English Word Bloody

[laurencepostgate]

RE: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbloody.html

My grandmother always taught me Bloody is so profane because it is an abbreviated version of:

By My (or Our) Lady (referring to the Virgin Mary)

and therfore taking the Virgin Mary's name in vain!

Some think this is phoenitically implausible but I understand there is no hard evidence either way and Shakespeare uses "By'r Lady" a few times which looks like a suitable "missing link".

[John W. Kennedy]

There is more than a phonetic problem; there is also a grammatical one. "Bloody" is used as an adjective and as an adverb. "By our Lady!", on the other hand, is a naked exclamation. Such transitions do occur (one might recall The Music Man's "...we're so by-God stubborn...."), but I don't offhand recall "bloody" being used the other way. If you want to make an exclamation with "bloody" in it, you say "Bloody Hell!".

[Sampiro]

Pardon a "tack on", but did the word bloody used to be a lot more vulgar than it is today? It seems that now it's old fashioned and somewhere between "very" and "damned" in its meaning (you'd use "bloody tired" or "bloody hungry" like you'd say "I'm wicked tired"), but in Pygmalion for instance the housekeeper is aghast when Eliza says it and can't even bring herself to repeat it to Higgins (just tells him that Eliza uttered a word that begins with a 'b' and is six letter longs, or something similar that identifies it). I've wondered if the word was closer to the 'f' word or 'g.d.' at the time.

[Inner Stickler]

I thought bloody is still considered on the level of fuck or shit in the U.K.

What makes me laugh is the number of americans I know who say buggered. As in, "I'm buggered" in situations where they would never think to say, "I'm fucked."

[tetranz]

I thought bloody is still considered on the level of fuck or shit in the U.K.
No, it's much more mild than that. At least that's how it is in New Zealand.
What makes me laugh is the number of americans I know who say buggered. As in, "I'm buggered" in situations where they would never think to say, "I'm fucked."
No ... I think buggered is still a relatively mild expression. I think its probably used more by older people these days.

Again, talking about New Zealand, but the word "bugger", as an expletive is considered pretty mild these days too thanks to Toyota. They had an ad on TV which used the word multiple times which draw a few complaints. The government advertising standards authority considered the complaints and decided that it was not offensive. Here's the ad on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-Y3AsZ19Hc)

[Koxinga]

Grew up in Texas but got into the habit of saying it occasionally when I was a teenager. (For some reason.) My dad gave me a mild rebuke, saying it referred to the blood of Christ. I know the mailbag answer disagrees, but just relating my experience.

Funny that Americans think "buggered" is obscene, but use "shag" jokingly, as in "The Spy Who Shagged Me". I believe the title had to be changed in Singapore, at least, on grounds of obscenity.

[CalMeacham]

Mortimer Adler discussed the various theories of the origin of "Bloddy" as a swear word in one of his books. There are about seven different theories. His conclusion was that none of them stood out as particularly likely. I have to admit that the "By Our Lady" theory sounds pretty good, and more likely than most, but I'm not an etymologist. And it bothers me that such a mild oath as "By Our Lady" could come to be considered as offensive as "bloody" was (and apparently, still is) to the British -- that's a strike against that interpretation.



What could make the concept of "blood" so unacceptable in general society? Especially considering that, in all other uses, there's no social taboo on the word? It's enough to make me suspect a tie somehow to menstrual blood. THAT, I could understand as something not fit for polite conversation.

[Koxinga]

What could make the concept of "blood" so unacceptable in general society? Especially considering that, in all other uses, there's no social taboo on the word? It's enough to make me suspect a tie somehow to menstrual blood. THAT, I could understand as something not fit for polite conversation.

I'm not sure about the word itself, but I believe that contact with blood--menstrual or otherwise--is considered a source of ritual defilement in several traditional societies. So perhaps referring to something as "bloody" would be equivalent to cursing it as ritually defiled?

[dropzone]

And it bothers me that such a mild oath as "By Our Lady" could come to be considered as offensive as "bloody" was (and apparently, still is) to the British -- that's a strike against that interpretation. Just pulling this out of my ass, but might it be too Roman Catholic?

