How to Talk Dirty and Influence People

synopsis:Last month, in Part III of his autobiography, Lenny Bruce continued the story of his post-War attempts to support himself and his wife, Honey, while struggling through the early stages of his career. His part-time stint as a free-lance charity collector in priestly garb having ended with Honey's near death in an auto crash, Lenny began concentrating exclusively on show business. He told how he gradually worked toward his unique style, showing how many of his most famous bits sprang directly from his collisions with the world's hypocrisies. Maturing as a performer, but still obscure, Lenny took Honey to California, where he worked on his father's farm for a few months and then m.c.'d in a burlesque club. It was shortly after this that Honey, now recovered, had a chance to go back to stripping, and left for a short engagement which extended into a longer and longer one that finally ended in divorce. Lenny related how he progressed into gradually better jobs, as a solo act in clubs and as a sometime screenwriter for 20th Century-Fox. He described his final disillusionment with organized religion through his experiences while trying to produce a picture of his own with a religious theme. Finally, he recounted his arrival as an established show-business figure, with prominent celebrities following his act from club to club, and the trade papers giving him increasingly bigger and more enthusiastic notices. Beginning Part IV, Lenny has evolved the successful approach many think makes him the freshest, most important performer of the day -- and he is beginning to get into serious trouble with the fuzz because of it.

The first time I got arrested for obscenity was in San Francisco. I used a 10-letter word onstage. Just a word in passing.

"Lenny, I wanna talk to you," the police officer said. "You're under arrest. That word you said -- you can't say that in a public place. It's against the law to say it and do it."

They said it was a favorite homosexual practice. Now that's strange. I don't relate that word to a homosexual practice. It relates to any contemporary chick I know, or would know, or would love, or would marry.

Then we get into the patrol wagon, and another police officer says, "You know, I got a wife and kid -- --"

"I don't wanna hear that crap," I interrupted.

"Whattaya mean?"

"I just don't wanna hear that crap, that's all. Did your wife ever do that to you?"

"No."

"Did anyone?"

"No."

"Did you ever say the word?"

"No."

"You never said the word one time? Let ye cast the first stone, man."

"Never."

"How long have you been married?"

"Eighteen years."

"You ever chippied on your wife?"

"Never."

"Never chippied on your wife one time in eighteen years?"

"Never."

"Then I love you ... because you're a spiritual guy, the kind of husband I would like to have been ... but if you're lying, you'll spend some good time in purgatory..."

Now we get into court. They swear me in.

The cop: "Your Honor, he said blah-blah-blah."

The judge: "He said blah-blah-blah! Well, I got grandchildren..."

Oh, Christ, there we go again.

"Your Honor," the cop says, "I couldn't believe it, there's a guy up on the stage in front of women in a mixed audience, saying blah-blah-blah ..."

The District Attorney: "Look at him, he's smug! I'm not surprised he said blah-blah-blah ..."

"He'll probably say blah-blah-blah again, he hasn't learned his lesson ..."

And then I dug something: they sort of liked saying blah-blah-blah.

Even the bailiff: "What'd he say?"

"He said blah-blah-blah."

"Shut up, you blah-blah-blah."

They were yelling it in the courtroom.

"Goddamn, it's good to say blah-blah-blah!"

• • •

The actual trial took place in the early part of March 1962. The People of the State of California vs. Lenny Bruce. The jury consisted of four men and eight women. The first witness for the prosecution was James Ryan, the arresting officer. Deputy District Attorney Albert Wollenberg, Jr. examined him.

Q....And on the night of October the fourth did you have any special assignment in regard to [the Jazz Workshop]?

A. I was told by my immediate superior, Sergeant Solden, that he had received a complaint from the night before that the show at this club was of a lewd nature, and that sometime during the evening I was to go in and see the show and find out what the complaint was all about.... Just as I entered the establishment, the defendant was coming onto the stage.

Q. I see. And what did he do when he came onto the stage?

A. Well, he walked on the stage and seated himself, I believe on a stool, and started his act.

Q. And during the course of his act did any talking about an establishment known as Ann's 440 arise?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to the discussion about Ann's 440 Club, what was the defendant talking about?

A. Well, he talked -- he talked about many things, many different topics. One or two that I recall was some discussion that he made about toilet bowls, and another little talk I guess you'd call it about butterflies.

Q. I see. And then in reference to Ann's 440 Club, was this part of the conversation about butterflies or toilets?

A. No. It was later in the show.

Q. I see. And what did he have to say, as you recall, about that?

A. Well, he was giving a little summary of different experiences he had had during his time in show business; this particular instance he apparently had worked at Ann's 440 Club maybe a few years in the past. And during this particular episode at the 440 he was talking to some other person, who, as near as I can recall, I think was either his agent or another entertainer. And during this conversation ... one person said, "I can't work at the 440 because it's overrun with [vernacular for fellators]."

Q. Now, who was saying this on the stage?

A. The defendant.

Q. Now, after this statement, what then occurred?

A. A little later on in the same show the defendant was talking about the fact that he distrusted ticket takers and the person that handled the money, and that one of these days a man was going to enter the premises and situate himself where he couldn't be seen by the ticket taker, and then he was going to expose himself and on the end of it he was going to have a sign hanging that read, "When we reach $1500 the guy inside The Booth is going to Kiss it."

Q.... Now, subsequent to the statement about hanging a sign on a person exposed, was there any further conversation by the defendant while giving his performance?

A. Yes. Later in the show he went into some kind of chant where he used a drum, or a cymbal and a drum, for a tempo, and the dialog was supposed to be --

Mr. Bendich (my attorney, Albert Bendich): I'll object to what the witness infers the conversation or dialog was supposed to import, your Honor. The witness is to testify merely to what he heard.

The Court: Sustained.

Mr. Wollenberg: Can you give us the exact words or what your recollection of those words were?

A. Yes. During that chant he used the words "I'm coming, I'm coming, I'm coming," and --

Q. Did he just do it two or three times, "I'm coming, I'm coming, I'm coming"?

A. Well, this one part of the show lasted a matter of a few minutes.

Q. And then was anything else said by the defendant?

A. Then later he said, "Don't come in me. Don't come in me."

Q. Now, did he do this just one or two times?

A. No. As I stated, this lasted for a matter of a few minutes.

Q. Now, as he was saying this, was he using the same voice as he was giving this chant?

A. Well, this particular instance where he was saying "I'm coming, I'm coming," he was talking in a more normal tone of voice. And when he stated, or when he said "Don't come in me. Don't come in me," he used a little higher-pitched voice...

• • •

Mr. Bendich now cross-examined.

