Sexual repression, legislating morality, and censorship; pillars of the sanctimonious do-gooders who have given us laws against oral and anal sex, prohibition of alcohol and the war on drugs, and the muzzling of artists and songs such as Garth Brooks’ The Thunder Rolls music video, Madonna’s Justify My Love, Sinead O’Connor from SNL for criticizing the Vatican during a performance of Bob Marley’s song WAR, Billie Holiday’s musical adaptation of Abe Meeropol’s poem for Strange Fruit, and a constant onslaught of pious bullying from the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).

“This plain distinction, sir, your doubt secures:
‘Tis not true reason I despise, but yours.”

•    – John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, from ‘A Satyr Against Reason & Mankind’ 1674

 

Is it reasonable that there would be laws to prohibit sexual acts engaged in by consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes? Is it reasonable that a government would wage a war against its’ own people for what they put into their own bodies? Is it reasonable that artists would be blocked by regulations which suppress creativity and exploration of the human experience? Sex, drugs, and rock & roll may represent all that is wrong with the world to some, but irreplaceable life experiences and cherished memories for others. The same liberty which allows some to gather in their holy sanctuaries to rail against the carnal desires of human nature, the experimenting of one with one’s own chemistry, and exploration of the pioneering edges of artistic expression is the same liberty which protects such human action. Consistency, individual liberty, and equal protection under the law would demand the same rights of free expression be extended to the pious as well as the permissive. Surely, a fair and just mind would recognize that encroachments on religious liberties and encroachments on personal choices are one and the same, and neither would be acceptable to free people.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

•    – Wendell Phillips, abolitionist

 

Why can’t the ‘prudes’ leave the ‘deviants’ alone instead of using the force of the armed government to legislate their version of morality? Many religious leaders and their followers will claim a deep seated love for freedom and the right to conscience, but support legislation to force obedience to dogmatic codes barring all types of voluntary choices via what has been termed as ‘sodomy laws.’ These are not laws against violent acts like rape, but laws which exist on the books in many states which openly condemn acts between consenting adults – especially gay men. When one actually looks at these laws, the only sexual act which seems to be omitted from sanctimonious scrutiny is when the missionary position is performed between a married man and woman. It’s amazing what some christian prudes in America will seek to legislate on others which has the familiar stench of oppression not unlike the oppression forced on people by the Taliban in Afghanistan who those same christian prudes condemn as heathen. If you don’t like engaging in activities such as sado-masochism, then don’t engage in them; but you certainly have no right to forbid others their tastes and desires. For those prudes who would still condemn others for engaging in the consensual act of sado-masochism, maybe they should go fuck themselves – unless that’s against their religion as well. There’s probably no way of really knowing just how many people have suffered with extreme feelings of guilt and condemnation for engaging in natural human acts such as masturbating which were brought on by the sexually repressive teachings of religious institutions. For those who are so concerned with what they consider to be the dangers of sado-masochism and other sexual ‘deviance,’ I would simply invite them to research the pedophilia scandals of the catholic church as infinitely more disconcerting. Of course, they may still want to go back to the ‘good ole days’ when Napoleon Bonaparte had Marquis de Sade arrested for penning his classic erotic work entitled Justine.

Now, let’s get on to drugs (yes, bad pun). There is so much that can be said about America’s failed and embarrassing war on drugs, but I’ve exhausted this issue in other writings already. Certainly, all it takes is a miniscule amount of research for it to quickly become crystal clear that the war on drugs is a corrupt and wrong-headed campaign which is obviously doing more to destroy freedom, prosperity, and peace than it accomplishes anything even approaching good. While it is also more socially acceptable nowadays to defend a cause such as medical marijuana, I will happily take the position that all drugs should be legal and available for use by adults as a matter of personal freedom of choice. Once again, such fairly benign drugs as cocaine have been demonized by those who are either misguided moral crusaders or those for whom the status quo of the corruption inherent to the war on drugs is profitable. While I don’t want to see anyone’s life ruined by allowing an addiction to overtake and destroy them, it just isn’t true that ingestible substance prohibitions are ever going to work. The drug war only seems to play out in the real world as an unconstitutional assault on our rights, and a double standard for the pharmaceutical industry and their corrupt relationship with the FDA (Food & Drug Administration). The hypocrisy of the drug war should also be shamefully blatant as thousands of cocaine convicts sit in prison for more years than accused cocaine user George W. Bush and admitted cocaine user Barack Hussein Obama sit in the White House. Throw in the history of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and the Afghan poppy fields Geraldo Rivera exposed as being protected by the U.S. Marine Corps, and an average person snorting a few rails at a party just seems irrelevant. Crime, violence, and accidents associated with alcohol far outnumber the social ills of all the other drugs, but we seem to have figured out that prohibition of alcohol only exacerbates the problems. If not for the ignorance, arrogance, and megalomania of the drug warriors, we could end much of the encroaching police state and its’ assault on civil liberties by getting wise to the game of the war on drugs much as we did the war on alcohol when we ended that prohibition. For those who may find this an indefensible position, please consider reading Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block.

As for rock & roll, do we really still have to say, “fuck censorship?” Who has the say in what is art and what isn’t? Who is really such a self-righteous ass-hole to dismiss someone else’s art as not qualifying for the same right of free expression as any other artistic expression? From classical music to modern pop, from bluegrass to reggae, from polka to grunge, from country to ska, from folk to funk, from blues to industrial, and from religious hymns to heavy metal; a rich diversity of music is one of life’s most wonderful gifts. Yet, I’m aware of churches and religious doctrines which forbid both certain subject matter as well as some or all musical instruments. Can it get any more backward than that? How many of us have some of our best memories getting a new album by our favorite band, seeing a really great live performance, or even being able to perform music for others? What flavor would be lost to us had not Elvis Presley shaken his hips on stage, Jim Morrison sang his own words to Light My Fire on Ed Sullivan, or Ozzy Osbourne bitten the head off a bat? Being a drummer who appreciates musical talent, one of the best memories of my life is getting to see Joey Jordison perform live with Slipknot. Different types of music speak differently to different people, and I’d defend the freedom of my heavy metal friends to express their art just as vehemently as any religious liberty.

“The beauty of literature, poetry, and music is that they leave room for the audience to put its’ own imagination, experiences, and dreams into the words. The examples I cited earlier show clear evidence of Twisted Sister’s music being completely misinterpreted and unfairly judged by supposedly well-informed adults. We cannot allow this to continue. There is no authority who has the right or the necessary insight to make these judgments; not myself, not the federal government, not some recording industry committee, not the PTA, not the RIAA, and certainly not the PMRC.”

   – Dee Snider of Twisted Sister, at the Senate hearings on so-called ‘porn rock’ in 1985

While I may never realize my dream of partaking in a hard-core orgy at the Playboy mansion on piles of cocaine during a live performance by Machine Head, I don’t see anything wrong with it either. At least I can dream – that is until the thought police find a way to ban that as well. Until then; may your sexual fantasies be realized, your highs be ecstatic, and your music cathartic.

\m/      \m/

BY: A.G. House is obviously a twisted and disturbed sexual deviant with a drug problem and a fetish for offensive music. He should not be taken serious by anyone as he is certifiable and a bad influence on others. Please do not read any more of the garbage he writes as it may warp your mind and offend pious religious sensibilities.

“I will disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

•    – Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire