Vagina Monologues: The Little Coochie-Snorcher That Could...discuss

Cafe Society
1

So as part of the (inter)national V-Day happening in February, local amateurs are given the rights to perform The Vagina Monologues to fund-raise for local women’s not-for-profits. I’ve been asked to perform. I went in to this to perform “I Was There In The Room”, an awe inspiring pro vagina piece about the author’s experience attending the birth of her grandchild.

I’ve now been asked, in addition, to perform the most controversial piece the very controversial show has ever produced: The Little Coochie-Snorcher That Could.

I’m kind of terrified.

The piece is a series of memories, one at 5 years old, one at 7, 9, 10, 13 and 16…Each one (except the last) is progressively more horrible and violent and ugly, as a woman learns to hate her Coochie-Snorcher. Y’know, her Down There. Her Vajayjay. At 7, a boy punches her in her Coochie-Snorcher and her mom yells at her for it, at 9 she impales her Coochie-Snorcher on a bedpost and needs stitches. At 10, she’s raped by a family friend, her father shoots him, he’s paralyzed, blood’s everywhere…y’know, light happy stuff.

At 16, she has an intoxicated sexual encounter with an older woman. *This *memory is a good one. An empowering one. A lovingly recalled pleasurable one in which the older woman, “teaches me everything about my Coochi Snorcher.” It ends with the lines “I realize later she was my surprising, unexpected and politically incorrect salvation. She transformed my sorry-ass Coochi Snorcher and raised it into a kind of heaven.”

This piece makes people lose their minds. It’s often brought out as an example of Eve Ensler’s (the writer’s) lesbian recruiting man hating propaganda. Many detractors saw it or heard about it in its earlier incarnation, when the lesbian encounter happened at 13 years old, instead of 16, and the final line was, “If it was rape, it was a good rape.” The author changed the piece to its current form years ago. Why? I’m not sure. I don’t think the author has ever said publicly.

The piece, by the way, is claimed to be a true story, recounted in an interview at a homeless shelter. I don’t know if anyone’s verified the veracity or not.

It raises in me, as a woman who was much more classically, legitimately raped, all sorts of questions about what rape is. Is it rape if it’s pleasurable? Is it rape if it’s lesbian? Is is rape if it’s statutory? Is it fair to use the word “rape” for *all *non-societally condoned sex? Does what the victim feels about it matter, or are we to define her experience for her?

Have you seen it? What did you think? Have you performed it? How do you handle the abrupt emotional transition between Memory 13 Years Old and Memory 16 Years Old?

For those who’d like to see it, I’ll spoiler a link to it here, as it’s probably NSFW. This isn’t me, this is another actress. And check out the comments for some of the very common negative reactions I’m talking about.

the little coochie snorcher that could - YouTube

2

Thanks for the link, I’ve never seen it and don’t really know what it is, to be honest.

3

Far as I’m concerned, it’s rape if it’s against the expressed desire of either partner. Woman-on-woman, woman-on-man, man-on-man, if one partner says “no”, it’s rape.

4

I’m okay with “rape” and “statutory rape” being treated as distinct concepts that just happen to have some letters in common, like Kansas and Arkansas.

5

Watched only about half the video - but if people know they are going to see/hear something from the Vagina Monolgoues - don’t see how they could get upset. If they were just going somewhere to have coffee - and then there is this woman talking about her Coochie - yeah I could see people being offended :slight_smile:

YouTube is probably the worst place on the Internet for comments - I wouldn’t let anything there dissuade you.

Good luck.

6

I’d never heard it before, but the version linked in the OP didn’t seem all that outrageous. I think it’s possible to be generally against something (24 year-olds sleeping with 16 year-olds) while acknowledging that in specific instances it might not be bad. I took this as an anecdote about one person’s life, not as advocating statutory rape in general. I may feel differently if the ages/genders/specifics were changed some, but I don’t think it’s fair to the piece to start changing parameters.