Q. Officer Ryan, would you describe your beat to us, please?

A. ...It takes in both sides of Broadway from Mason to Battery.

Q. And in the course of your duties, Officer, you have the responsibility and obligation to observe the nature of the shows being put on in various clubs in this area?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. ... Now, Officer, you testified, I believe, on direct examination that you had a specific assignment with reference to the Lenny Bruce performance at the Jazz Workshop, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Tell us, please, if you will, what your specific assignment was.

A. My assignment was to watch the performance of the show that evening.

Q. What were you looking for?

A. Any lewd conversation or lewd gestures or anything that might constitute an objectionable show.

Q. What were your standards for judging, Officer, whether a show was objectionable or not?

A. Well, any part of the show that would violate any Police or Penal Code sections that we have.

Q.... And how long were you present at the performance, Officer?

A. Approximately forty-five minutes.

Q.... I believe that you indicated that the first basis of your decision to seek the arrest of Mr. Bruce was your overhearing the word, to wit, "[vernacular for fellator]," is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, Officer, after your entrance into the Jazz Workshop at approximately ten o'clock, what time would you estimate it to have been when you heard the word "[vernacular for fellator]"?

A. Approximately ten minutes, I'd say.

Q. And how long thereafter, Officer, was it before you heard the next term to which you took exception or which you considered to fall within your conception of objectionable?

A. I'd say probably another ten or fifteen minutes.

Q. Now, I take it, of course, that the performance was a continuing one and that Mr. Bruce was performing throughout this period that you stood there and observed the show?

A. That's correct.

Q. Yes. Let me continue along this line, then, Officer, if you will, and ask you approximately how much time elapsed after the second term to which you took exception until you heard the next term to which you took exception?

A. A few minutes again, maybe five or -- five minutes, I'd say.

Q. Now, these three occurrences, Officer, are the ones on which you based your decision to seek the arrest of the defendant, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You witnessed the performance for a forty-five-minute period of time, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you left, the performance was still going on, is that correct?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, I believe that you told Mr. Wollenberg during your direct examination that with respect to the last language to which you took exception, to wit, the words or the phrase "I'm coming," that particular section of Mr. Bruce's show took approximately two minutes, is that correct?

A. Well, I'd say anywhere from two to four minutes. I'm only approximating now. I didn't look at my watch.

Q. Yes. Now, it only takes a second to say the word "[vernacular for fellator]," does it not, or approximately that?

A. Approximately.

Q. And I should say that it takes approximately another second to utter the phrase "kiss it," is that correct? Would you concur?

A. Yes.

Mr. Bendich: ... [You have previously described] the clubs that are situated upon the beat that you patrol, and among other clubs you listed the Moulin Rouge ... And would you be good enough to tell us, Officer Ryan, what the nature of the entertainment material presented in the Moulin Rouge is?

A. Primarily a burlesque-type entertainment.

Q. Strip shows are put on ...?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, as a matter of fact, Officer Ryan, there is a housewives' contest put on at the Moulin Rouge with respect to superior talent in stripping, is there not?

A. I don't know if it just encompasses housewives; I know they have an amateur night.

Q. Now, Officer Ryan, will you tell us a little bit about what occurs during amateur night?

A. Well, just what it says, I believe. Girls that have had little or no experience in this type of entertainment are given a chance to try their hand at it.

Q. To try their hand at it, and they try their body a little, too, don't they?

Mr. Wollenberg: Oh, if your Honor please, counsel is argumentative.

The Court: Yes. Let us not be facetious, Mr. Bendich.

Mr. Bendich: I am being perfectly serious, your Honor.

The Court: Well, that question smacks of being facetious.

Mr. Bendich: I will withdraw it. I don't intend to be facetious.

Q. Officer Ryan, will you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you will, please, what the ladies who are engaged in the competition on amateur night do?

Mr. Wollenberg: If your Honor please, this is irrelevant.

The Court: Overruled.

The Witness: Well, they come on the stage and then to the accompaniment of music they do a dance.

Mr. Bendich: And in the course of doing this dance, they take their clothes off, is that correct?

A. Partially, yes.

Q. Now, these are the amateur competitors and performers, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Tell us, please, if you will, what the professional performers do.

A. Approximately the same thing, with maybe a little more finesse or a little more ability, if there is ability in that line.

Q. And you have witnessed these shows, is that correct, Officer Ryan?

A. I have, yes.

Q. And these are shows which are performed in the presence of mixed audiences, representing persons of both sexes, is that correct?

A. That's true.

Q. Now, Officer Ryan, in the course of your official duties in patrolling your beat you have occasion, I take it, to deal with another club, the name of which is Finocchio's, is that correct?

A. That's true.

Q. And you have had occasion to observe the nature of the performances in Finocchio's, is that true? ... Would you be good enough, Officer Ryan, to describe to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the nature of the entertainment presented in Finocchio's is?

A. Well, the entertainers are female impersonators.

Q.... And can you describe the mode of dress, Officer, of the female impersonators in Finocchio's?

A. Well, they wear different types of costumes. Some of them are quite full, and others are --

Q. Quite scanty?

A. Not "quite scanty," I wouldn't say, no, but they are more near to what you'd call scanty, yes.

Q. "More near to what you'd call scanty." Well, as a matter of fact, Officer, isn't it true that men appear in the clothes of women, and let's start up -- or should I say, down at the bottom -- wearing high-heeled shoes?

Mr. Wollenberg: Oh, if your Honor please, he's already answered that they're wearing the clothes of women. That covers the subject. We're not trying Finocchio's here today.

Mr. Bendich: We're certainly not trying Finocchio's but we are trying Lenny Bruce on a charge of obscenity, and we have a question of contemporary community standards that has to be established, and I am attempting to have Officer Ryan indicate what the nature of the community standards on his beat are.

The Court:...Well, ask him to be specific.

Mr. Bendich: Very well. Will you please be more specific, Officer Ryan?

A. In what regard? I have testified --

Q. With regard to describing the nature of the scantily dressed female impersonators in terms of their attire.

A. They have all different kinds of costumes. Now, which particular one -- I never paid that much attention to it, really.

Q. Well, they appear in black net stockings, do they not?

A. I imagine they do at times.

Q. And they appear in tights ...?

A. On occasion, yes.

Q. And they appear wearing brassieres, do they not?

A. That's correct.

Q. I think that's specific enough....Officer Ryan, in the course of your observations of the strip shows in the Moulin Rouge, have you ever had occasion to become sexually stimulated?

A. No, sir.

Mr. Wollenberg: I'm going to object to this and move to strike the answer as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, if your Honor please.

The Court: The answer is in; it may remain.

Mr. Bendich: Were you sexually stimulated when you witnessed Lenny Bruce's performance?

Mr. Wollenberg: Irrelevant and immaterial, especially as to this officer, your Honor.

