Just a few thoughts:
Rosehip:
I remember, while still only in public school, and having to be exposed to very vulgar, low-class girls who swore and cursed, and how it rubbed off on me.
and
It's true, and very sad. By "well-bred" I meant someone who has been carefully and lovingly trained by their parents in virtue and good taste.
vs
Gebre
Yeah, I cringe when I hear things like "well-bred" and "good breeding." I'll give Rosehip the benefit of the doubt though. But I do encourage her to jettison these terms from her vocabulary. I'm with her when she speaks of manners, nobility of spirit, and purity of character; but I don't like distinctions like delicacy or classism.
It is unfortunate that in the English language one is unable to escape a certain implicit classism when speaking of behavior. Even words such as "nobility" and "noble" imply a class distinction (between the noble and the common man), and "vulgar" means precisely that which is common.
What I find disturbing is how these words also relate to the linguistic phenomenon of the English "swear" or "curse" word. With the exception of two words ("d***" and "h***") none of our "swear" words have anything to do with actually swearing at all. While one might be "sure as s***" no one would ever swear by defecate or place their hand over such to make an oath and if one did others would likely doubt the worth of such an oath (perhaps even saying that your "word means jack-$#!*"). As relates to cursing itself, one might be told to "eat s*** and die", and while eating defecate certainly seems like it would be most unpleasant, it certainly seems to me far more harmful to be wishing death upon the person, along with it's possibility of damnation.
It seems to me that by selecting a certain small number of four (sometimes three or five) lettered words as being "swearing or cursing" we have opened ourselves up to the far greater sins of actually swearing or cursing on a far more than daily habit. A person who would never utter such a horrible expletive as **** or b**** will perjure himself fifty times before the sun sets. But, because this person is never "discourteous" (a word with the root "court", like "courtly", and relating to the courts of nobles, kings, and such) we accord unto him some virtue. The selfsame man will curse the president, his next door neighbor, or his children but because he never says **** we count him a "gentleman".
What distresses me most greatly is not just the implicit classism of such statements, but also the racism (or ethnicism, if you believe race is dependent upon color). For all these words to describe behavior have a single common point of entry into the English language, they come by way of France through the Norman invasion. And pretty much all the forbidden words of our language have a common point of entry into the English language- they were there to begin with. And all the ways we have of not saying these words come into our language by way of the Norman invasion of England. Really, by enforcing the idea of class and "good taste" we are doing no more to increase the virtue of our speech than we would by completely suppressing the use of any other slang or colloquialism.
Now, as regards the f-word... It is certainly a word that means one thing which Christians should tread lightly upon in their speech. A Christian should be avoiding "locker room" talk of any sort, regardless of the national origin of the word they use. Engaging in bragging over (hopefully past) sexual exploits and conquests is what is damaging, regardless of whether one is saying "Man, I hit that" or "Oh, yeah, I f***ed her". Indulging the lusts in "construction site" type talk is damaging whenever one is looking to his buddy and saying "Man, see her? What I wouldn't give to..." no matter how he finishes that sentence. But far less harmful, I believe, is the person who merely uses the word as an adjective (or adverb), usually due to constantly having heard that word used that way.
Also harmful is using these particular words for their "shock value". A person who finds these four-letter words naturally to be part of his vocabulary can be excused, perhaps, if the little old ladies at the bus stop are offended. The teenager who uses these words precisely to offend these same little old ladies is guilty of both their lack of charity and his own ill will.
As regards music, it is, I believe, the manner in which these words are intended as well. Back in the '60s, the '70s, or '80s, of course, such words were almost certain to offend. By the time of the '90s such had become common place that no one but a Senate committee would have a problem with it (and then only if your wife happened to be offended, which is why I did NOT vote Gore in 2000). If the "f-word" is used in a harmful way in one song it is likely the entirety of the artist's repertoire is harmful and lust based (Snoop Dogg, I'm looking at you). On the other hand, a well placed expletive can be a form of emphasis to make a particular point stand out, and such is the value of language. "Lies" is no where near as powerful an emphatic as "bull$#!*" (ah, OutKast, your poetic delicacies and nuances are a source of endless bounty).
Heorhij:
Like I said, I simply do not know that because to me, rap etc. is NOT music. In the Ukrainian folk song that I gave a YouTube link to, the Marenych trio sings about something that is morally not just questionable but, indeed, forbidden: love of a young girl to an apparently older and MARRIED man who has two children (the last stanza of the song, about his two children, is omitted in the clip that I gave the link to, but it is there in the song). But it is MUSIC. And it conveys human tragedy, our human suffering because of the sin in the world. And it causes a "catharsis" in my soul, and it is beautiful and I WILL, WILL listen to it. "Moral content" is not an obstacle. In fact, "moralistic" songs where some "moral" or "positive" human trait is the subject matter are, IMHO, usually flat and not attractive to me from the artistic point of view. Same thing books or cinematography.
It seems to me to be precisely this type of poetry or fiction that the Church Fathers condemned over and again. A tale of forbidden love does nothing to warn people away from forbidden love, but lends to forbidden lovers a sense of grandiose tragedy. Every teenage girl emulates "Romeo and Juliet" despite the fact that nothing good happens to anyone in that story. Indeed, I would say that Romeo and Juliet has led to more girls dating, surrendering to, and in the worst case marrying a completely unsuitable husband to whom her father expresses an objection. Likewise the tale of Tristram and Isolt has caused more couples to enter into adultery on the grounds of the "duty of love". All the suffering is seen, not as the result of sin, but as the sacrifice demanded by this god called Love; completely counter to the point that the God who is Love sacrifices Himself.
