me to go home. There were other legions of sergeants who demanded that enlistment in the Army Reserves or the National Guard would be one way to partially regain my patriotism. My answer was that the shooting had stopped and my intentions were to go home to St. Louis. There were even some sergeants wanting to sign me up for term insurance at rates that seemed exorbitant to me.
By 5PM or 6PM, my patience and my use of politeness were completely worn out. The language of prudishness is usually circumlocution. A hanging is called “peaceful passing.” Electrocution, it is said, lasts only for an instant. It was time now for direct Army language. No more politeness; no more circumlocution. When the head sergeant again showed up, he started the routine about re-enlistment, or the Reserves or the National Guard. When he paused between paragraphs, this young old soldier said simply and forcefully, “Sergeant, F— you.” That got results. By 7PM or thereabouts, my discharge papers were in my hands and the Army of the United States was behind me. Politeness and circumlocution, the essence of prudery, had failed to accomplish much. The straight and forward language of the Army, mastered over several years, had turned the trick.
Now we have the ascendancy of faith, which is greatly encouraged by George Bush. It seems to me as a long time observer of American conduct, that as citizens put their trust in faith, prudishness increases exponentially. Nowhere is this more true than when faith and religion intrude on the legislative process. In substance, there is the claim that there should be no differentiation between the affairs of state and the practice of religion. Because religion takes its orders from God, pious practitioners of faith contend that the role of government is subsumed by religion. The evidence having to do with George Bush would make it clear that even though he is allegedly head of the U.S. Government, a secular enterprise, he largely accepts that view. His idea of governing is indeed faith based and flows from his sacred gut.
Let us take a look at where this attitude has brought us. A good place to start would be on issues that affect women. According to the prudes, who cloak their restrictions in Biblical language, an abortion is a grievous sin against the god they worship. It makes no difference if the woman was impregnated by a rapist or by a male family member, she must carry any fetus to term. In short, the woman has no rights that are recognized by church prelates or by the government, if the pious tone prevails. In the case of grave danger to the health of the woman, she has no voice. If it kills her to give birth, it must be presumed that whatever god is involved, wanted it that way. In short, under this doctrine, women have no rights at all.
Curiously, the Vatican says that abortion is evil, but so is preemptive war and the death penalty, according to Catholic doctrine. Some of the clerics in the church in this country have proclaimed that Catholic moderates, such as John Kerry, must be denied communion as a penalty for his moderate views on Roe v. Wade. One elderly woman who voted for Kerry went immediately to confession to seek forgiveness for her sin accordingly to Bob Braun, a columnist for the Newark Star Ledger.
The rest of the civilized world in Europe, Asia and South America seem to get along without such stern rules condemning women and penitents alike. Are those hundreds of millions of people all wrong with only the pious heroes of America upholding the faith? Or is this one more case of the United States being out of step with the rest of the world? Is this another case of Americans being prudes? The answer from this old libertarian is YES a thousand times over.
Two thoughts occur here. If any religious group deplores abortions, there is no power in this country that will compel a woman to have an abortion. It is a voluntary exercise. And secondly, there are are those of us who hold that women have an inalienable right to control what happens to their own bodies. Why should women be required to submit to laws that suit only American religious prudes? Again, my answer is a shouted, “Hell no!”
That takes us to same sex marriages. It seems to me that homosexuality is a lot like left handedness or nearsightedness. This old writer was afflicted from birth, by the gene that causes glaucoma, a degenerative disease of the eye. Only an unschooled, ignorant illiterate would claim that glaucoma is brought on by eating or drinking to excess or by failure to attend church services regularly. Priests, nuns and preachers alike have encountered glaucoma. Glaucoma happened to my father and to his five children. It simply happened. The Chaney daughter had no say in her lesbianism. Jim McGreevey was born a “gay American.” They did nothing to acquire their homosexuality as those of us with glaucoma did nothing to bring it on. There is no crime against any God or anyone else.
Gays and lesbians usually want to live out their lives in the company of other similarly situated people. To me, this is a normal, human impulse. If their feelings are sufficiently strong, they may seek legal or religious recognition as married people. The prudes in American society and the religious fanatics say that same sex marriages are evil and that they must be barred for all time, even with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Bush says that the sanctity of marriage between only a man and a woman must be preserved. No one is doing away with marriage between a man and a woman. Bush’s marriage would not become harmed if someone, somewhere marries another of the same sex. That voice in his ear, or in his pious gut, should tell him the facts.
More than anything else, the drive against same sex marriages reminds thinking people of the miscegenation laws in effect in this country until recently, that barred marriages between white people and those people of African descent. When opponents of same sex marriages denounce such unions, it must give them some pleasure to know that their defense is rooted in the era of slavery in this country. A pretty proud tradition, it must be observed.
