The Vagina Monologues Banned

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='OwNeD_byGoD' date='Jun 15 2004, 03:40 AM'] all i can say is yuck, im a guy so my vote doesnt count much, but just... yuck! [/quote]
you can most certainly stand up to say that its not right dosent' matter if your a guy.

it hurts everyone when somthing of this sort is allowed.

[crusader1234]

I'm a guy and I agree... yuck

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='littleflower' date='JMJ+Jun 15 2004, 05:23 AM'] oh yeah i know its may be 16 or something im just saying that realistically speaking their not "old" enough. [/quote]
Yeah, I know what you're saying, and I agree with you.

[quote]but hey if its legal to kill an unborn baby then it can't get much worse than that..... [/quote]

Ain't that the truth!

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 15 2004, 05:25 AM'] Actually Jen, the age has been going up. Thats no future guarantee, but it is positive for now anyways. [/quote]
Well, let's just hope it stays that way, eh? But I'm not too sure that it will.

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

I think that guys have every right to be against this sort of thing. Guys are people, too. I'm a girl, but that doesn't stop me from being against male homosexual jail rapings.

God bless,

Jen

[crusader1234]

you said eh! that makes you an honorary canadian for the next 4 hours. as for the age, i hope it ends up at 18. if people supposedly cant handle liquor, or vote, why do we trust ourselves with sex?

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 15 2004, 05:52 AM'] you said eh! that makes you an honorary canadian for the next 4 hours. [/quote]
Haha. Yes!

God bless,

Jen

[Apollo]

OK...I have read everyone's posts, and I am not gonna get on here and try and defend THIS play neccessarily. I have seen this play. I didn't like it.

I think it is a good idea for Catholic colleges and universities, and certainly high schools (of all kind in my opinion) to shy away from performing the monologues because of their questionable adult content.

That being said, I do support this show as an artisitic expression. As an artist, I can relate to this issue, and I certainly understand why many of you think it should be banned, burned, and buried.

However, I am curious to know...How many of you protestors out there have actually SEEN The Vagina Monologues? I'm not talking like..."I-saw-one-scene-on-TV-once-and-I-was-so-disgusted-I-had-to-turn-it-off" seen it. I am talking the play in its entirety.

It is EXTREMELY different to see the artform performed than it is to read about it, or actually, read IT. While off course there are issues that come up and the characters take unfamiliar and disagreeable stances on them, that doesn't mean that the play is supporting those stances on the issues. Just because The Passion of the Christ depicts the brutal beating, torture, and crucifixion of Jesus, it doesn't mean that Mel Gibson advocates that or supports the death of Jesus...it is an artisitic expression.

I can appreciate The Vagina Monologues as an artistic expression, but personally, I dislike the majority of the play. It leans a little too much on "shock value" to gain your interest, and I find little originality or quality in that form of art.

For all of those who will reply to this thread saying, "No, I haven't seen it and I never will," please try and understand how this conversation will become very futile if that is the only view you are going to push. I honor your viewpoint and decision to not view this content, but it is not fair to judge others who view it when you have nothing to base it on. On some things, you can do that (aka pornography, murder, rape) but not with this play that, by the way, does not depict rape. It [i]talks[/i] about rape. That is why it is called the Vagina MONOLOGUES. All of the scenes are done in monologue form.


Peace and Love,

Apollo

Edited June 15, 2004 by Apollo

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Apollo,

I certainly see what you're saying, but I do disagree. I don't have to actually watch a porno flick to know that what's portrayed in pornos isn't exactly something I should be watching. The fact that I haven't seen so-and-so porno flick doesn't mean I can't criticize it.

I've heard a lot about this play from reliable sources, and it's because of what I've read that I do not want to see this play. If a movie is rated X, I trust that those who made the decision to rate the movie X made the right choice. From what I've heard of this play, it sounds incredibly explicit. Because I trust the sources I've heard this from, I don't see much point in seeing this play for myself. For example, I know that the play depicts (i.e., talks about) sex between an adult and a minor. I don't need to see this to believe it, and I don't need to see it to disagree with it. Yes, talking about rape and showing it are two different things, but the fact still remains that the seduction of a minor is glorified in this play.

I hope this post didn't come across too moody. I didn't intend it that way.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Apollo]

[quote]I honor your viewpoint and decision to not view this content, but it is not fair to judge others who view it when you have nothing to base it on. [b]On some things, you can do that (aka pornography, murder, rape)[/b] but not with this play that, by the way, does not depict rape.[/quote]

I think we agree.

Edited June 15, 2004 by Apollo

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Apollo,

Sorry, I didn't see that.

But, the question is this: What makes this play any different from pornography in terms or morality? Sexual immorality being portrayed explicity is just that -- sexual immorality being portrayed explicitly. A spade is a spade, you know?

