The Vagina Monologues Banned

[Crusader_4]

I am against censorship for the most part (what goes around comes around i.e. if we start to get politicians to censor plays like this it comes back at us in the Church) although i am for censorship in certain cases (i dont think Emenem should be playing midday radio for example) now my opinnon on this is the same as i think most here it should NEVER be performed in a Catholic institution and for that matter should not be performed in a public school. Now i accept the artists free speech and ability and will not tell him to shut up but at the same time i do not accept his art.

[CreepyCrawler]

there was one good monologue i read about, it was about this afghani girl who was raped by soldiers and it talked about the horror of it. but then there was the monologue about how that older experienced lesbian woman helped open up a whole new world for the teen girl. that was sick. i think the whole thing is generally too explicit for high schools, for sure, and not appropriate for a catholic college.

it's nice to see how many of you have opinions on this cmom, amen!

[Crusader_4]

Oh for sure Creepy Crawler there are tons of good monologues out there its a shame as i quote Don Cherry "those left wing pinkos" have hijacked the meaning of the word.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Apollo' date='Jun 15 2004, 12:26 PM'] 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 [/quote]
Haha. God bless his heart.

[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. [/quote]

I've read a bit about how Eve Ensler was inspired to write the book after interviewing numerous women. Because of this, it's reasonable to say that she probably based many of her characters around real people, to some degree or another. I haven't read or viewed the play, so I don't know exactly how this particular scene was portrayed. From what I've read, it seems as if the play was trying to depict women's attitudes towards their vaginas and sex in a realistic, objective way. (I could be wrong on this.) If this is the case, however, then Ensler wasn't making any particular judgment on the underage sex that was made apparent in the play itself.

What makes you think that she was being satirical? Many of the Catholic sources I've read have stated that the incident of underage sex isn't portrayed negatively.

[quote]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]

It's not the satirical condemnation that I'm against in both [i]Saved![/i] and "The Vagina Monologues." It's the way it's presented that I'm against. Both resort to immorality and overt sexuality, and that definitely hinders their message -- whatever that message may be.

[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]

Like I said, Ensler was inspired to write this play after interviewing real women. Granted, there are promiscuous women in the world, but they could be portrayed without having to resort to vulgarity. And I think part of the problem people could have with this play is its ambiguity. I think it's hard for those who see the play to distinguish between which of the character's views the playright condones as the superior behavior. Since this is the case, all character views come across as equally valid, and that's most definitely problematic.

Because this play is disgustingly vulgar, and because it condones things that are at odds with Catholic teaching (e.g., masturbation, promiscuity, etc.), it has no place being shown at Catholic colleges.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Apollo]

[quote]Because this play is disgustingly vulgar, and because it condones things that are at odds with Catholic teaching (e.g., masturbation, promiscuity, etc.), it has no place being shown at Catholic colleges.[/quote]

[quote]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.[/quote]

Again, I think we are in agreement.

Peace and Love,

Apollo

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Apollo' date='Jun 15 2004, 01:12 PM'] Again, I think we are in agreement. [/quote]
It looks as if we are.

God bless,

Jen

[thicke]

[quote name='the protector' date='Jun 15 2004, 01:50 AM'] Vagina Monolgues
-consenting adult women
-legal

Kiddie Porn
-exploited children
-illegal in 50 states

That comparison is ridiculous. [/quote]
We're not talking about what's legal and illegal here. That is up to the secular world. We're talking about what's moral and immoral from a Catholic perspective. This is a Catholic website and we are talking about Catholic schools. Since we are talking about Catholic institutions, we have a right and a duty to hold them to higher standard than non-Catholic schools. This program should not be in Catholic schools. I could care less about the University down the street from the Catholic school.