Much of the opposition to same sex marriages comes from the old Confederacy of the American South. They have become solidly Republican since the passage in 1964 of the Civil Rights Act which requires that there be no separate school rooms or restrooms based on race. It is clear that these rednecks would welcome a return to a segregated society with a ban on anything unapproved by the Southern Baptist Church.
Moving closer to home, Ms. Chicka and this liberal geezer enjoy a traditional marriage. When a notice of a marriage appears in the New York Times or some other paper, reporting on the union of Sadie Rachel Cohen and Mary Marie O’Meara, there is absolutely no threat whatsoever of the Cohen-O’Meara wedding affecting our marriage or George Bush’s marriage. Similarly, if Jim McGreevey next marries a male Englishman, there will be no threat to our marriage, but marrying across such deep cultural boundaries would seem to suggest that McGreevey’s sanity ought to be questioned.
Finally, there is no power, either religious or governmental, that would compel same sex marriage. To ban it would serve only to announce once more, that American prudishness has triumphed. Because one collection of American prudes opposes same sex marriages, why must all other Americans be forced to submit to their prudery? And no agency of government is going to force anyone to marry another person of the same sex, so what is the problem?
There is no intention in the Chicka-Carr marriage to seek other same sex matrimonial partners. If other Americans want to exercise that right, it seems to me that their efforts should be cheered, rather than barred.
We turn now to stem cell research. The United States is singularly equipped to undertake the research necessary to overcome diseases that have afflicted the population of the world. The world is looking for us to devote our vast research talents to solving some of the illnesses that have long been imposed on world citizenry. When the rest of the world, or when thinking Americans realize that such work is being hijacked by an obscure religious dispute, they shake their heads in wonderment. What an exercise in absolute prudery.
Once again, some clerics who owe their allegiance to the Vatican are leading the charge oblivious to the teachings of Rome that preemptive wars and executions of prisoners have long been considered sinful before anyone knew of stem cells. Stem cell research is a newcomer. The Vatican’s opposition to unjust wars and executions of prisoners pre-date stem cell work by centuries. Yet here we are with clerics of the Catholic faith and Evangelic Protestant adherents offering opposition to political candidates who do not enthusiastically endorse their primitive and backward looking views. The rest of the world is stunned by our American prudery. We are taking a dive to the bottom when it comes to stem cell research.
Again, there is no law whatsoever that would compel religious believers to become involved with stem cell work. But ardent opposition by religionists should not be used as an excuse to force forward-looking thinkers to submit to a law outlawing stem cell work.
In the 1930’s when many of us grew up, some religionists declined to eat meat on Fridays. Other meat eaters were free to enjoy hamburgers or hot dogs on Friday. There was no law against it. Now in many quarters, laws banning stem cell research are being proposed and politicians who support such work are being actively opposed.
A question arises here. If the people who wish to ban stem cell research for all of us, should see in a few years time, a person who had been cured as a result of stem cell work, do you believe that they would still say it is sinful or evil? Suppose that cured person is your mother or father. Are there any exceptions? Would they deny that return to good health to my mother or father, for example? Again, if your value system says no to stem cell work, that can be accepted provided that the rest of us are free to pursue the benefits of such research. And while this debate goes on, the rest of the world and four out of five Americans believe it is being held up by the colossal prudery of our political and religious organizations.
In a related situation, we find that in this country there are only a few cases where marijuana may be used for medical purposes. It seems to make no difference when patients say the use of marijuana eases their suffering. We ban it because – well there is no rational reason to bar its use. We ban it because we ban it. That is about as good an explanation that you are ever going to get from our government. Prudery has much to do with the ban because everyone knows nice people would never think of smoking mary janes. Except when they are in great pain!
Now let us turn to what the various organs of the U.S. Government have to say about other laws that are rooted in prudery. Suppose we start with drinking liquor. Many states ban the sale of beer, wine, whiskey and related products on Sundays. In my home state of Missouri, sale of liquor used to end at 12:01AM on Sundays. The people who imply circumlocutions will tell you the law existed to permit citizens to prepare properly for church on the Christian day of worship. There has never been a similar law aimed at getting worshippers to synagogues on a Saturday morning. Unfortunately, when midnight came on a Saturday evening in Missouri, most revelers were largely drunk knowing of the midnight curfew, or they repaired to their own homes where a plentiful supply of whiskey was always kept. In the case of wicked St. Louis, where my residence was located, drinkers would cross the toll free bridge over the Mississippi River to East St. Louis to drink until 4AM or later in sleazy saloons. It is suspected that few of those Christians showed up for divine services at 11AM on Sunday because they were attending to hangovers and automobile accidents occurring in the wee hours of Sunday morning.