God bless,

Jennifer

[Apollo]

I am just saying that there is a HUGE difference in portraying a character who has been raped, and showing an actual rape.

Just like their is a HUGE difference between talking about sex and having sex. I talk about sex all the time, but I am still a virgin.

I agree that the majority of the content is objectionable to me, and frankly, stuff I don't wanna hear about. But there is no way that viewing a play like thin can be compared to the evils of something like pornography where the [b]sole[/b] purpose is to objectify women as sex objects. Anyone who says that this play objectifies women obviously hasn't seen the play. It was written by a feminist for cryin out loud.

Peace and Love,

Apollo

Edited June 15, 2004 by Apollo

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Apollo' date='Jun 15 2004, 11:39 AM'] I am just saying that there is a HUGE difference in portraying a character who has been raped, and showing an actual rape. [/quote]
Hi Apollo,

Well, since I've never really talked to you before on phatmass, nice to meet you. My name is Jen.

There is a difference, yes. One of my problems with this play, however, is that it actually [b]condones[/b] statutory rape. It'd probably be another thing if sex with minors was portrayed negatively, but that's not the case at all.

[quote]Just like their is a HUGE difference between talking about sex and having sex.  I talk about sex all the time, but I am still a virgin.[/quote]

True. But, then again, it all depends on how sex is talked about. Saying something like, "I'm going to have sex when I'm married because sex is a beautiful thing created by God" isn't the least bit pornographic or explicit. On the other hand, saying something like, "Yeah, masturbation is awesome, isn't it? Woohoo for masturbation!" is talking about sex in a way that is unacceptable. From what I've heard, this play mentions masturbation in a way that isn't exactly critical of the (sinful) practice. Talking about past sexual escapades in ways that are condoning is at odds with Catholic teachings on moral theology.

[quote]I agree that the majority of the content is objectionable to me, and frankly, stuff I don't wanna hear about.  But there is no way that viewing a play like thin can be compared to the evils of something like pornography where the [b]sole[/b] purpose is to objectify women as sex objects. [/quote]

This play probably isn't as bad as an XXX porno, but it's still immoral. Whenever sex is practiced, depicted, portrayed, or talked about in ways that take away from God's purpose of sex, those engaging in such talk are objectifying themselves or others.

[quote]
Anyone who says that this play objectifies women obviously hasn't seen the play.  It was written by a feminist for cryin out loud.
[/quote]

That it was written by a feminist really doesn't mean much in this day and age. Many radical feminists support abortion, and if that doesn't objectify women, I don't know what else does.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Apollo]

Hi Jen...nice to meet you too. I feel like I know you somewhat already because I enjoy reading the entertaining dialogue between Phazzan and you. I have a feeling he'll never give up on you. hahaha

But I digress...

[quote] it actually condones statutory rape.[/quote]

This is not true. I have seen the play and it [b]does[/b] use humor when confronting the issue, but it is apparent how ridiculous the viewpoint of the character is. It is meant to be very satirical. Just as that new movie [i]Saved[/i] isn't condoning the ridiculous actions of the "Christian" characters, but rather does the opposite by showing how heretical and irrational the characters' position is.

[quote]"Yeah, masturbation is awesome, isn't it? Woohoo for masturbation!" is talking about sex in a way that is unacceptable. From what I've heard, this play mentions masturbation in a way that isn't exactly critical of the (sinful) practice. Talking about past sexual escapades in ways that are condoning is at odds with Catholic teachings on moral theology.[/quote]

I agree with you 100%. I do not approve of this aspect of the play. This is an instance where the playwrite actually is condoning an action (masturbation), where as in the rape instance, it is not. The only reason I say this in this instance is because I happen to know the playwrites viewpoint on the subject of masturbation.

[quote]This play probably isn't as bad as a XXX porno, but it's still immoral. Whenever sex is practiced, depicted, portrayed, or talked about in ways that take away from God's purpose of sex, those engaging in such talk are objectifying themselves or others.[/quote]

I agree with you 50%. I am glad that you see that this play is not as bad as pornography. I do agree that when you depict or condone sex in a way that is free from Godly influence, it is sinful. But I think you see this play as an autobiography or a set of memoirs in which the playwrite is directly condoning and blatantly advocating every single thought, feeling, or action by every single character. This would be a very boring play if all of the characters believed the same way. There are differences in opinion. They are not real people. The fact that some characters conflict with others shows that not every circumstance confronted in the play is something to be taken at face value.

[quote]That it was written by a feminist really doesn't mean much in this day and age. Many radical feminists support abortion, and if that doesn't objectify women, I don't know what else does.[/quote]

Good point. Noted.

Edited June 15, 2004 by Apollo

[cmotherofpirl]

Catholic Colleges need to be treated the same way as "Catholic "politicians"
Don't claim to be Catholic if you can't act like one.