April 9, 1969

If This Is Libel, Make Most Of It

A shocking memory of a tour I once made through an insane asylum was that of a man who had the disgusting habit of making a bowel movement on the floor and then dipping his finger into it to smear "God is love" on the walls.

The same feeling of revulsion I experienced then, nauseates me again when I survey the so-called "sexual revolution" of contemporary society.

It's not a revolution, it is cultural suicide.

We have allowed the mentally sick to/heap offal over us under the stupid assumption there is nothing we can do about it that wouldn't offend free speech, artistic license and individual expression.  

If what I say is NOT true, then my following words constitute a gross libel against several publishers and authors that only a law suit and judgment against me can correct.  I am confident of my opinion because libel suits are tried by juries, and I have an iron-clad defense - the filthy material itself.

There is a lot of pornography floating around these days, and I avoid it as much as possible - on moral grounds, of course, but equally because it is tasteless.  Most of it has the appeal of orangutans copulating in a zoo cage.

However, an irate teacher has sent me two books widely circulating in the high school.  I see them for sale at many news stands and book stores.

"The Exhibitionist" was written by David Slavitt (he used the pen name "Henry Sutton" on the book cover, being understandably ashamed to use his real name) and published by Fawcett World Library.  Essentially it is a catalog of unusual sex acts described in minute and biological detail.

I thought a lifetime in the newspaper business and four years in the Navy had given me a pretty broad education.  But "The Exhibitionist" details sex adventures so bizarre they are unbelievable - and therefore irrelevant to life.

"Myra Breckenridge" by Gore Vidal and published by Little, Brown & Company undoubtedly is a pervert’s delight.  It deals largely with the pleasures of a female "anal erotic" who gets her kicks from artificial sex devices, group orgies and inflicting pain.  Vidal's microscopic attention to the body openings turned my stomach.

Those who pretend to see a socially useful message in this trash are naive dupes.  Public officials who condone this corruption are dangerous fools who should be turned out of office.

Society and its authorities had no difficulty 20 years ago in deciding a man who wrote beautiful sentiments on walls in an offensive manner was a nut that should be locked up.  Where has reason flown today?

I say, for the record, that "The Exhibitionist" and "Myra Breckenridge" are worthless artistically; that Slavitt and Vidal are perverts, and that Fawcett and Little, Brown are criminal pornographers.

If this is libel, then make the most of it.

A great deal of the difficulty of coming to grips with the flood of polluted books, movies and art is the casualness with which we and/or the mass media treat it.

I long ago cancelled my subscriptions to "Life" and "Look" magazines because they are unacceptable for youngsters.  There is generally at least one sexy picture to give the publications "adult appeal."  But this can be easily weeded out before placing it in the family magazine rack.

More insidious is the degradation of cultural standards.

The March 7 issue of "Life," for example, contains a long, heavily photographed interview about Robert Evans, vice president in charge of production for Paramount Pictures.  He is glamorous, interesting, rich - supposedly worthy of major, favorable publicity.

His tomcat activities are duly noted, but with an indulgent smirk: "The scene (of Evan's yard) is idyllic.  ‘It's so wonderful,’ a young actress once remarked, ‘you have a lovely dinner there under the tree, and then you talk, and then you just walk into bed.  It's so beautiful!’"

The canons of good taste were even further assaulted in the March 18 issue of "Look".  A big spread about the famous adulterers, "Beatle" John Lennon and Yoko Ono again emphasize deviant personalities.

Note, in this instance, the language used by a "Look" senior editor, Betty Rollin: " What do ya mean!' yelps John, sitting up as if he'd been, goosed."

Miss Rollin's adjective was strong talk at stag parties not so many years ago.  Now, we accept it as legitimate language in a supposedly family magazine by a woman (I almost wrote ‘lady’) writer.

Slavitt has admitted his book had no creative merit, and revealed his motive for writing it, when he responded frankly to a recent interview:

Question - "Why did you write a book like this?"

Slavitt's answer - "I wrote it for three reasons : (1) To make a lot of money (2) I had written "The Exhibitionist" and liked the idea of the "Voyeur" as a companion volume .  .  .  (3) I had an audience of four million people.  The system (of pandering) is there to be manipulated, and I have manipulated it rather well."

Pardon me while I vomit.

Our opinion leaders - cultural and political - owe the overwhelming majority of Americans constructive leadership and some restraint of the four million bathroom Romeos.

Keepers of insane asylums, by constant association with mad men, run the risk of succumbing to the standards of their charges.

We are well on our way to this dilemma.

Can we turn back?

Author: Lindsey Williams