[Sampiro]

Some of the Plantaganets used "God's blood!" as a swear word (though it probably would have been in Norman French). I wonder if that's a connection (rather like "zounds" for "God's wounds").

[Exapno Mapcase]

The Online Etymology Dictionary sees it differently.
bloody
O.E. blodig, adj. from blod (see blood). It has been a British intens. swear word since at least 1676. Weekley relates it to the purely intensive use of the cognate Du. bloed, Ger. blut). But perhaps connected with bloods in the slang sense of "rowdy young aristocrats" (see blood) via expressions such as bloody drunk "as drunk as a blood." Partridge reports that it was "respectable" before c.1750, and it was used by Fielding and Swift, but heavily tabooed c.1750-c.1920, perhaps from imagined association with menstruation; Johnson calls it "very vulgar," and OED first edition writes of it, "now constantly in the mouths of the lowest classes, but by respectable people considered 'a horrid word', on par with obscene or profane language." Shaw shocked theatergoers when he put it in the mouth of Eliza Doolittle in "Pygmalion" (1914), and for a time the word was known euphemistically as "the Shavian adjective." It was avoided in print as late as 1936.

[John W. Kennedy]

Shaw shocked theatergoers when he put it in the mouth of Eliza Doolittle in "Pygmalion" (1914), and for a time the word was known euphemistically as "the Shavian adjective." It was avoided in print as late as 1936And for a time, there was a fad for substituting "Pygmalion", as in "Not Pygmalion likely!".

[TheLoadedDog]

It was considered profane in Australia within my living memory (and I'm 38). I have seen it masked as "b****y" in print.

[Elendil's Heir]

An earlier thread on the topic: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=364979

[Inner Stickler]

Funny that Americans think "buggered" is obscene, but use "shag" jokingly, as in "The Spy Who Shagged Me". I believe the title had to be changed in Singapore, at least, on grounds of obscenity.Oh, I know bugger is relatively mild. I just think it's funny that a reference to sodomy is somehow more acceptable than just regular ol' intercourse.

[Elendil's Heir]

Cap'n Jack Sparrow said "Oh, bugger" in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and I don't think anyone in the U.S. batted an eye. It was even in the previews, approved for all ages and audiences, IIRC.

[Koxinga]

It was considered profane in Australia within my living memory (and I'm 38). I have seen it masked as "b****y" in print.

Well, add in rum and the lash and a fella could have a pretty good time in Botany Bay.

[Siam Sam]

Cap'n Jack Sparrow said "Oh, bugger" in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and I don't think anyone in the U.S. batted an eye. It was even in the previews, approved for all ages and audiences, IIRC.
And there was a famous instance of Hugh Grant uttering a series of "bugger" right before his wedding in Four Weddings and a Funeral that I suspect was largely ignored in the US.

[Inner Stickler]

:confused: My copy of FWaaF has him saying fuck, not bugger.

[Siam Sam]

:confused: My copy of FWaaF has him saying fuck, not bugger.
Ours definitley says "bugger," repeatedly. The wife loves that movie, and we wore out the first videotape we had of it. That one was purchased in Thailand, but we bought a second one in the US, and it still said "bugger." Maybe some have had "fuck" dubbed in? Although I find it odd that someone would think that better.

[Mangetout]

I thought bloody is still considered on the level of fuck or shit in the U.K. Not in my experience. None of those words are particularly suitable for conversation over tea and cakes with the Queen, but 'bloody' is fairly tame. Child actors utter it in the Harry Potter movies.

[Galwegian]

In the version released here of FWaaF Hugh Grant definitely uses the word Fuck.

In fact, he says, "Fuck, fuck, fuckity-fuck".

Different version of the movie for different areas?

[SanVito]

I like to use my mother as a measure for how profane a word is (she's 81, British middle class, talks a bit like the Queen and has never having uttered a swear word in her life as far as I can tell, for your reference), i.e. 'would I say this in front of Mum?'

My father says 'bloody' and 'bugger' fairly often, would never in a million years utter 'fuck' or even 'shit'. My mum's not keen on him saying 'bugger' but puts up with 'bloody'.