The bridge over the Mississippi was known to everyone as the “Free Bridge.” After World War II, patriots named it the MacArthur Bridge in honor of our Far East commander, and a crossing fee was imposed for crossing it. Unfortunately, that did not reduce the post-midnight traffic to East St. Louis saloons and clip joints.
The point here is that prudery doesn’t change behavior on the ground. Kansas is officially a dry state. During my residence in Prairie Village, a suburb of Kansas City, liquor sales to Kansans by merchants in Kansas City, Missouri, went on apace. If delivery was required, the Kansas City liquor stores would gladly provide it.
In point of fact, there is no logical reason why a person cannot have a drink in a dry state or after midnight on a Sunday. Can we consider drinking on a Thursday evening, for example, as more evil than drinking on a Sunday in a so called wet state or drinking on any day of the week in a dry state?
Absolute prudery brought on the decade long period of Prohibition on the manufacture or sale or drinking of liquor in the 1920’s until March, 1933 when Roosevelt came to power. To a large measure, the current rule of banning the sale of liquor products on Sundays is nothing other than an outgrowth of the demise of Prohibition. In effect, those who imposed Prohibition had to take what they could get once Franklin Roosevelt took over the U.S. presidency. It is a shameful exercise when an American begins to try to explain liquor laws in the United States to almost any European. They must wonder if John Calvin is still around.
Closely allied to liquor restrictions, are arbitrary bans on what might be seen of the female form. Victoria’s Secret is a firm that offers underwear for women. In many cases where enlightenment has not dawned, the distribution of Victoria’s Secrets catalogues have been largely frowned on. The establishment of one of their stores in virgin territory is nearly an impossibility. And, of course, there is no reason for it at all. It is simply prudery particularly where evangelical Christians live. Male prudes ogle the female form in the Bible Belt just as normal men do.
When Rudolph Guilani was Mayor of New York City, he spent an inordinate amount of time harassing stores that sold sexual products. As a rule, those stores kept to themselves on side streets. They were not on Fifth Avenue or Park Avenue. But Guilani hounded them endlessly for political reasons. Liquor laws that proscribe certain conduct are largely meaningless, as we saw in the St. Louis case. If one wishes to visit a so called sex store in New York, it must be found on a side street or in a rundown area of an outer borough or a suburb. The point is that people go to sex stores because they find them worthwhile. Prudery will no more stamp out consumption of liquor than it will stamp out interest in sex.
Now we turn to the chairman of the august Federal Communications Commission, Michael Powell. He is, of course, the son of Colin Powell, the Secretary of State. Perhaps if Michael ever settles the flap over the right breast of Janet Jackson exhibited on national television on Super Bowl Sunday, he may be a candidate to succeed his father in running the State Department. Whether the younger Powell got his current position as a matter of nepotism will have to be determined.
The younger Powell has set himself up as a guardian of American morality. Howard Stern is a radio personality whose comments seem to be offered in offbeat, perhaps smutty language. It is my recollection that a few minutes of one of his comments reached my ears. It was the language of junior high school jocks in their dressing room. Some years ago, Mr. Stern was marked off as a juvenile artist who had nothing to say of any interest to me. Yet his employer, Clear Channel Communications was fined $1.75 million because of the comments of Howard Stern. Anyone offended by Stern’s remarks could move the dial or turn the radio set off. But Powell says high school jock talk comes at a rate of $1.75 million. Strong stuff.
In a second issue involving Powell, during the half time show on the 2004 Super Bowl, Janet Jackson and her singing partner, Justin Timberlake, had a scene where Timberlake removed part of Ms. Jackson’s dress exposing, for an instant, part of her right breast. Her body was exposed for less than a second, but the world stood still, according to Chairman Powell of the FCC. It was a day like Pearl Harbor. One pastie covered breast threatened civilized society. The scene was rerun on all the major networks for days, much to Powell’s displeasure.
Watching half-time Super Bowl extravaganzas is an effort that repels me, so my energies go to reading a book or the Sunday papers. As a result, it is impossible for me to tell you about this incident. Nonetheless, exposure of a right breast is not something that would cause me to faint or to seek hospitalization. It could cause a blip in my electrolyte levels. Exposure of the left breast might be something else altogether, so it will be necessary for me to reserve judgment in that instance. In any case, Powell’s FCC fined the broadcaster, CBS, $550,000 for its dabble into television pornography. The irony here is that CBS had no idea that Ms. Jackson’s breast would be exposed.