That said, as art I found it a little flat. I didn’t feel vested at all in the character, so I didn’t share her happiness as she discovered a positive use for her vagina. I just kinda said, “Oh, OK.” The rape/shooting scene was delivered a little too matter-of-factly, and the other memories didn’t seem like that big of a deal.

I don’t get “man hating” out of it at all. Aside from the rapist, the only other villains are her bed and her mother. eta: and biology, I guess.

7

While I’m grateful for any input, I put this in Cafe Society because I’m most interested in the thoughts that this particular piece provokes as a work of art, either seeing it or performing it. We can GD the “is statutory rape real rape” if you like, but this thread is intended to be about the monologue. I apologize for not making the distinction clear in the OP.

Those questions (and very few answers) are what the piece brought up in me when I first saw it, and they persist now that I’m rehearsing it. I’m also fairly pissed at critics who, it seems to me, devalue the experience of the (possibly fictional) person speaking in the piece. Like steronz, I see it as a woman sharing her experiences, and speaking from the heart. I don’t like people telling people that their self-defined positive experiences are bad and shameful. I realize that the criticism is meta, and takes place outside of the monologue, but I don’t think I can entirely ignore it whispering there in the back of my head, either.

I find this particular performance about the best of the worst available online. As I’m finding, it’s a very difficult piece to do well. Trying to find different layers of confusion and anger and hurt and rage and…then bliss. It’s emotional whiplash if it’s done right (IMHO) and boring reporting if it’s not.

I also wonder how many of the people who rail against it have actually seen it.

8

I am interested in finding out when the 13>16 and drop of “good rape” change was made. This started in 1996, any idea how many years it took for these changes? Were they done at once?

I heard there was a DVD/videotape made about TVM where

Larry claims the film version where Eve says this was shot after she made the script revisions.

I would like to get specific dates here. Ideally, if we can get a video of Eve reading this Coochie Snorcher story herself, before and after the censorship, along with the “I didn’t change anything” quote.

If we present these in chronological order it would make an illuminating video.

9

Illuminate what, exactly?

The wikipedia entry mentions that there have been “several revisions since” the first draft was written in 1996. I remember back when I first saw it, there was a piece in there called “I was 12, my mother slapped me,” or something like that, about a Jewish girl’s first period. It’s not in the current version. “My Short Skirt”; not in there this year. There have been changes for sure.

For the current V-Day, she’s changed a specific line in reaction to current events. Vagina Happy Fact, until this week, ended with the line “Who needs a handgun when you’ve got a semi-automatic?” (referring to the stunning number of nerve endings in the clitoris). Word came down from Eve to the directors that the line is now, “Who needs a hammer when you’ve got a jack-hammer?” We found out on Sunday.

She’s not afraid to shock, but she’s clearly got her limits, and wants to keep the shocking purposefully aimed and specific in scope. And she’s not afraid to make changes, whatever she may or may not have said in a DVD that may or may not exist.

And also…it’s not censorship if the writer does it to her own work, and she’s not under duress from the government.
(And, in other news…huh. I think maybe the actress I linked to in the OP is in fact Eve Ensler. Do you think?)

10

Oh boy…this has nothing on earth to o with the topic, but last year I went to Occupy Wall Street VM. An ex female friend who I had previously expressed intense feelings for, was in the reading. (I’m female too) Being there with her while this was being performed was quite possibly one of the most AWKWARD moments of my life. If she had done that reading, I would have literally walked out.

11

It is about the only piece of the Vagina Monologues that I remember completely. I remember bits and pieces of the other ones, which I saw about 8-9 years ago.

It is also not the one I’m the most comfortable with. Yes, it sounds that at the most, it is statutory rape. That wouldn’t be bad, per se, but considered this was someone who was sexually abused, it seems too much like seduction/preying on innocent. THAT is what makes me uncomfortable.

It’s not that different from IRL where some people may not accept they are being victimized, but in some places, the institutions have said “F- that, you’re being abused, we’ll investigate the other person”.