I would use the word 'bloody' in front of her, if sparingly. I might even exclaim 'shit' if emphasis required it (but I'd say it softly under my breath when I've banged my thumb, for instance. I wouldn't loudly exclaim 'that's SHIT' in front of her). I would be highly unlikely to say 'bugger', and would rather die than say 'fuck' in front of her.

[Siam Sam]

In the version released here of FWaaF Hugh Grant definitely uses the word Fuck.

In fact, he says, "Fuck, fuck, fuckity-fuck".

Different version of the movie for different areas?
That's very weird. We're talking about the same scene, yes? Hugh Grant is the one about to be married when he suddenly learns that Andie MacDowell is available again and realizes he's making a big mistake marrying Duckface. He says a series of "Bugger," and then he's interrupted by a priest passing through. That's the scene we're talking about, yes?

That's very strange.

[WotNot]

Mortimer Adler discussed the various theories of the origin of "Bloddy" as a swear word in one of his books. There are about seven different theories. His conclusion was that none of them stood out as particularly likely. I have to admit that the "By Our Lady" theory sounds pretty good, and more likely than most, but I'm not an etymologist. And it bothers me that such a mild oath as "By Our Lady" could come to be considered as offensive as "bloody" was (and apparently, still is) to the British -- that's a strike against that interpretation.


What could make the concept of "blood" so unacceptable in general society? Especially considering that, in all other uses, there's no social taboo on the word? It's enough to make me suspect a tie somehow to menstrual blood. THAT, I could understand as something not fit for polite conversation.
It strikes me that you can never very well justify the degree of taboo associated with a word by reference to its literal meaning – taboos are almost always irrational, aren't they? In the case of bloody, in particular, there's no etymological evidence that it ever meant anything other than what the plain word suggests – from its earliest appearances it's been used as an almost meaningless intensifier.

The best explanation I've seen is that it fell victim to fashion and snobbery: initially something of a favourite among the upper classes, it was taken up with great enthusiasm by the working classes somewhere around the mid-to-late 18th century. The subsequent revulsion among polite society to the word had nothing to do with its actual meaning (however much people may have tried to justify it in those terms) and everything to do with what its use suggested about the character of the person using it.

Sampiro's characterisation of bloody as “vulgar” is dead on, I think: it was never obscene or blasphemous, it was unspeakable because of its association with the crude and coarse common people.

[Galwegian]

That's very weird. We're talking about the same scene, yes? Hugh Grant is the one about to be married when he suddenly learns that Andie MacDowell is available again and realizes he's making a big mistake marrying Duckface. He says a series of "Bugger," and then he's interrupted by a priest passing through. That's the scene we're talking about, yes?

That's very strange.


Ah, sorry. No, "Fuckity fuck fuck" is at the very start when Hugh Grant is late for the very first wedding in the movie. My bad.

Anyway, here in the motherland of coarse language, "bloody" and "bugger" are considered very mild indeed.

[Daithi Lacha]

Anyway, here in the motherland of coarse language, "bloody" and "bugger" are considered very mild indeed.
Of course, you have another 'coarse' word that is so bloody useful: bollox!
As in:
I got bleedin' bolloxed last night
Good jaysus, the bollox o'you!
Fuck off, ya little bollox!
Just buy a new one; that one's bolloxed.
I will in me bollox!

[An Gadaí]

or how about cunting that's a useful one.

[CalMeacham]

or how about cunting that's a useful one.


According to the Oxford Dictionary of Ships and the Sea, the word "cunting" , used for the furrow between the twisted yarns of a rope, is now considered "vulgar" , ahnd has been replaced with the marginally more rrefined "Contline". (Similarly, the "cunt splice" is now called a "cut splice").



This, but the way, puts the lie to the "never"
in WotNot's complaint abovre. Sometimes a word is considere vulgar precisely because of its meaning. This is what you get when you let a bunch of horny sailors come up with your technical terminology.

Is there some other use for the word "cunting" besides this nautical one?