The Court: Overruled.

The Witness: No, sir.

Mr. Bendich: Did you have any conversation with anyone in the Jazz Workshop on the night that you arrested Mr. Lenny Bruce?

A. No.

Q. Officer Ryan, you're quite familiar with the term "[vernacular for fellator]," are you not?

A. I have heard it used, yes.

Q. As a matter of fact, Officer Ryan, it was used in the police station on the night that Lenny Bruce was booked there, was it not?

A. No, not to my knowledge.

Q. Well, as a matter of fact, it is frequently used in the police station, is it not?

Mr. Wollenberg: That's irrelevant and immaterial, if your Honor please. What's used in a police station or in private conversation between two people is completely different from what's used on a stage in the theater.

The Court: Well, a police station, of course, is a public place.

Mr. Wollenberg: That's correct, your Honor.

The Court: As to the police station, the objection is overruled.

Mr. Bendich: You may answer, Officer.

A. Yes, I have heard it used.

Q. Yes, you have heard the term used in a public place known as the police station. Now, officer Ryan, there is nothing obscene in and of itself about the word "cock," is there?

Mr. Wollenberg: I'm going to object to this as being irrelevant and immaterial, what this man feels.

The court: Sustained.

Mr. Bendich: Just two last questions, Officer Ryan. You laughed at Lenny Bruce's performance the night that you watched, did you not?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. You didn't have occasion to laugh?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did you observe whether the audience was laughing?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And they were laughing, were they not?

A. At times, yes.

Q. And no one in the audience made any complaint to you, though you were in uniform standing in the club?

A. No one, no.

Mr. Bendich: No further questions.

• • •

Later, Mr. Wollenberg examined the other police officer, Sergeant James Solden.

Q.... And did you have occasion while in that area [the Jazz Workshop] to see the defendant Bruce? ... Did you have a conversation with him?

A. The conversation was, I spoke to Mr. Bruce and said, "Why do you feel that you have to use the word '[vernacular for fellator]' to entertain people in a public night spot?" And Mr. Bruce's reply to me, was, "Well, there are a lot of [vernacular for fellators] around, aren't there? What's wrong with talking about them?"

• • •

Mr. Bendich made his opening statement to the jury, "to tell you what it is that I am going to attempt to prove to you in the course of the presentation of the defense case.... I am going to prove through the testimony of several witnesses who will take the stand before you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that Mr. Bruce gave a performance in the Jazz Workshop on the night of October fourth last year which was a show based on the themes of social criticism, based upon an analysis of various forms of conventional hypocrisy, based upon the technique of satire which is common in the heritage of English letters and, as a matter of fact, in the heritage of world literature. We are going to prove, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that the nature of Mr. Bruce's performance on the night of October the fourth was in the great tradition of social satire, related intimately to the kind of social satire to be found in the works of such great authors as Aristophanes, Jonathan Swift --"

Mr. Wollenberg: I'm going to object. Aristophanes is not testifying here, your Honor, or any other authors, and I'm going to object to that at this time as improper argument.

Mr. Bendich: Your Honor, I didn't say I would call Mr. Aristophanes.

The court: I don't think you could, very well....

And so the trial began.

• • •

It seems fitting that the first witness for the defense was Ralph J. Gleason, a brilliant jazz critic and columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. Gleason was my first real supporter, the first one who really went out on a limb for me, to help my career.

Mr. Bendich examined him.

Q.... Mr. Gleason, will you describe for us, if you will, please, what the themes of Mr. Bruce's work were during the appearance in the Workshop for which he was arrested?

Mr. Wollenberg: I will object to just the themes, your Honor. He can give the performance or recite what was said, but the "themes" is ambiguous.

The court: Overruled.

The Witness: The theme of the performance on the night in question was a social criticism of stereotypes and of the hypocrisy of contemporary society.... He attempted to demonstrate to the audience a proposition that's familiar to students of semantics, which is that words have been given in our society almost a magic meaning that has no relation to the facts, and I think that he tried in the course of this show that evening to demonstrate that there is no harm inherent in words themselves.

Q.... How important, if at all, was the theme of semantics with reference to the entire show given on the evening in question?

A. In my opinion, it was very important -- vital to it.

Q. And what dominance or predominance, if any, did the theme of semantics occupy with respect to the content of the entire show on the night in question?

A. Well, it occupied an important part in the entire performance, not only in the individual routines, but in the totality of the program.

Q. Yes. Now, with respect to the rest of the program, Mr. Gleason, would you tell us about some of the other themes, and perhaps illustrate something about them if you can, in addition to the theme of semantics which Mr. Bruce worked with?

A. Well, to the best of my recollection there was a portion of the show in which he attempted to show satirically the hypocrisy inherent in the licensing of a ticket taker who had a criminal record for particularly abhorrent criminal acts and demanding a bond for him....

• • •

Mr. Gleason was asked to read to the jury an excerpt from an article in Commonweal, a Catholic magazine. The article was by Nat Hentoff, who's Jewish, so it doesn't really count. Gleason read:

"It is in Lenny Bruce -- and only in him -- that there has emerged a cohesively 'new' comedy of nakedly honest moral rage at the deceptions all down the line in our society. Bruce thinks of himself as an ethical relativist and shares Pirandello's preoccupation with the elusiveness of any absolute, including absolute truth.

"His comedy ranges through religion-in-practice ('What would happen if Christ and Moses appeared one Sunday at Saint Patrick's?'); the ultimate limitations of the white liberal; the night life of the hooker and her view of the day; and his own often scarifying attempts to make sense of his life in a society where the quicksand may lie just underneath the sign that says: Take Shelter when the civilian defense alarm sounds.

"Bruce, however, does not turn a night club into Savonarola's church. More than any others of the 'new wave,' Bruce is a thoroughly experienced performer, and his relentless challenges to his audience and to himself are intertwined with explosive pantomime, hilarious 'bits,' and an evocative spray of Yiddishisms, Negro and show-business argot, and his own operational semantics. Coursing through everything he does, however, is a serious search for values that are more than security blankets. In discussing the film the story of esther costello, Bruce tells of the climactic rape scene: 'It's obvious the girl has been violated.... She's been deaf and dumb throughout the whole picture.... All of a sudden she can hear again ... and she can speak again. So what's the moral?'"

• • •

Later -- after the judge had pointed something out to the Deputy District Attorney ("Mr. Wollenberg," he said, " ... your shirttail is out.") -- Mr. Gleason was asked to read to the jury a portion of an article by Arthur Gelb in The New York Times.

"The controversial Mr. Bruce, whose third visit to Manhattan this is, is the prize exhibit of the menagerie, and his act is billed 'for adults only.'

