ON BEING GRAPHIC

Dana Prom Smith (7/15/2012)



When it comes to sexual activity, the tradition has been to use euphemisms as though sexual activity were shameful with the result that it was hidden under the cloak of obscurity. The words “molest” and “sexual aggression” leave the reader in the dark because they don’t describe what happened. The purpose of newspapers is to tell the reader what happened, not leave them in the dark. It’s “show and tell time.”



Julie Smith in her letter to the editor (7/15/12) seems to crave obscurity. Describing a crime isn’t pornography. Prudery isn’t morality. The purpose of pornography is to arouse people sexually, especially those with weak imaginations. The newspaper accounts of sexual crimes arouse disgust.



The descriptions of Jerry Sandusky fondling and penetrating young boys aroused horror. The descriptions of a drunken man running his hand up a woman’s skirt and touching her crotch induced revulsion at the invasion of her privacy and dignity as well as a sign of male arrogance toward women. The phrase “sexual aggression” just doesn’t convey the disgust at the depravity.



Polite language has allowed various authorities to cover up sexual crimes by a long list of sexual predators. A lot of people would be jail today if their crimes hadn’t been hidden under clouds of euphemisms. It’s time that we know just how bad sexual crimes are so that they can’t be hidden by those who wish to cloak them and that’s best done by describing them.