[dropzone]

If there isn't one there should be one. Women these days have such dirty mouths themselves it's hard to piss them off with a mere word, but "cunt" seems to do nicely.

There is constant escalation in the war of the sexes and we may have stumbled upon the F-bomb of the 21st century.

[An Gadaí]

According to the [B]
Is there some other use for the word "cunting" besides this nautical one?

Just as an expletive,

"Move you cunting car before I fucking kill you" etc.

I've also heard "cunting bastard", "two-faced cunt", "cuntface".

[Elendil's Heir]

I knew a lawyer who was reported the state bar for calling a female adversary a "cunt." It's highly offensive for most people.

[An Gadaí]

It's just not that offensive here. Seriously, we're potty-mouths par excellence.

[CalMeacham]

"Move you cunting car before I fucking kill you"


Modern, refined version:


"Move your contline car before I freaking kill you!"



Naahhhhh! Doesn't work.

[Daithi Lacha]

It's just not that offensive here. Seriously, we're potty-mouths par excellence.
I'll bear witness to this. I mean, it's not a word that would that you'd want to direct towards your boss, say, or your mother-in-law (well, maybe you would), but it just has much more conversational uses than it does in the states. For instance, my MIL might refer to a group of people (usually politicians, knowing her) as "a right shower," knowing full well that the full phrase is "a right shower of cunts." She'd consider it crude to use the full phrase, but not forbidden.
An Gadai, you're in Swords, right? She's in Portmarnock. Practically neighbors!

And no, she's not posh. :D

[Siam Sam]

Of course, you have another 'coarse' word that is so bloody useful: bollox!
As in:
I got bleedin' bolloxed last night
Good jaysus, the bollox o'you!
Fuck off, ya little bollox!
Just buy a new one; that one's bolloxed.
I will in me bollox!
Feck!

[Siam Sam]

Ah, sorry. No, "Fuckity fuck fuck" is at the very start when Hugh Grant is late for the very first wedding in the movie. My bad.
Ah, good. I was getting worried there.

[An Gadaí]

I'll bear witness to this. I mean, it's not a word that would that you'd want to direct towards your boss, say, or your mother-in-law (well, maybe you would), but it just has much more conversational uses than it does in the states. For instance, my MIL might refer to a group of people (usually politicians, knowing her) as "a right shower," knowing full well that the full phrase is "a right shower of cunts." She'd consider it crude to use the full phrase, but not forbidden.
An Gadai, you're in Swords, right? She's in Portmarnock. Practically neighbors!

And no, she's not posh. :D

I am indeed. Portmarnock isn't as posh as cunting Malahide. :)

[WotNot]

This, but the way, puts the lie to the "never"
in WotNot's complaint abovre. Sometimes a word is considere vulgar precisely because of its meaning.
Well, fair enough, “never” may be a little strong, but I think you missed my point a little. To say that “cuntline” is offensive because of its meaning is surely begging the question. Why is the word “cunt” taboo? Is this universally true?

I also think that there's a useful distinction to be made between vulgarity, obscenity and blasphemy.

[John W. Kennedy]

Chaucer seems to have regarded "queynte" as merely vulgar, if that.

[samclem]

Why is the word “cunt” taboo? Is this universally true?

As others from different locations have indicated, to call someone a "cunt" in the US is pretty taboo. In the British Isles, not nearly so universal.

[WotNot]

Chaucer seems to have regarded "queynte" as merely vulgar, if that.
As others from different locations have indicated, to call someone a "cunt" in the US is pretty taboo. In the British Isles, not nearly so universal.
Sorry, chaps – not expressing myself at all well, lately. That was meant as a rhetorical question.

What I'm trying to address is the area that I took CalMeacham to be exploring in his first post, where he's attempting to understand the taboo status of the word “bloody” by assigning different possible meanings to it, and then assessing whether that meaning would justify the perceived degree of taboo.