"Presumably the management wishes to safeguard the dubious innocence of underage New Yorkers against Mr. Bruce's vocabulary, which runs to four-letter words, of which the most printable is Y.M.C.A. (continued on page 82) How to Talk Dirty (continued from page 72) But there are probably a good many adults who will find him offensive, less perhaps for his Anglo-Saxon phrases than for his vitriolic attacks on such subjects as facile religion, the medical profession, the law, pseudo-liberalism and Jack Paar. ('Paar has a God complex. He thinks he can create performers in six days,' Mr. Bruce is apt to confide.)

"Although he seems at times to be doing his utmost to antagonize his audience, Mr. Bruce displays such a patent air of morality beneath the brashness that his lapses in taste are often forgivable.

"The question, though, is whether the kind of derisive shock therapy he administers and the introspective free-form patter in which he indulges are legitimate night-club fare, as far as the typical customer is concerned.

"It is necessary, before lauding Mr. Bruce for his virtues, to warn the sensitive and the easily shocked that no holds are barred at Basin Street East. Mr. Bruce regards the night-club stage as the 'last frontier' of uninhibited entertainment. He often carries his theories to their naked and personal conclusions and has earned for his pains the sobriquet 'sick.' He is a ferocious man who does not believe in the sanctity of motherhood or the American Medical Association. He even has an unkind word to say for Smokey the Bear. True, Smokey doesn't set forest fires, Mr. Bruce concedes. But he eats Boy Scouts for their hats.

"Mr. Bruce expresses relief at what he sees as a trend of 'people leaving the church and going back to God,' and he has nothing but sneers for what he considers the sanctimonious liberal who preaches but cannot practice genuine integration.

"Being on cozy terms with history and psychology, he can illustrate his point with the example of the early Romans, who thought there was 'something dirty' about Christians. 'Would you want your sister to marry one?' -- he has one Roman ask another -- and so on, down to the logical conclusion in present-day prejudice.

"At times Mr. Bruce's act, devoid of the running series of staccato jokes that are traditional to the night-club comic, seems like a salvationist lecture; it is biting, sardonic, certainly stimulating and quite often funny -- but never in a jovial way. His mocking diatribe rarely elicits a comfortable belly laugh. It requires concentration. But there is much in it to wring a rueful smile and appreciative chuckle. There is even more to evoke a fighting gleam in the eye. There are also spells of total confusion.

"Since Mr. Bruce operates in a spontaneous, stream-of-consciousness fashion a good deal of the time, he is likely to tell you what he's thinking about telling you before he gets around to telling you anything at all ..."

• • •

Mr. Bendich resumed his line of questioning.

Q. Mr. Gleason, would you tell us, please, what in your judgment was the predominant theme of the evening's performance for which Mr. Bruce was arrested?

A. Well, in a very real sense it's semantics -- the search for the ultimate truth that lies beneath the social hypocrisy in which we live. All his performances relate to this.

Q. Mr. Gleason, as an expert in this field, would you characterize the performance in question as serious in intent and socially significant?

Mr. Wollenberg: I will object to this as being irrelevant and immaterial.

The Court: Overruled.

The Witness: Yes, I would characterize it as serious.

Mr. Bendich: And how would you characterize the social significance, if any, of that performance?

A. Well, I would characterize this performance as being of high social significance, in line with the rest of his performances.

Q. Mr. Gleason, what in your opinion, based upon your professional activity and experience in the field of popular culture, and particularly with reference to humor, what in your opinion is the relation between the humor of Lenny Bruce and that of other contemporary humorists, such as Mort Sahl, Shelley Berman, Mike and Elaine?

Mr. Wollenberg: That's immaterial, your Honor, what the comparison is between him and any other comedian.

The Court: Objection overruled.

The Witness: Mr. Bruce attacks the fundamental structure of society and these other comedians deal with it superficially.

Mr. Bendich: Mr. Gleason, you have already testified that you have seen personally a great many Lenny Bruce performances, and you are also intimately familiar with his recorded works and other comic productions. Has your prurient interest ever been stimulated by any of Mr. Bruce's work?

A. Not in the slightest.

Mr. Wollenberg: I will object to that as calling for the ultimate issue before this jury.

The Court: The objection will be overruled.... You may answer the question.

The Witness: I have not been excited, my prurient or sexual interest has not been aroused by any of Mr. Bruce's performances.

• • •

The transcript of my San Francisco trial runs 350 pages. The witnesses -- not one of whose sexual interest had ever been aroused by any of my night-club performances -- described one after another, what they remembered of my performance on the night in question at the Jazz Workshop, and each interpreted its social significance according to his or her own subjectivity.

For example, during the cross-examination, the following dialog ensued between Mr. Wollenberg and Lou Gottlieb, a Ph.D. who's with the Limeliters:

Q. ... Now, Doctor, you say the main theme of Mr. Bruce is to get laughter?

A. That's the professional comedian's duty.

Q. I see. And do you see anything funny in the word "[vernacular for fellator]"?

A. Mr. Bruce -- to answer that question with "Yes" or "No" is impossible, your Honor.

Mr. Wollenberg: I asked you if you saw anything funny in that word.

The Court: You may answer it "Yes" or "No" and then explain your answer.

The Witness: I found it extremely unfunny as presented by Mr. Wollenberg, I must say, but I can also --

The Court: All right, wait a minute, wait a minute. I have tolerated a certain amount of activity from the audience because I knew that it is difficult not to react at times, but this is not a show, you are not here to be entertained. Now, if there's any more of this sustained levity, the courtroom will be cleared. And the witness is instructed not to argue with counsel but to answer the questions....

The Witness: I do not [see anything funny in that word], but as Mr. Bruce presents his performances he creates a world in which normal dimensions, I mean, become -- how shall I say? Well, they are transmuted into a grotesque panorama of contemporary society, into which he places slices of life, phonographically accurate statements that come out of the show-business world ... and sometimes the juxtaposition of the generally fantastic frame of reference that he is able to create and the startling intrusion of slices of life in terms of language that is used in these kinds of areas, has extremely comic effect.

Q. ...Doctor, because an agent uses that term when he talks to his talent, you find nothing wrong with using it in a (continued on page 179) How to Talk Dirty (continued from page 82) public place because you're relating a conversation between yourself and your agent? This excuses the use of that term?

A. What excuses the use of that term, Mr. Wollenberg, in my opinion, is its unexpectedness in the fantastic world that is the frame of reference, the world which includes many grotesqueries that Mr. Bruce is able to establish. Then when you get a phonographic reproduction of a snatch of a conversation, I find that this has comic effect very frequently.

Q. Do you mean "phonographic" or "photographic"?

A. "Phonographic." I mean reproducing the actual speech verbatim with the same intonation and same attitudes and everything else that would be characteristic of, let's say, a talent agent of some kind.

