F*ck

I had initially wanted to write about relationships and marriage but after writing a couple of pages on the subject I’ve decided that perhaps these thoughts are best left unsaid for the moment. Instead I’m going to explore the philosophy of my life.

Do until you understand to do not.

Too long have I lived my life in fear. Fear of disappointing my family, friends, God. This fear has forced me to act a certain way and remain within certain boundaries. For what? I have a whole laundry list of things I cannot do..

• don’t smoke
• don’t drink
• don’t have sex
• don’t do drugs
• don’t swear
• don’t wear white after labor day

I’m sure most of you resonate with this somewhat. I don’t have a lot of time to really get into the nitty gritty but telling me ‘thou shall not..’ really doesn’t cut it.

::F*ck::

“But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.”

We all know that we shouldn’t curse or swear right? I mean the Bible clearly tells us not to let any unclean thing come out of our mouth, how the tongue has the power to destroy, etc. So many of us choose to tailor our language to accommodate this rule. My issue with this and so many other teaching is that the why is never really investigated. Sure theres always some cursory explanation about how its God’s will, the Bible says so, or some other shallow excuse. Why should we not swear? Take the word ‘F*ck’ [courtesy edit, see I'm not heartless]. Why remove this from our vocabulary? Not talking about for propriety’s sake but the total omission from the English language. Some would argue that the word is unclean and that it offends God. Take two scenarios:

• A guy walks into his home and discovers his wife with another man. He then, in his anger, yells out the expletive.
• A child just watched a movie in which the word was said repeatedly and he mimics what he heard.

Are the two the same? Are both ‘wrong?’ I’d argue absolutely not.

• The man vocally projected his anger using the expletive.
• The child had no clue to the meaning of the word and was just saying it out of nothing more than curiosity.

Many would have you believe that there is no difference in the two but any type of analysis would reveal that there is indeed a vast difference. I would take the argument a step farther and offer that the wrongness of the man and the lack of wrongness of the child rests not in the language being used, but in the underlying intentions driving the expression. Violence vs. curiosity. So you see that language is not the issue. It is in the underlying motivation that the wrongness or lack thereof lies. You can commit a wrong in this sense without ever using one of these taboo words. Thoughts?