In the specific case of “bloody”, people have been trying this for a couple of centuries without any convincing success. From all I've read, there just isn't any evidence that the word ever bore those meanings, or that anyone using it intended it to. Every instance of “bloody” in the written record is either a description of something being literally or figuratively covered in blood, or else it's a more-or-less meaningless intensive. When Jonathan Swift wrote “it was bloody hot walking today” in 1714, he's pretty clearly using the word just as we would use it today. It was only some time after Swift's death that the “bloody” became unmentionable in polite English, and it's difficult to imagine the word somehow gained a meaning it hadn't had before. What we do know happened is that it became enormously popular with the rougher sections of the working class around that time, and that this coincides with polite society dropping it like a hot turd.

My more general point is the difficulty of assessing the degree of taboo associated with a word by reference to its literal meaning. Yes, it's often the case that references to certain parts of the body, waste products from it, and – well, just about anything that may come under the general heading of “religion” – might be considered offensive. But none of this is universally true, across all times and cultures; and where it is, there's little rhyme or reason to it. Generations of people came out with minced oaths like “drat”, “darn”, “heck” and “H E double toothpicks” – but what is actually offensive – even to a religious person – about the words “damn” and “hell”? Why is “shit” less acceptable than “excrement”? They mean the same thing. (And, yes, those are rhetorical too. ;) )

NOTE: All of the above was originally typed and posted some nine hours ago, at which point it became clear that the board was having none of it. If it turns up twice, you know why.

[ivylass]

I've heard most of the curse words, but the "c-word" is akin I think to the "n-word" over here in the States. My co-worker thought she heard a Senior VP say the c-word and said something to him, and when he realized what she'd thought he'd said, he apologized all over himself (he'd actually said fuck, which while not exactly appropriate for the work environment, is still scads better than the c-word*.

My mother was English, and I remember the time I said "bloody" and she looked at me all sorts of shocked.

*Yes, I will say c-word, because I find it highly offensive, a hideous-sounding word, and I will not type it out.

[Siam Sam]

They go more into the C word over in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=479482).

[Koxinga]

I've heard most of the curse words, but the "c-word" is akin I think to the "n-word" over here in the States. My co-worker thought she heard a Senior VP say the c-word and said something to him, and when he realized what she'd thought he'd said, he apologized all over himself (he'd actually said fuck, which while not exactly appropriate for the work environment, is still scads better than the c-word*.

My mother was English, and I remember the time I said "bloody" and she looked at me all sorts of shocked.

*Yes, I will say c-word, because I find it highly offensive, a hideous-sounding word, and I will not type it out.

On the bright side, it gets you extra points here (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EJJL5dxgVaM). (video)

[vison]

A cunt is also a knife-sharpener. The term is not much used in that sense nowadays.

The word's origin is ancient, one of the oldest known, thought to be as old as "ewe" for sheep or "corn" for grain. The word "queen" is from the same root, and originally a "queen" was only the "king's woman".

Gotta stop. Gonna miss the edit window.

[eleanorigby]

Cap'n Jack Sparrow said "Oh, bugger" in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and I don't think anyone in the U.S. batted an eye. It was even in the previews, approved for all ages and audiences, IIRC.


I think that if you stopped Joe and Jane Average on the streets of Smalltown, USA, they wouldn't know the origin or meaning of "bugger"--I think they might think it stood in for "fuck". Buggery isn't buggery over here--it's sodomy or a lewd or indecent act (may not have the phrasing correct on that last one). That doesn't explain the censors or whatever we call the movie rating people these days, but it does explain our lack of indignation at the term. Plus, it's fun to say!


I liken bloody to shit--a word I'd say with no problem in front of peers, but one I would use sparingly in front of my parents. I can't see using bloody in RL conversation, much as I'd like to, because IMO it would make me sound very affected. Here, in print (so to speak) it come more naturally to me. YMMV.

[Peter Morris]

When Shakespeare wrote the immortal lines "what bloody man is that" (http://www.clicknotes.com/macbeth/T12.html) was it a deliberate joke based on an existing swear word?

[Ludovic]

Cap'n Jack Sparrow said "Oh, bugger" in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and I don't think anyone in the U.S. batted an eye. It was even in the previews, approved for all ages and audiences, IIRC.I myself was more amazed when the word "Wanker" was used in a Harry Potter movie: I wouldn't think they would be able to substitute the equivalent word "jerkoff" without a brouhaha even though it was used in the nonsexual context.