Q. I see. In other words, the changing of the words to more -- well, we might use genteel -- terms, would take everything away from that, is that right?

A. It wouldn't be phonographically accurate. It would lose its real feel; there would be almost no point.

Q.... And taking out that word and putting in the word "homosexual" or "fairy," that would take away completely in your opinion from this story and make it just completely another one?

A. I must say it would.

• • •

Similarly, Mr. Wollenberg cross-examined Dr. Don Geiger, associate professor and chairman of the department of speech at the University of California in Berkeley; also author of a few books, including Sound, Sense and Performance of Literature, as well as several scholarly articles in professional periodicals.

Q. And what does the expression "I won't appear there because it's overrun with [vernacular for fellators]" infer to you?

A. "I won't go there because it's filled with homosexuals."

Q. I see. And does the word "[vernacular for fellator]" denote any beauty as distinguished from the word homosexual?

A. I couldn't possibly answer that, I think. That is, you would have to provide a context for it, and then one could answer that. I would say this about it, and I would like to: that "homosexual" is a kind of neutral, scientific term which might in a given context itself have a freight of significance or beauty or artistic merit. But it's less likely to than the word "[vernacular for fellator]," which is closer to colloquial, idiomatic expression.

• • •

Later, Kenneth Brown, a high-school English teacher, testified as to his reaction to the "to come" part of my performance:

The Witness: The impression is, he was trying to get over a point about society, the inability to love, the inability to perform sexual love in a creative way. The routine then would enter a dialog between a man and a woman and they were having their sexual difficulties at orgasm in bed; at least, one of them was. And one said, "Why can't you come?" And, "Is it because you don't love me? Is it because you can't love me?" And the other one said, "Why, you know me, this is where I'm hung up. I have problems here." And that was enough to give me the impression that -- with the other things in context that were going on before and after -- that he was talking, dissecting our problems of relating to each other, man and woman. Great comics throughout literature have always disguised by comedy, through laughter, through jokes, an underlying theme which is very serious, and perhaps needs laughter because it is also painful ....

Mr. Bendich: May I ask you this question, Mr. Brown: On the basis of your professional training and experience, do you think that the work of Mr. Bruce as you know it, and in particular the content of Mr. Bruce's performance on the night of October fourth, for which he was arrested, for which he is presently here in this courtroom on trial, bears a relation to the themes and the fashion in which those themes are developed in the works which we have listed here [Lysistrata by Aristophanes; Gargantua and Pantagruel by Rabelais; Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift]?

A. I see a definite relationship, certainly.

Q. Would you state, please, what relationship you see and how you see it?

Mr. Wollenberg: I think he hasn't qualified as an expert on this, your Honor.

The Court: Well, he may state what the relationship is that he sees.

The Witness: These works use often repulsive techniques and vocabulary to make -- to insist -- that people will look at the whole of things and not just one side. These artists wish not to divide the world in half and say one is good and one is bad and avoid the bad and accept the good, but you must, to be a real and whole person, you must see all of life and see it in a balanced, honest way. I would include Mr. Bruce, certainly, in his intent, and he has success in doing this, as did Rabelais and Swift.

• • •

At one point, a couple of 19-year-old college students were admonished by the judge; they had been distributing the following leaflet outside the courtroom:

Welcome to the Farce!

Lenny Bruce, one of America's foremost comedians and social critics, is at this moment playing an unwilling part as a straight man in a social comedy put on by the City and County of San Francisco.

Incongruously, in our urbane city, this is a poor provincial farce, insensitively played by some of the city's most shallow actors.

Bruce may be imaginative, but the dull-witted, prudish lines of the police department are not, neither are the old-maidish lyrics of section 311.6 of the California Penal Code, which in genteel, puritan prose condemns the users of -- and -- and other common expressions to play a part in the dreary melodrama of "San Francisco Law Enforcement."

Really, we are grown up now. With overpopulation, human misery and the threat of war increasing, we need rather more adult performances from society.

You know, and I know, all about the hero's impure thoughts. We've probably had them ourselves. Making such a fuss isn't convincing at all -- it lacks psychological realism -- as do most attempts to find a scapegoat for sexual guilt feelings.

Forgive Lenny's language. Most of us use it at times; most of us even use the things and perform the acts considered unprintable and unspeakable by the authors of [Section 311.6 of the Penal Code of the State of California], though most of us are not nearly frank enough to say so.

Lenny has better things to do than play in this farce; the taxpayers have better uses for their money; and the little old ladies of both sexes who produceit should have betteramusements.

With a nostalgic sigh, let's pull down the curtain on People vs. Bruce and its genre; and present a far more interesting and fruitful play called Freedom of Speech. It would do our jaded ears good.

The writer and distributor of the leaflet were properly chastised.

And so the trial continued.

One of the witnesses for the defense was Clarence Knight, who had been an assistant district attorney for a couple of years in Tulare County, California, and was deputy district attorney for four to four-and-a-half years in San Mateo, where he evaluated all pornography cases that were referred to the district attorney's office. He had passed on "probably between 200 and 250 separate items of material in regard to the pornographic or nonpornographic content thereof."

As with the others, his prurient interests were not aroused by my performance at the Jazz Workshop. In fact, he said, while being cross-examined about the "[vernacular for fellator]" reference: "In my opinion, Mr. Wollenberg, it was the funniest thing Mr. Bruce said that night."

• • •

Finally, I was called as a witness in my own behalf. I took the stand, and Mr. Bendich examined me.

Q. Mr. Bruce, Mr. Wollenberg yesterday said [to Dr. Gottlieb] specifically that you had said, "Eat it." Did you say that?

A. No, I never said that.

Q. What did you say, Mr. Bruce?

A. What did I say when?

Q. On the night of October fourth.

Mr. Wollenberg: There's no testimony that Mr. Wollenberg said that Mr. Bruce said, "Eat it," the night of October fourth, if your Honor please.

The court: The question is: What did he say?

The Witness: I don't mean to be facetious. Mr. Wollenberg said, "Eat it." I said, "Kiss it."

Mr. Bendich: Do you apprehend there is a significant difference between the two phrases, Mr. Bruce?

A. "Kissing it" and "eating it," yes, sir. Kissing my mother goodbye and eating my mother goodbye, there is a quantity of difference.

Q. Mr. Wollenberg also quoted you as saying, "I'm coming, I'm coming, I'm coming." Did you say that?

A. I never said that.

Mr. Bendich: ... Mr. Bruce, do you recall using the term "[vernacular for fellator]"?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you recall accurately now how you used that term?

A. You mean accuracy right on the head -- total recall?

Q. Yes, Mr. Bruce.

A. If a "the" and an "an" are changed around, no. I don't have that exact, on-the-head recall. That's impossible; it's impossible. I defy anyone to do it. That's impossible.

