Words I Hate

It’s not 1955 anymore. With the exception of a few holdouts (probably loosely affiliated with Jesus) pornography is accepted as part of modern living. And while it may still have some very important political issues concerning the exploitation of women, most of what you will find out there is not obscene, much of it is fairly artistic, and a sizable minority of pornography is produced by women themselves. It’s even accepted by many as an enhancement for a couple’s sex life.

So why do we still give it this word that sounds like it was lifted from a piece of federal legislation outlawing it? And why the hell do we still have dictionaries with these kinds of definitions, e.g. Random House:

obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit

Totally out of touch. Here’s another, from American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy:

Books, photographs, magazines, art, or music designed to excite sexual impulses and considered by public authorities or public opinion as in violation of accepted standards of sexual morality.

A violation of accepted standards of sexual morality? Really? I picture of tit? No, fuck YOU, American Heritage Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, or should I say, American Heritage Dictionary of Cultural Idiocy? Oh yes I totally went there.

Even the shortened versions, “porn”, and the ABOMINABLY bad, “porno” still sound ridiculous and archaic.

My suggestion? Let’s take back the word “smut”. Before people started saying “pornography” in the 19th century, they referred to “smut”. But nobody says “smut” anymore, so it’s ready to be repurposed. And they love repurposed words over at WordsILove. It’s not a true repurposing, but a shift in connotation, the way “queer” went from a slur to a positive affirmation of alternative gender and sexual identities. “Smut” also has the benefit of starting with our favorite consonant blend (heretofore to be called a “diblend”)….S+M.

I like masturbating to smut.