[John W. Kennedy]

The British are generally far less prone to naughty-words-itis than Americans are. C. S. Lewis once recorded a talk for the Episcopal Church Radio and Television Foundation that was rejected as unfit for US broadcast.

[WotNot]

When Shakespeare wrote the immortal lines "what bloody man is that" (http://www.clicknotes.com/macbeth/T12.html) was it a deliberate joke based on an existing swear word?
No – it wouldn't be unlike Shakespeare to do that, but there's no evidence that the word had anything other than its literal meaning in Shakespeare's time.

[Wendell Wagner]

John W. Kennedy writes:

> C. S. Lewis once recorded a talk for the Episcopal Church Radio and Television
> Foundation that was rejected as unfit for US broadcast.

Cite? I've read a lot about Lewis and I don't recall that ever being mentioned. Indeed, I don't think that Lewis ever recorded a talk for the Episcopal Church Radio and Television Foundation. He recorded a number of talks for the BBC, and the recordings of some of them may possibly have been sold in the U.S. by the Episcopal Church Radio and Television Foundation, but I don't believe he recorded for them specifically.

[Elendil's Heir]

Maybe he started by saying, "Let me tell you about that motherfucking Tolkien...."

[John W. Kennedy]

John W. Kennedy writes:

> C. S. Lewis once recorded a talk for the Episcopal Church Radio and Television
> Foundation that was rejected as unfit for US broadcast.

Cite?Many Lewis biographies mention the incident. The unused talks were later reworked into the book, The Four Loves, and were finally made available to the public in their original form on audio cassettes in the 1970s, as "Four Talks on Love".

[cornflakes]

Maybe he started by saying, "Let me tell you about that motherfucking Tolkien...."Wrong author--Pulp Christianity was written by Quentin Tarantino.

[Wendell Wagner]

The biographies are wrong, I think. The lectures were broadcast by the Episcopal Radio-TV Foundation:

http://www.audiobooksonline.com/The-C-S-Lewis-Recordings-The-Four-Loves-CS-Lewis-Speaks-His-Mind-compact-discs.html

It's possible, as some other websites claim, that they weren't rebroadcast because the Episcopal Radio-TV Foundation found them too explicit about sex, but I'd like to see a statement from somebody at the foundation saying that. This sounds to me like somebody's later guess about why they weren't rebroadcast. There's no particular reason why they should be rebroadcast. The lectures that made up _Mere Christianity_ were never broadcast again, for instance. The foundation continues to sell the lectures "Four Talks on Love," so I find this story implausible.

[John W. Kennedy]

They received some spotty distribution, and, as I said, were made available on cassette in 1970 -- I own a set, in fact -- but they were not nationally aired as planned (and as had been heavily advertised) in 1958, as witness a contemporary article in The Living Church. It appears from that that they were "channeled into college and urban communities for a more sophisticated audience".

"Professor Lewis," he was told, "I'm afraid you brought sex into your talks on Eros."

[Wendell Wagner]

John W. Kennedy writes:

> . . . a contemporary article in The Living Church . . .

Cite? Could you give me the date of the article and quote me the passage where this is said?

> "Professor Lewis," he was told, "I'm afraid you brought sex into your talks on
> Eros."

What are you quoting from here, and why do you think it's an accurate report of what was said to Lewis? Would someone really say something as silly as "Professor Lewis, I'm afraid you brought sex into your talks on Eros"? That sounds to me like someone's later guess as to the real reasons. I find it hard to believe that someone said that explicitly.

I'm getting hold of some Lewis experts on an E-mail mailing list to find more information about this.

[Peter Morris]

No – it wouldn't be unlike Shakespeare to do that, but there's no evidence that the word had anything other than its literal meaning in Shakespeare's time.

Thanks.

I hate trying to interpret what Shakespeare meant. This sort of thing happens all the time.

[John W. Kennedy]

You'll find it all in, among other sources, Walter Hooper's C.S. Lewis: A Complete Guide to His Life & Works. It's also in the biography by Hooper with Roger Lancelyn Green.