Q. Mr. Bruce, if a "the" and an "an" were turned around, as you have put it, would that imply a significant difference in the characterization of what was said that evening?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Are you saying, Mr. Bruce, that unless your words can be given in exact, accurate, verbatim reproduction, that your meaning cannot be made clear?

The Witness: Yes, that is true. I would like to explain that. The "I am coming, I am coming" reference, which I never said -- if we change --

The court: Wait a minute, wait a minute. If you never said it, there's nothing to explain.

The Witness: Whether that is a coming in the second coming or a different coming -- --

The court: Well, you wait until your counsel's next question, now.

Mr. Bendich: Mr. Bruce, in giving your performance on the night of October fourth in the Jazz Workshop, as a consequence of which you suffered an arrest and as a result of which you are presently on trial on the charge of obscenity, did you intend to arouse anybody's prurient interest?

A. No.

• • •

There had been a tape recording made of that particular show. I listened to it, and when I came to the first word that San Francisco felt was taboo or a derogatory phrase, I stopped; then I went back about 10 minutes before I even started to relate to that word, letting it resolve itself; I did this with the three specific things I was charged with, put them together and the resulting tape was played in court ... this tape I made to question a father's concept of God who made the child's body but qualified the creativity by stopping it above the kneecaps and resuming it above the Adam's apple, thereby giving lewd connotations to mother's breast that fed us and father's groin that bred us.

Before the tape was played, Mr. Bendich pointed out to the judge that "there are portions of this tape which are going to evoke laughter in the audience."

The court: I anticipated you; I was going to give that admonition.

Mr. Bendich: Well, what I was going to ask, your Honor, is whether the audience might not be allowed to respond naturally, given the circumstances that this is an accurate reproduction of a performance which is given at a night club; it's going to evoke comic response, and I believe that it would be asking more than is humanly possible of the persons in this courtroom not to respond humanly, which is to say, by way of laughter.

The court: Well, as I previously remarked, this is not a theater and it is not a show, and I am not going to allow any such thing. I anticipated you this morning, and I was going to, and I am now going to admonish the spectators that you are not to treat this as a performance. This is not for your entertainment. There's a very serious question involved here, the right of the People and the right of the defendant. And I admonish you that you are to control yourselves with regard to any emotions that you may feel during the hearing this morning or by the taping and reproduction of this tape. All right, you may proceed.

And the tape was played:

... The hungry i. The hungry i has a Gray Line Tour and American Legion convention. They took all the bricks out and put in Saran Wrap. That's it. And Ferlinghetti is going to the Fairmont.

You know, this was a little snobby for me to work. I just wanted to go back to Ann's. You don't know about that, do you? Do you share that recall with me? It's the first gig I ever worked up here, a place called Ann's 440, which was across the street. And I got a call, and I was working a burlesque gig with Paul Moore in the Valley. That's the cat on the piano here, which is really strange, seeing him after all these years, and working together.

And the guy says, "There's a place in San Francisco but they've changed the policy."

"Well, what's the policy?"

"Well, I'm not there anymore, that's the main thing."

"Well, what kind of a show is it, man?"

"A bunch of [vernacular for fellators], that's all. A damned fag show."

"Oh. Well, that is a pretty bizarre show. I don't know what I can do in that kind of a show."

"Well, no. It's -- we want you to change all that."

"Well -- I don't -- that's a big gig. I can't just tell them to stop doing it."

Oh, I like you, and if sometimes I take poetic license with you and you are offended -- now this is just with semantics, dirty words. Believe me, I'm not profound, this is something that I assume someone must have laid on me, because I do not have an original thought. I am screwed -- I speak English -- that's it. I was not born in a vacuum. Every thought I have belongs to somebody else. Then I must just take ding-ding-ding somewhere.

So I am not placating you by making the following statement. I want to help you if you have a dirty-word problem. There are none, and I'll spell it out logically to you.

Here is a toilet. Specifically -- that's all we're concerned with, specifics -- if I can tell you a dirty toilet joke, we must have a dirty toilet. That's what we're talking about, a toilet. If we take this toilet and boil it and it's clean, I can never tell you specifically a dirty toilet joke about this toilet. I can tell you a dirty toilet joke in the Milner Hotel, or something like that, but this toilet is a clean toilet now. Obscenity is a human manifestation. This toilet has no central nervous system, no level of consciousness. It is not aware; it is a dumb toilet; it cannot be obscene; it's impossible. If it could be obscene, it could be cranky, it could be a Communist toilet, a traitorous toilet. It can do none of these things. This is a dirty toilet here.

So nobody can ever offend you by telling you a dirty toilet story. They can offend you in the area that it is trite; you have heard it many, many times.

Now, all of us have had a bad early toilet training -- that's why we are hung up with it. All of us at the same time got two zingers -- one for the police department and one for the toilet.

"All right, he made a kahkah, call a policeman. All right, OK, all right. Are you going to do that any more? OK, tell the policeman he doesn't have to come up now."

All right, now we all got "Policeman, policeman, policeman," and we had a few psychotic parents who took it and rubbed it in our face, and those people for the most, if you search it out, are censors. Oh, true, they hate toilets with a passion, man. Do you realize if you got that wrapped around with a toilet, you'd hate it, and anyone who refers to it? It is dirty and uncomfortable to you.

Now, if the bedroom is dirty to you, then you are a true atheist, because if you have any of the mores, superstitions, if anyone in this audience believes that God made his body, and your body is dirty, the fault lies with the manufacturer. It's that cold, Jim, yeah.

You can do anything with the body that God made, and then you want to get definitive and tell me of the parts He made; I don't see that anywhere in any reference to any Bible. Yeah. He made it all; it's all clean or all dirty.

But the ambivalence comes from the religious leaders, who are celibates. The religious leaders are "what should be." They say they do not involve themselves with the physical. If we are good, we will be like our rabbi, or our nun, or our priest, and absolve, and finally put down the carnal and stop the race.

Now, dig, this is stranger. Everybody today in the hotel was bugged with Knight and Nixon. Let me tell you the truth. The truth is "what is." If "what is" is, you have to sleep eight, ten hours a day, that is the truth. A lie will be: People need no sleep at all. Truth is "what is." If every politician from the beginning is crooked, there is no crooked. But if you are concerned with a lie, "what should be" -- and "what should be" is a fantasy, a terrible, terrible lie that someone gave the people long ago: This is what should be -- and no one ever saw what should be, that you don't need any sleep and you can go seven years without sleep, so that all the people were made to measure up to that dirty lie. You know there's no crooked politician. There's never a lie because there is never a truth.