This is prudery at its finest. The solution is clear. If one of us wishes to avoid the childish comments of Howard Stern, there are hundreds of other choices on the dial. Similarly, it one does not care to see Ms. Jackson’s right breast bared, the viewer may shut his eyes, look away, go to another room, put his hand up in front of his face, or turn off the television set. Ah, but these may be unpatriotic choices. Patriotism demands that Powell’s FCC must guard us from four letter words and from a momentary glimpse of a mammary gland. All of us should continue to permit Powell to save us from sin. It is all done in the name of prudery. To get us to heaven in our own good time, Chairman Powell levied a fine of $550,000 on CBS. If both breasts had been exposed, perhaps Powell, after fainting, would fine CBS a greater amount because they were repeat offenders. Sucn a development might cause me to look up from my book or the Sunday papers.
Speaking of four letter words, there is a performer on the Catholic station, Eternal Word Television Network. Johnnette Benkovic, has a weekly hour-long program devoted to ambitious promotion of the Catholic faith. In recent years, Johnnette seems to have developed an inordinate interest in sexual matters – all done in the interest of promoting the faith.
Ah, but Johnnette, who appears in the latest fashions, is reluctant to utter the word, “Hell.” Usually, she points to the floor and says that sinners go “down there.” Old Johnnette has made no inroads on my beliefs or lack thereof, but it is worthwhile to watch her occasionally for comic relief. So if you see me pointing to the ground and recommending that other people, “go down there,” you will know that Johnnette has verbally seduced me. Johnnette simply represents a high water mark for prudery in television broadcasting. It is absolutely clear that Michael Powell would consider her the gold standard for every broadcast.
Before we fold our tents on the subject of American prudery, it is incumbent upon critics such as my self to comment on the print media and on news that appears on television. A close reading of newspapers and magazines and network news programming, would lead one to believe that none of the individuals being reported on have ever uttered words like, “damn” or “Jesus” or “God damn it.” According to what the newspapers or news magazines or network news reports, no one has ever been tempted to even consider or to utter the “F” word.
As a general proposition, we view Great Britain as a prissy country, yet the news media that finds its way to Queen Elizabeth in Buckingham Palace regularly reflect all those words that are used in the discourse of today’s events. When a British parent is told of his son’s death in Iraq from a roadside bomb, he may be quoted in the British press as saying, “God damn this war.” In similar circumstances, we are asked to believe that an American parent would say nothing or he would be quoted as saying, “How horrible.” The truth is that Americans can express themselves as well as the prissy British, but in an exercise of gross prudery, we are never told of it. An honest reporting of the facts would do no one any harm. If Prince Phillip and his toothsome Queen can handle accurate and truthful reporting, there are many of us non-prudish Yankees who believe Americans can do the same.
Now we arrive at the sub-heading of this essay, that being, about revenge. It is earnestly hoped that all the readers of these essays recognize that they are written at great hazard to my future in any religious organization. My future may have been foreclosed even with the Holy Rollers. In this essay, some vulgar words have been used and there was an allusion to the display of the right breast of a television performer. How could this old essayist live so long without knowing that someone in the deity would seek revenge? In the King James Version of the Bible, there is a section called, “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans.” In the 12th chapter, verse 19, it is written, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saieth the Lord.” In the next verse, there is reference to heaping “coals of fire upon his head.” It is to be hoped that coals of fire on my head would be excessive punishment for a few non-standard English words and for reference to the nude female form. But if that is the price this old essayist has to pay, so be it. It must be done to avoid the fervid embrace of prudery. So if agony is the result of my essay writing, let us have agony.
When this essay was started, there was no indication that it would go on so long. But prudery is all around us. It is in the circumlocutions of our language. It pervades religion and government. With the re-election of Bush, the prospects are that it will increase abundantly.
The rest of the world looks to America for leadership in almost every field. To the extent that they find American prudery instead of American wisdom, they will inevitably turn away. This, my friends, is a sad state of affairs.
E. E. CARR
November 5, 2004
~~~
“Prudery” seems almost too charitable here. I would be more likely to use bigotry, sexism, anti-intellectualism, etc. For instance, when I was reading the section on marijuana, it struck me that progress made on that front coincided with this new anti-vaccer movement. Failing to get your kids vaccinated is a particularly malicious kind of willful ignorance, since your child can then infect the elderly or very young with extremely serious diseases which could have been prevented. They undermine herd immunity and prevent crippling illnesses from being eliminated. Like many others in this essay, this behavior boils down to a deep distrust of the modern and a hatred of change.  In this and other areas, there is a growing enthusiasm for trying to retreat into the distant past.
Prudishness has to do with being excessively modest or proper, but as a country we’re going far beyond that lately. In some areas we’ve made great progress, like with gay rights, but we’ve also just elected a man who wants to take the US back to the 1950s as quickly as he can possibly manage. It often seems like a one-step-forward, two-steps-back scenario.
As a final note, kind of a funny timing on this one. The super bowl is in two days, and due to the Janet Jackson incident I believe it now runs on something like a 30 second delay from the live action, so that unintentional nipple slips can be cut out before they offend the masses.