What we once called politically correct speech (and some still do) has now morphed into social justice language. Flourishing on college campuses, into the millennial cultural paradigm, even heard recently on the Emmy awards, erring on the side of trying to not offend, to make sure everyone has their say, to thwart all the ‘isms,’-and to label-we might now be at a point that tone as well as words are stifling free speech.

And not getting us laid.

In writer/teacher Aristo Orgino’s fantastic “Social Justice Bullies: The Authoritarianism of Millennial Social Justice” he states: “The modern social justice movement launched on Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Jezebel, Slate, Huffington Post, et al. is far more reminiscent of a Red Scare (pick one) than the Civil Rights Movement.” This ‘movement’ mainly massaged by the self-appointed cultural powers-that-seeth spread tendrils to all aspects of action and speech, most notably in our intimate dealings with one another.

When any criticism you might try make is all-too-quickly labeled prejudice, when our natural actions of a gender we identify with become supposed tenants of possible future abuse and even the slightest change in the intensity of words spoken become imagined call-to-actions that must be stopped, we are certainly in a bad place. All too often this trickles down, especially with the emotive speech we whisper across pillows or on porn sites, commandeered words or supposed culturally accepted concepts must be followed the more the masses have their say. But we’ll all too quickly lose the ability or even the acumen to flirt with our bawdy or blue words, just like when the pendulum swung so wide the other way over the mandates enacted to stop sexual harassment behavior to presently make any healthy benign office interactions suspect.

It’s not the government holding us down here, it is ourselves. As trans, sis, straight, gay, flexible folk try their best to get it on with those trans, sis, straight, gay, flexible folk they are attracted to. Less we forget Orwell’s warning in Nineteen Eighty-Four:
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy.”