•••

I sent the Burnside Agency a letter -- they are bonded and you know what that means: anybody who is bonded never steals from you, nor could Earl Long. Ha! If the governor can, then the bond is really -- yeah, that's some bond.

Very good. Write the letter. Blah, blah, blah, I want this, blah, blah, blah, ticket taker.

Get a letter back, get an answer back, Macon, Georgia:

"Dear Mr. Bruce: Received your letter, blah, blah, blah. We have ticket sellers, bonded. We charge two-and-a-half dollars per ticket seller, per hour. We would have to have some more details, blah, blah, blah. Sincerely yours, Dean R. Moxie."

Dean R. Moxie ... Dean R. Moxie ... Moxie, buddy. Dean R. Moxie, from the Florida criminal correctional institution for the criminally insane, and beat up a spade-fed junkie before he was thrown off the police force, and then was arrested for schtupping his step-daughter. Dean R. Moxie. Hmmm.

All right, now, because I have a sense of the ludicrous, I sent him back an answer, Mr. Moxie. Dig, because I mean this is some of the really goodies I had in the letter, you know. He wants to know details.

"Dear Mr. Moxie: It would be useless to go into the definitive, a breakdown of what the duties will be, unless I can be sure that the incidents that have happened in the past will not be reiterated, such as ticket takers I have hired, who claimed they were harassed by customers who wanted their money back, such as the fop in San Jose who is suing me for being stabbed. Claims he was stabbed by an irate customer, and it was a lie -- it was just a manicure scissors, and you couldn't see it because it was below the eyebrow, and when his eye was open, you couldn't see it anyway. (So I tell him a lot of problems like that.) And -- oh yes, oh yeah -- my father has been in three mental institutions, and detests the fact that I am in the industry, and really abhors the fact that I have been successful economically and has harassed some ticket sellers, like in Sacramento he stood in line posing as a customer and, lightning flash, grabbed a handful of human feces and crammed it in the ticket taker's face. And once in Detroit he posed as a customer and he leaned against the booth so the ticket seller could not see him, and he was exposing himself, and had a sign hanging from it, saying: 'When we hit $1500, The Guy Inside the Booth is going to kiss It.'"

Now, you'd assume Dean R. Moxie, reading the letter, would just reject that and have enough validity to grab it in again.

"Dear Mr. Moxie: You know, of course, that if these facts were to fall into the hands of some yellow journalists, this would prove a deterrent to my career. So I'm giving you, you know, my confessor, you know, blah, blah, blah. Also, this is not a requisite of a ticket seller, but I was wondering if I could have a ticket seller who could be more than a ticket seller -- a companion."

Really light now. This is really subtle.

"A companion, someone who I could have coffee with, someone who is not narrow-minded like the -- I had a stunning Danish seaman type in Oregon, who misinterpreted me and stole my watch."

Ha! Ha, is that heavy?

"Stole my watch. Am hoping to hear from you, blah, blah, blah, Lenny Bruce."

OK. Now I send him a booster letter.

"Dear Mr. Moxie: My attorney said I was mad for ever confessing what has happened to me, you know, so I know that I can trust you, and I have sent you some cologne."

Ha!

"Sent you some cologne, and I don't know what's happened --"

Isn't this beautiful?

"And I don't know what's happened to that naughty postman, naughtiest --"

Get this phraseology. I hadn't heard, you know. Now I get an answer from him:

"We cannot insure the incidents that have happened in the past will not reoccur. A ticket seller that would socialize is out of the question."

I think this is beautiful.

"And I did not receive any cologne not do we care for any. Dean R. Moxie."

• • •

(With drum and cymbal accompaniment.)

To is a preposition.

To is a preposition.

Come is a verb.

To is a preposition.

Come is a verb.

To is a preposition.

Come is a verb, the verb intransitive.

To come.

To come.

(continued on page 186) How to Talk Dirty

(continued from page 182)

I've heard these two words my whole adult life, and as a kid when I thought I was sleeping.

To come.

To come.

It's been like a big drum solo.

Did you come?

Did you come?

Good.

Did you come good?

Did you come good?

Did you come good?

Did you come good?

Did you come good?

Did you come good?

Did you come good?

I come better with you, sweetheart, than anyone in the whole goddamned world.

I really came so good.

I really came so good 'cause I love you.

I really came so good.

I come better with you, sweetheart, than anyone in the whole world.

I really came so good, so good.

But don't come in me.

Don't come in me.

Don't come in me, me, me, me, me.

Don't come in me, me, me, me.

Don't come in me.

Don't come in me, me, me.

Don't come in me, me, me.

I can't come.

'Cause you don't love me, that's why you can't come.

I love you, I just can't come; that's my hang-up, I can't come when I'm loaded, all right?

'Cause you don't love me. Just what the hell is the matter with you?

What has that got to do with loving? I just can't come.

Now, if anyone in this room or the world finds those two words decadent, obscene, immoral, amoral, asexual, the words "to come" really make you feel uncomfortable, if you think I'm rank for saying it to you, you the beholder think it's rank for listening to it, you probably can't come. And then you're of no use, because that's the purpose of life, to re-create it.

• • •

Mr. Wollenberg called me to the witness stand for cross-examination:

Q. Mr. Bruce, had you a written script when you gave this performance?

A. No.

Mr. Bendich: Objected to as irrelevant, your Honor.

The Court: The answer is "No"; it may stand.

Mr. Wollenberg: I have no further questions.

The court: All right, you may step down.

The Witness: Thank you.

Mr. Bendich: The defense rests, your Honor.

• • •

The time had come for the judge to instruct the jury:

"The defendant is charged with violating Section 311.6 of the Penal Code of the State of California, which provides:

"'Every person who knowingly sings or speaks any obscene song, ballad, or other words in any public place is guilty of a misdemeanor.'

"'Obscene' means to the average person, applying contemporary standards, the predominant appeal of the matter, taken as a whole, is to prurient interest; that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion which goes substantially beyond the customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and is matter which is utterly without redeeming social importance.

"The words 'average person' mean the average adult person and have no relation to minors. This is not a question of what you would or would not have children see, hear or read, because that is beyond the scope of the law in this case and is not to be discussed or considered by you.

"'Sex' and 'obscenity' are not synonymous. In order to make the portrayal of sex obscene, it is necessary that such portrayal come within the definition given to you, and the betrayal must be such that its dominant tendency is to deprave or corrupt the average adult by tending to create a clear and present danger of antisocial behavior.

"The law does not prohibit the realistic portrayal by an artist of his subject matter, and the law may not require the author to put refined language into the mouths of primitive people. The speech of the performer must be considered in relation to its setting and the theme or themes of his production. The use of blasphemy, foul or coarse language, and vulgar behavior does not in and of itself constitute obscenity, although the use of such words may be considered in arriving at a decision concerning the whole of the production.

