Are you not a fan of the repetition of “post” in the title? Neither am I, but it was not worth spending all that much time changing already-accepted lexicon. Anyway, I am not responsible at all for interviews, my partner Lauren is, so I am in a rather awkward position for this blog post. I did get in contact with the Canadian politics professor I knew, but neither him nor his mentor had any relevant knowledge to the case, other than Professor Reichardt’s rather amusing emailed answer that there are public Catholic schools in Canada “because Quebec,” which admittedly does seem to be a feasible answer for a lot of the weirdness (from an American perspective) of Canadian politics. Regardless, that is all I really have for the claim that this blog post counts as my post-interview post (still unenthused with the repetition there). (Really, WordPress? You lack “unenthused” in your database of words? I am thoroughly unimpressed.)
I am greatly disappointed that I cannot include this image for the word “unenthused” due to its not being rights-free, so do enjoy the link above. It is bizarrely amusing.
Regardless, I have been told that 188 does not equal 500 as a word count, so let us discuss my personal views on censorship to fill time in this blog post. Shall we? Actually, I believe I am going to simply rant about something that irritates me, namely the concept of “polite conversation.” My best friend is a liberal lesbian from Texas, and has predictably reserved sensibilities regarding the discussion of sex in any of its forms. Being the shameless creature that I am, this is greatly unfortunate from my point of view. I know full well she has things that she wants and needs to discuss in that matter, but her own shame, enforced by the social conservatism she was raised in and the backwards and controlling views of her father, prevents her from discussing topics of actual importance, instead functioning at best to reference sex and sexual desire through mutually acknowledged potential jokes that neither of us are allowed to make, lest she be made uncomfortable because of the incessant drilling that discussing such things is “wrong.” It took her a year and a half to ask me one thing that had apparently been bothering her that I noticed shortly after we met. Such things are not necessarily upsetting, but rather disappointing, as a parent would refer to a maladjusted child.
The connection here to censorship is one that can be imagined to be completely obvious to many and one that would never have been noted to others. To be told what one is allowed to discuss, to be trained not to engage with “immoral” premises or whatever excuse is given, is very much an internalized censorship of both the mouth and the mind. If one is raised that the discussion of sex is evil, or even simply inappropriate, one will make that a part of their being for the better part of their life, unless the hold of such ideas can be torn asunder. She is also a writer, and while there are coy little references to sex in her works, slightly freer due to the distance from her person, ultimately she has been taught to censor her works because she has been taught to censor and vilify her mind. Of course, it is the duty of a parent to choose how their child is to be raised. But, that duty is an incredibly dangerous one to bestow, and one that cannot be taken lightly.