Edited June 15, 2004 by thicke

[Ash Wednesday]

I think they should come up with an alternative. If it is my hard-earned dollars that I am funneling into my kid's private Catholic university education, I'd rather see this kind of money and resources go into something where students can create their [b]own[/b] films and monologues, instead of some carbon-copied modernist krap being shoved down everyone's throats. And hey! You just might actually [b]learn[/b] something about each other!

Hey, I'm an artist, too. Why not have students do something themselves instead of watching something regurgitated at Universities across the country?

I work at a public university, and students are spoon-fed the same old modernist, "diversified", "open-minded", "liberating" krap every year as far as I can tell. And the thing is, it really isn't all that "innovative." It's rubber-stamped, tired, "collegiate thought" that people buy into without really using critical thinking.

[thicke]

Ash is so cool.

[azaelia]

Amen, Ash!! :thumb:

thicke: Absolutely

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Just reading the first page of this thread, I can see the debate rising out of this.

Last year, a high school in Massachusetts performed this play. A high school! The play has the "c-word" in it! For goodness' sakes it has no place in the public eye, especially not in a high school.

Last year, child pornography, if edited with a computer, was legalized in the United States. Why? Because the Supreme Court once again took the role of legislature instead of judiciary. The reason was that some pornographer's use the bodies of women or men who are just over the legal limit and appear to be young, and they attach the faces of children. It may not technically be child porn, but the damage is done nonetheless. Sex offenders often use pornography to prepare themselves for sex abuse rampages. These pictures, whether technically of nude children or not, are being used for criminal purposes.

Television in the United States seems to be a tool of the devil himself. Even a show as seeminly tame as "Everybody Loves Raymond" is an example of poor family values, sexual obsession, and sibling rivalry which, if not overtly, then at least subconsciously depresses the moral fabric by which we must live. If I were in control, I would "censor" the whole lot of it!

And what of the recent Super Bowl performance? Did you know that about 90% of the seminarians at Conception Seminary cheered when Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake pulled their little stunt? It's sickening and disheartening, yet I can't see fit to blame them completely, because we ride the waves of life on a ship with Satan at the helm. Many of us are raised in a terrible environment, the secular American culture.

These Catholic schools, privately owned, independent schools, should all be trying to avoid scandalizing the students. Scandal is a sin, and a serious sin at that.

Call it "protection"; call it "censorship"; call it whatever you like, but the fact will not change that saving people from scandal and occasion to sin is a thing God endorses and the only thing tempting any of us from agreeing with these schools is our oddly comforting attachment to the society of secularism and the culture of death. Let's follow God's will instead.

[popestpiusx]

I'm with Jen (and all those on here against the play, Ash, Raphael, thicke). There is no place for it. To justify it based on its artistic quality is a case of misplaced priorities. Art is for the service of God, not to undermine Him. There is no excuse for allowing this to be performed at a Catholic school (or any other school for that matter.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with censorship, so long as it is on the right side.

Edited June 15, 2004 by popestpiusx

[voiciblanche]

Amen to that, Micah.

[crusader1234]

[quote] There is absolutely nothing wrong with censorship, so long as it is on the right side.
[/quote]

While I'm against this play, I'm not for censorship. I think that have to be careful, because like Will said, eventually it will come around. This isn't to say that I think it should have a limited audience, but I dont think that we should be censoring stuff. The Vatican got rid of the banned book list for a reason.

And Ash, good point about the Art thing. I don't get why they need to use that play considering they are training a ton of kids to write their own stuff. Thats sort of like teaching kids how to paint then xeroxing some painting... and in this case a painting that a lot of us find really ugly.

I dont know whether to laugh or be depressed about that seminary statsistic...

[theculturewarrior]

I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers meant by Free Speech. The right to wear a crucifix in public and in the workplace, yes. The right to glamorize lesbian seductions, no.

I will however happily bow out as per Apollo's recommendation, as I have not seen it, and should not comment further.

I will however say that while the right to Free Speech may have been distorted in recent times, we still have a precious right...the right not to listen!

Vote with your feet, folks!