"To determine whether the performance of the defendant falls within the condemnation of the statute, an evaluation must be made as to whether the performance as a whole had as its dominant theme an appeal to prurient interest. Various factors should be borne in mind when applying this yardstick. These factors include the theme or themes of the performance, the degree of sincerity of purpose evident in it, whether it has artistic merit. If the performance is merely disgusting or revolting, it cannot be obscene, because obscenity contemplates the arousal of sexual desires.

"A performance cannot be considered utterly without redeeming social importance if it has literary, artistic or aesthetic merit, or if it contains ideas, regardless of whether they are unorthodox, controversial, or hateful, of redeeming social importance.

"In the case of certain crimes, it is necessary that in addition to the intended act which characterizes the offense, the act must be accompanied by a specific or particular intent without which such a crime may not be committed. Thus, in the crime charged here, a necessary element is the existence in the mind of the defendant of knowing that the material used in his production on October 4, 1961, was obscene, and that, knowing it to be obscene, he presented such material in a public place.

"The intent with which an act is done is manifested by the circumstances attending the act, the manner in which it is done, the means used, and the discretion of the defendant. In determining whether the defendant had such knowledge, you may consider reviews of his work which were available to him, stating that his performance had artistic merit and contained socially important ideas, or, on the contrary, that his performance did not have any artistic merit and did not contain socially important ideas."

• • •

The court clerk read the verdict:

"In the Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California; the People of the State of California, Plaintiff, vs. Lenny Bruce, Defendant; Verdict --"

I really started to sweat it out there.

"We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, find the defendant not guilty of the offense charged, misdemeanor, to wit: violating Section 311.6 of the Penal Code of the State of California....

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is this your verdict?"

The Jury: Yes.

The Court: All right. Do you desire the jury polled?

Mr. Wollenberg: No, your Honor.

The Court: Would you ask the jury once again if that is their verdict?

The Clerk: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is this your verdict?

The Jury: Yes.

Isn't that weird! It's like saying, "Are you sure?"

• • •

The most impressive letter I've ever received came from the vicar of St. Clement's Church in New York:

January 13, 1963

Dear Mr. Bruce:

I came to see you the other night because I had read about you and was curious to see if you were really as penetrating a critic of our common hypocrisies as I had heard. I found that you are an honest man, sometimes a shockingly honest man, and I wrote you a note to say so. It is never popular to be so scathingly honest, whether it is from a nightclub stage or from a pulpit, and I was not surprised to hear you were having some "trouble." This letter is written to express my personal concern and to say what I saw and heard on Thursday night.

First, I emphatically do not believe your act is obscene in intent. The method you use has a lot in common with most serious critics (the prophet or the artist, not the professor) of society. Pages of Jonathan Swift and Martin Luther are quite unprintable even now because they were forced to shatter the easy, lying language of the day into the basic, earthy, vulgar idiom of ordinary people in order to show up the emptiness and insanity of their time. (It has been said, humorously but with some truth, that a great deal of the Bible is not fit to be read in church for the same reason.)

Clearly your intent is not to excite sexual feelings or to demean but to shock us awake to the realities of racial hatred and invested absurdities about sex and birth and death ... to move toward sanity and compassion. It is clear that you are intensely angry at our hypocrisies (yours as well as mine) and at the highly subsidized mealymouthism that passes as wisdom. But so should be any self-respecting man. Your comments are aimed at adults and reveal to me a man who cares deeply about dishonesty and injustice and all the accepted psychoses of our time. They are aimed at adults and adults don't need, or shouldn't have, anyone to protect them from hearing truth in whatever form it appears no matter how noble the motive for suppression....

May God bless you, The Rev. Sidney Lanier

Reverend Lanier says that my comments "are aimed at adults." Often I am billed at night clubs with a sign saying "For Adults Only." I am very interested in the motivation for such billing. I must assume that "for adults only" means that my point of view, or perhaps the semantics involved with my point of view, would be a deterrent to the development of a well-adjusted member of the community.

The argument is that a child will ape the actions of an actor. What he sees now in his formative years, he may do as an adult, so we must be very careful what we let the child see.

So, then, I would rather my child see a stag film than The Ten Commandments or King of Kings -- because I don't want my kids to kill Christ when He comes back. That's what they see in those films -- that violence.

Well, let me just take your kids to a dirty movie:

"All right, kids, sit down now, this picture's gonna start. It's not like Psycho, with a lot of four-letter words, like 'kill' and 'maim' and 'hurt' -- but you're gonna see this film now and what you see will probably impress you for the rest of your lives, so we have to be very careful what we show you.... Oh, it's a dirty movie. A couple is coming in now. I don't know if it's gonna be as good as Psycho where we have the stabbing in the shower and the blood down the drain.... Oh, the guy's picking up the pillow. Now, he'll probably smother her with it, and that'll be a good opening. Ah, the degenerate, he's putting it under her ass. Jesus, tsk tsk, I hate to show this crap to you kids. All right, now he's lifting up his hand, and he'll probably strike her. No, he's caressing her, and kissing her -- ah, this is disgusting! All right, he's kissing her some more, and she's saying something. She'll probably scream at him, 'Get out of here!' No, she's saying, 'I love you, I'm coming.' Kids, I'm sorry I showed you anything like this. God knows this will be on my conscience the rest of my life -- there's a chance that you may do this when you grow up. Well, just try to forget what you've seen. Just remember, what this couple did belongs written on the walls of a men's room. And, in fact, if you ever want to do it, do it in the men's room."

I never did see one stag film where anybody got killed in the end. Or even slapped in the mouth. Or where it had any Communist propaganda.

But doing it is pretty rank. I understand intellectually that a woman who sleeps with a different guy every night is more of a Christian than a nun, because she has that capacity for love -- but emotionally I'm only the 365th guy ... because I learned my lesson early ... and you can't unlearn it.

I know intellectually there's nothing wrong with going to the toilet, but I can't go to the toilet in front of you. The worst sound in the world is when the toilet-flush noise finishes before I do.

If I'm at your house, I can never say to you, "Excuse me, where's the toilet?" I have to get hung up with that corrupt façade of "Excuse me, where's the little boys' room?"

"Oh, you mean the tinkle-dinkle ha-ha room, where they have sachets and cough drops and pastels?"

"That's right, I wanna crap."

Incidentally, I use that word in context. It's not obscene as far as narcotics is concerned -- that's the Supreme Court ruling on the picture The Connection. In other words, if you do it in your pants and smoke it, you're cool.

This is the fourth of six installments of "How to Talk Dirty and Influence People," the autobiography of Lenny Bruce. Part V will appear next month.