Has obscenity censorship begun to go to far?
Benjamin Wong
Editor-In-Chief
At this point, the cat is out of the bag. Living beings reproduce through the act of sexual reproduction. So why can’t we refer to it simply as the word ‘sex?’
In November, Lady GaGa released a song on her ARTPOP album called “Sexxx Dreams” and subsequently rereleased the song on her clean version of ARTPOP (named Artpop) as “X Dreams.” You would imagine that the song would be changed dramatically, especially considering the fact that the original “Sexxx Dreams” is exactly what is says on the tin — filled with filthy, hot, and naughty references to the deed.
You would be wrong. Instead, the song keeps all of the original references only blurring out here and there. For obvious reasons, ‘sex’ is blurred out. In the phrase “touch myself and think of you,” ‘touch’ is blurred out, but the phrase “Making love” remains the same. The irregularities of sex euphemism censorship brings up the question: “Why bother?”
What is the point of censoring the word ‘sex?’ It only adds shame to the act itself — which is unreasonable, considering the fact that sex is a necessary part of human life. Not to mention the fact that without it, nobody would exist.
Perhaps the word is censored because a group of people feel uncomfortable with dealing with curious children inquiring to the meaning of the word. Perhaps they fear what would happen if sex was not shameful; what would happen if it was accepted as natural and good.
My implication is NOT that the world should view sex as public and inconsequential; in fact, to the contrary, I believe that sex is private and consequential, but unimportant to those not involved. The sex you may or may not be having is limited to you and the sex partners you may or may not have. However, sticking our heads in the sand and pretending it does not happen or does not exist is not behaving maturely.
Eagle Era 