I dispute the notion that it is impermissible to object to the glowingly positive portrayal of rape in the play. That it’s based on a true incident is meaningless; everyone knows child molestation happens. Ensler made the choice to celebrate it as a great thing, and the play’s defenders made the choice to shout down anyone who tried to engage with the ideas presented in an artwork. It is, indeed, ironic that the same play which was thoughtlessly defended as above criticism is now being thoughtlessly censored as Wrongthink because child rape is out of fashion on the left this season and transsexuals are in. Another five years from now when all art is required to celebrate organic yak milk or condemn painting your house orange in order to be permitted in fashionable leftist circles, we’ll see what else changes its position on the totem pole.
If you can’t see the hilarious consequences of bulldozing everything into May Not Be Criticized or Totally Irredeemable boxes, as perfectly illustrated by the history of activist shrieking around The Vagina Monologues, then perhaps it is you who needs to work on comprehension.
Yeah, no. Why? Because I’d never be ridiculous or hilariously wrong enough to accuse “leftists” (or rightists even, I reserve my ire for individuals of whatever political stripe who actually say the words themselves versus making up in my own head what I want them to have said) of being formerly in favor of child rape. At least, that’s what is to be inferred from your idiotic “child rape is out of fashion on the left this season,” right?
And on that note, I’m over talking to anyone who can so blatantly be disingenuous. My time is better spent reasoning with my cat. She would be more responsive and discerning.
And yet, the howls at the columnist who objected to the glowingly positive portrayal of child rape in The Vagina Monologues in 2000, ultimately leading to his firing, were a thing that happened. I know that you have always hated the play because it’s “transphobic” and you have never been part of a movement that denounced anyone who had a problem with rape as “anti-feminist.” Just like we’ve always been at war with Eastasia. And in five years when transsexuals are no longer trendy you’ll be yelling at a play that portrays them positively and insisting you never believed otherwise, of course.
Well, bless your heart, Sparky. You kept right on swinging and missing, now with your third strike, yer out. Not only are you off base about every piece of partisan rhetoric you’ve spewed in this thread, you’re totally wrong about me, too. I’ve read for the Vagina Monologues before, so I’m completely on board with the premise behind it. I don’t agree with the current outcry against now, just like I didn’t back then. In both instances, I think the outrage is silly. Just like I do about the fake offenderatti on message boards. But keep playing the game. I’m sure you’re eager to step up to the plate again to show this time you just might get something right.
I don’t think it’s a matter of it being good or bad so much as it’s a matter of being true; these events happened, and this is how the person who experienced those things feels about it. I’ve never seen the monologue in question, but if the idea of the whole production is to portray the feminine experience as it is, warts and all, then I can see the artistic value in presenting this episode and allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions.
What I don’t see value in is censoring art or stopping people from talking about their true experiences and opinions because having to hear about it might hurt someone else’s feelings.
Are you of the illiterate opinion that everything that happens in a play is endorsed by the author? The director? The actors? That Shakespeare approved of teen suicide, and Arthur Miller thinks we should burn witches?
The Vagina Monologues was written, and continues to be produced, in order to be provocative. To get people talking. To expose them to shocking ideas and engage them in conversations they may never have had without it. Mission accomplished.
Have you ever even seen the piece in question? It’s dripping with ambiguity. The whole point of it is ambiguity. That it’s delivered in a very dreamy sexy way by an adult woman reminiscing a pleasurable sexual experience, and the word “rape” punches you in the face at the end as you realize that this very sexy scene she’s describing was indeed rape.
Because that’s how most rapes are. Most rapes are ambiguous. Children feel sexual pleasure when they’re being raped sometimes. Grown women feel love for their rapists sometimes. Rape is ambiguous. That is the experience of millions of girls and women.
If it’s designed to be “ambiguous” and “get people talking” then why the insistence that anyone who talks about it as a negative be censored as an enemy of the people?
Exactly so. In this particular case, “authoring” the play is a complex appellation. These are true events and the writer of the play arranged the true narratives in a certain order ( and, I suspect, edited the original narratives for time ) to create a certain impression.
I do appreciate the concept of “trigger words” and warnings of such at the head of posts and articles are respectful of those wary of such triggers. I also respect the sheer spine it took all of the original participants in the writer’s efforts to just give voice to their sexual histories. ( This was hardly ground-breaking work. In 1976, author Shere Hite published The Hite Report on Female Sexuality. While this caused a stir, nobody in their right mind****** suggested it was promoting an agenda of sexual abuse, even amongst minors.)
Most survivors of childhood sexual abuse know what it was, know what it is and prefer for light to be shed on the issue.
People talk about and are moved to open up by this play. I’m highly suspicious of someone who angrily wants the truth to be shut away in the dark.
Bad things grow in the dark, you know.
****** One’s right mind in 1976 and one’s right mind now are sadly two very different minds.
I understand that attendance at the play is voluntary, right? So people who might be offended by the play don’t have to attend, right? Or they can leave while the play is still going on, right?
In this case, no, the play won’t be staged at all because transsexuals complained that it suggests having a vagina may be related in some fashion to being a woman.
Since that’s pretty clear, I’m now trying to show that the people who insist on censoring anything they don’t like and substituting received oracular bumper stickers for thought are reaping what they sow here, since the same tactics used to shut down criticism of the “good rape” sequence in TVM in 2000 are now being used to keep the play from being shown at all after the periodic (heh) shifting of winds as to what is acceptable to the left-wing tastemakers.
It’s behind a paywall, so I can read only the first few lines. I see its about Richard Swope, who was kicked off a student newspaper shortly after his review of their production wasn’t published.
Weren’t you going to tell me about someone who was censored and made an enemy of the state, though?
(Although that did remind me that the “good rape” line was pulled out of the show more than a decade ago, by Ensler’s own hand. I think it’s a pity. I thought it was a great line, and I think she weakened the piece by caving to the pressure to change it.)
Guys, just give it up and shed the false pretenses. We’ve finally been outed as the pro-child raping slactivists that we are, so there’s nothing to hide behind any longer. When you have such astute observations as Mr. (or Mrs. or Ms.) dash has provided, there’s just nowhere left to hide. I’ll simply hang my head in shame now and go back to the monthly meeting of the NAWGLA. I bet watching My Little Pony non-ironically just won’t be any fun anymore.
This strikes me as faulty reasoning. If a college is showing Springtime For Hitler, surely people have a right to be offended. I’m not equating VM with SFH (I just don’t have time to type whole words). But I am saying that students, faculty, and members of the community have the right to be offended.
