It was, I believe, the legendary Henry Kissinger who observed that power is "the ultimate aphrodisiac". I pondered this insightful reflection from the leading 20th Century exponent of Realpolitik as I listened to the spate of psychobabble flowing in the wake of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's fall from grace.

Lady Saw. is her boast of her sexual prowess and conquest her way of asserting that she and no one else will determine what she does with her sexuality?

What could have given rise to such a tremendous fall? How could a man so meticulous in his manner squander so much to satisfy his sexual fantasies? Was it a "loose screw" (as former New York Mayor Ed Koch noted) which cost him his job and possibly his marriage? Surely many explanations will be advanced including "overweening arrogance".

I am, however, of the opinion that Spitzer was the victim of testosterone overdose (poisoning). Am I suggesting that someone plied the governor with a few plugs of that hormone so closely associated with masculine sexual prowess? No I don't think it was anything that dramatic. Nor am I suggesting that the governor ingested anything to enhance his manhood.

The fact is that there is a solid scientific basis to Dr Kissinger's remarks. Research has shown that male fans of the winning team generally have higher levels of testosterone in their blood than male supporters of the losing side. This principle also applies to the players as well. There is a direct correlation between power and testosterone levels. There is also a direct link between testosterone levels and one's sex drive.

Spitzer was riding high, securing his position of governor of New York by one of the largest electoral margins ever. Could this rise to power have triggered a testosterone rush which robbed the young governor of his good judgment? Many were viewing Spitzer as a future Democratic presidential hopeful. After all, Democratic icon Franklin D Roosevelt's road to the White House did pass through the governor's mansion in New York. Of course, FDR had his own liaisons but they were at a time when the press was perhaps far less intrusive.

While still on the subject of sex, I watched part of Lady Saw's interview with Winford Williams in which she candidly discussed some of the sexual abuse she experienced during her earlier years.

Now Mumma, as many of us fondly refer to her, has been pilloried by some who believe that she has been engaged in what they consider to be lyrical prostitution over the years. In the eyes of these moral custodians, Saw has been selling verbal sex. This they contend contributes to the debasement of women.

Watching the interview I could not help but wonder whether Saw had not been trying to reclaim sovereignty over her sexuality through her risque performances. After all, the heinous act of rape robs a woman of her sense of control. Is Saw's boast of her sexual prowess and conquest her way of asserting that she and no one else will determine what she does with her sexuality? We should always bear in mind that art is a medium through which we seek to come to terms with many of our phobias and concerns.

The process of artistic creation is often an attempt at confronting some of the demons which bedevil us. This might explain why art is not always pretty (much to the disappointment of many aesthetes). Is it therefore possible that a woman who is saying that one has to pay to secure her sexual favours is exercising the ultimate privilege of modern capitalism - naming the price? A female slave has no such opportunity to make such a determination some might argue.

It should be recalled that one of the mantras of the early feminist movement was sexual liberation - a call for women to do whatever they chose with their own sexuality. This, to many feminists, was perhaps the ultimate act of freedom. Are some of the feminists now criticising Saw unmindful of the roots of their great movement?

A few years ago, I had the great privilege of being the guest speaker at a function organised by the Rotary Club to honour the incomparable Clement 'Sir Coxsone'' Dodd. I used the opportunity to thank the great man personally for giving so many people across the world (including me) a chance to feed themselves.

It was a beautiful occasion as this humble giant of Jamaican music accepted the good wishes and gave a succinct and incisive overview of his remarkable journey. During a question and answer segment, an obviously angry member of the audience (I assume belonged to the club) got up and shouted at me: "It is people like you who get rich foisting dysfunctional people you call artistes on the society!"

After pausing to catch my breath, I informed the lady and the audience that there seems to be a strong correlation between dysfunction and art and that both might very well be like "love and marriage" in the famous song. Of course, many will argue that great art results in spite of dysfunction and not as a result of it, yet there can be no denying that some of our greatest creators are troubled souls.

I also pointed out to the lady that by providing some of the supposedly dysfunctional people (to which she referred) with a forum for resolving their concerns and frustrations we might be making these persons less harmful to society and themselves. There are many who see art as having a cathartic function.

In the eyes of such persons, art can help in the purification (an act of cleansing) of its creator. Yet it can be argued that while art might serve to rid the author of the desire to do physical harm as a result of his being able to conduct metaphorical damage one should bear in mind that spectators can often be the unwitting victims of his actions. When I bathe in a pool of water I am leaving it less pure than when I went in. Although I am cleaner, the water is dirtier.

The same could be said of certain artistic creations - the fact that the work might help the author does not mean it might not very well leave the society worse off. This is the dilemma which we face in trying to decide what to do with artistic output which we consider to be potentially harmful.

An important question is to whom should the artiste have a greater obligation - his muse or the society? Should an artiste be indifferent to the implications of his work? Should the artiste simply create and let the chips fall where they may? Should the society make a determination as to what is artistically acceptable and in such circumstances who speaks on our behalf?

We have seen the especial challenges we face when we try to dictate what others consume as art or literature. Professor Carolyn Cooper, in a most interesting article appearing in the Gleaner of Sunday, March 9, 2008 recalled the ban (during the 1960s) placed on the children's classic Black Beauty - Anna Sewell's story about a horse - and other books.

The aim of the ban was to stem the spread of radical black nationalism in Jamaica. It should also be recalled that there was also a period in the 1970s when censors were instructed to expunge any reference to gun violence from the plots of movies shown in Jamaica. This, I imagine, was in deference to some socialist orthodoxy. What is now clear is that both of these efforts failed.

We really can take this business of political correctness and the protection of the public morals to ridiculous extremes. I recently heard of a case in Australia in which Santas were being discouraged from using the signature "Ho Ho Ho" laugh because it could be offensive to women.

Taste and morals are subjective. Even within the same religious denominations there are many differing interpretations as to what God might be trying to say. In many religious conflicts around the world the underlying question is whose god is right? We therefore need to be careful about how we seek to impose our notions of morality on others.

If there is a recurring theme running through the history of civilisation it is man's insatiable desire to impose his will on others. In the interest of harmony it is always best to seek consensus when we are trying to restrain the behaviour of others. True, some will say that this is idealistic, but I honestly believe we can considerably reduce the level of discord in our society by having an ongoing dialogue on critical matters affecting our society.

I think, for example, that we can find easy agreement on what should be distributed over the airwaves and in public spaces. The fact is that your right to be entertained should not override my right to have peace and quiet. Nor should your rights as an artiste interfere with my responsibility to raise my children in a manner that I deem fit.

I therefore believe that there is a time and place for "adult" material. The Government should rigidly enforce the Noise Abatement Act. Children should not have access to "adult" material simply by staying home or walking to school.

The Hopeton Dunn-led Broadcasting Commission has now entered this debate on public decency. There is no doubt that the airwaves must be properly regulated. What is clear is that in many instances media managers are either not paying attention to or are oblivious of the output of their stations. The commission seems to be making sure that it gets the attention of these managers. Of course, there will be challenges which the commission will face in its quest to clean up the airwaves.

In the United States, the FCC lost two cases which were brought by media houses (one of them Fox) fined for airing indecent material. In both cases, guests on a television programme had used expletives on the air. The court, however, ruled that the FCC had exceeded its authority in imposing the fines as the expletives used did not describe bodily functions or sexual acts. It does seem that with the law, all expletives are not created equal. Ohh what a shhh....ame.

clyde.mckenzie@gmail.com

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'

Cheeky's World