Also, I don’t see it as a man-hating piece. I do see it as a very female-positive/empowering piece (that skit aside).

12

Yes, it is. See e.g.this interview.

13

I think the questions you raise are an inherent part of the monologue. There was, supposedly, a person whose real experience this is. Only she would know the exact nature of the final sexual encounter, the implications, the real power balance, the true impact on her life. And even for her it could be layered and multifaceted.

When you perform it it will be your version. You mention that you don’t think you will be able to ignore the whispering the back of your head: so don’t. Make it part of the performance. The old “acting is reacting” - you react to everything there is. You’ll react to the audience, the brightness of the lights. You react to everything you know about this piece, the criticism, the reception, your own experiences. That is honesty, and that is why people watch.

My version, when I watch it? Different depending on delivery. I think it is a complex situation that we can’t really judge, and I like it that way. We watch someone recounting a very personal experience that walks the line of what we think is right or wrong. I really hope it is the beautiful victory that she describes.

And by the way, congratulations on being asked to perform this! Are you rehearsing with a director? How is it going?

14

By gum, I think you’ve nailed it. And I think you’ve nailed exactly why I want there to be a BIG emotional transition between the final two memories. If it’s too mono-emotion, it feels to me like 16 is a result of 7 and 9 and 10. And I don’t like that. I want 16 to be separate from 7 and 9 and 10, as much as anything in our lives is separate from anything else. I want 7 and 9 and 10 to be about what happened TO her coochie-snorcher, and 16 to be what happens WITH her coochie-snorcher. 7 and 9 and 10 are what happens when others define her coochie-snorcher and use it to their ends. 16 is what happens when she owns her coochie-snorcher. If that makes any sense…

Me too.

Thank you. I needed that!

Weeelllll… No, not really. That is, there are people to give me feedback, but no one is a current professional. I have tons of school and community experience, but it’s been nearly 20 years since I’ve been on stage*. One woman (the one who asked me to do it) has a smattering of old professional credits, but again decades old. The “director” is a total noob, although she does have a natural talent for line reading, but not a lot of feel for directing. Two of the other readers are okay, and four are honestly kind of dreadful, but they’ve been given the Facts and Lists, so they’re well cast to the best of their ability.

Which, I hasten to add, is exactly how Ensler wants the V-Day productions to go. She wants amateurs; everyone who volunteers *must *be given some role, either onstage or off, and a minimum of rehearsal time. It’s kind of her thing, that this be grass roots and organic and messy and “real”.

I’m far too much of a control freak. It’s driving me a little crazy. :smiley:

*And it feels f-ing fantastic. I shall not let another 2 decades pass…

15

I think that is really the essence. If you have a vagina, you are part of the vagina monologues. It’s why that piece is so interesting: you can read it different ways and we’ll all have different reactions. There’s that balance of recognition of a beautiful, liberating sexual experience and the thought that she was being abused again, and for every person, depending on their experiences & depending on the performance, the balance shifts a different way. Maybe they can both equally true at the same time. But all you need to understand and have a valid opinion is a vagina! (Or maybe not even that, to be properly inclusive.)

Good luck with the performance! Will you please let us know how it goes?

16

I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, but yeah, this monologue always struck me as gross. ‘Oh, it’s okay because she was raped by another woman.’

17

Of course! :slight_smile:

18

UPDATE:

Went fantastically! We raised at least $2500 after expenses, and that was before all the at-the-door tickets and raffle tickets were counted. Not bad for a first time effort of all amateurs with no event planner! Could not be happier. :smiley:

The performance went very well. I got a lot of compliments on my pieces. I think I finally found the right emotional transition for Coochie-Snorcher, and I Was There In The Room has always been one of my favorite, and got lots of gasps and tears in the right places. I noticed when I finished that I’d given myself goosebumps! :smiley:

Thank you all again for your input. I really did use it, and I think it made for a very good performance of a very difficult piece.

19

Illuminate what the changes were, so people can make up their own minds about the piece and what it signified over time.