"The Living Church", 1958-09-28, p26C. S. Lewis, churchman, author, lecturer, philosopher and professor of English at Cambridge University, will speak to American radio audiences in 1959 on the weekly Episcopal Hour program, March 29 to May 31. This will be the first time that the author of Screwtape Letters, Problem of Pain, and Case for Christianity has spoken to Americans, although several of his books were first presented as radio addresses....

The coming program, produced by the Episcopal Radio-TV Foundation, Inc., will be broadcast over more than 325 stations as part of the year-round Protestant Hour program, and is available to cities where it is not already scheduled.

"The Living Church", 1958-11-23, p 26Ten talks on love by C. S. Lewis, originally announced as the spring offering of the Episcopal Radio Hour, led to some lively discussion among those responsible for the program when they listened to tape-recorded previews. The noted English author had pulled no punches in discussing sex and explaining its place in the Christian view of love.

The combination of a high intellectual level and startling frankness seemed to demand a specific type of audience, rather than a place in the format of this well established segment of the Protestant Hour Network.

A new series will be substituted on the Episcopal hour.... The C. S. Lewis talks will be channelled into college and urban communities for a more sophisticated audience.

And of course the Foundation doesn't voluntarily tell the story nowadays; it makes them look like idiots.

[Elendil's Heir]

Waitaminute. Lewis knew about nookie?

Bloody hell.

[CalMeacham]

[quote]Waitaminute. Lewis knew about nookie?

Bloody hell.
[/quotre]

'course he did. Read The Great Divorce. The Hell-spawn Lizard of Lust becomes the Stallion of Sexuality in good Christian stewardship.

[Wendell Wagner]

You didn't answer one of my questions though. Who said, "Professor Lewis, I'm afraid you brought sex into your talks on Eros"?

This is getting picky, I suppose, but the lectures were not "rejected as unfit for US broadcast." They were broadcast, but to a smaller market than originally planned. The problem was not "naughty-word-itis." There is no obscene or even titillating language in _The Four Loves_. There is frank talk about sex, but that's different. An analogous situation to what the foundation did would be if a media company with two TV networks, one a broadcast network and one a cable network, looked at the pilot of a new series that they had produced to be shown on their broadcast network and said, "This doesn't really fit our demographics for the broadcast network. Let's put it on our cable network." It sounded like you were saying that there were prudes in the Episcopal Radio-TV Foundation who were horrified by the lectures and wanted to deep-six them. It was more like a business decision by the management of the foundation according to what fit the demographics of their audience.

Incidentally, you do realize that Walter Hooper is untrustworthy on various things, don't you?

Elendil's Heir writes:

> Waitaminute. Lewis knew about nookie?

Am I being whooshed here? Do you seriously think that Lewis was prudish? Have you read any of his books?

[John W. Kennedy]

Perelandra (a.k.a. Voyage to Venus) and That Hideous Strength are positively drenched in sexuality, and it is rarely absent from his other fictional works, aside from the Narnia series. He found American nice-nellyism comical--and incomprehensible, to boot, coming from the land that had given the world Jane Russell.

[Peter Morris]

... drenched in sexuality, and it is rarely absent from his other fictional works, aside from the Narnia series.

You haven't seen The Silver Chair.

"She made love to everyone—the grooms, the porters, the housemaids, the ladies-in-waiting, and the elderly giant lords whose hunting days were past."

[Elendil's Heir]

...Am I being whooshed here?....

Yes. I just wanted to be able to use the word "bloody" again, to get the thread back on track. ;)

[John W. Kennedy]

Incidentally, you do realize that Walter Hooper is untrustworthy on various things, don't you?I realize that he has been accused of fraud by a delusional woman whose charges have been conclusively refuted.

But this is getting ridiculously far afield from the topic of this thread.

[Wendell Wagner]

John W. Kennedy writes:

> I realize that he has been accused of fraud by a delusional woman whose
> charges have been conclusively refuted.

You're wrong, but let's discuss this some other time and place.