The Vagina Monologues

I did see The Vagina Monologues friday evening with several of my micah house friends. It was wonderful.

There was a lot of discussion leading up to seeing it. My friend Nathan commented that he appreciates the Monologues overall, but not some of the little parts inbetween the monologues because they seemed overtly penis-bashing (in a metaphorical sense, of course). I only witnessed one such mini-monologue, in which only scientific fact was provided- that there are twice as many nerve fibers in the clitoris than there are in the penis, which would seem to argue that it is better to have a vagina/be a woman than to have a penis/be a man. But even something like that is justified in my mind to counterbalance a culture so obsessed with masculine sexuality (or directed towards the sexual gratification of men alone). I remember him describing different inbetween bits that I don't think were performed at slu (it was something, again, about the possibility of women having multiple orgasms while men can only have one).

My uncle brought up many attacks to even seeing the Monologues in past comment threads. Specifically, here and here. I responded by posting this statement from the V-Day website. His main objection, I gather, is that the show is simply women talking about their vaginas to get laughs. I will admit that a good portion of the show is funny, but I would not label the Monologues "Entertainment." The subject matter at points is not funny at all. At points it is sad and angering. The Vagina Monologues do act in a way to demystify the vagina, to allow women to be more open about their sexuality (by this I mean that women feel more comfortable with their bodies, that they own their bodies, that they don't feel ashamed about their bodies). But on the flip side, the Monologues show instances when women have been abused, emotionally and physically. The Monologues aim to empower women to stop and make men aware of the violence that is often committed against women. In this way, the Vagina Monologues are more about raising awareness than any sort of entertainment.

Certainly, some of the monologues will be shocking to people who hold conservative sexual standards. The Monologues only promise to portray accurately the real experiences of women, not censor them. The scene with the 6 year old girl was done very tastefully, I thought. And if you have a problem with the scene of the sixteen year old lesbian... if I were raped by a friend of my father when I was a little girl, I'd probably never want to be around a penis again, either. I don't know; I've never had to experience that. Uncle Dan, you can take offense to this scene for two reasons: either because of the ages of the people involved or because of the homosexual behavior involved. Or both. The age thing is highly relative to the culture, I think you'll have to agree. By some standards, 16 and 24 is rather close together in age. Only in a strictly legal sense could you take offense to that. And you already know my opinion about homosexuals acting on their love for one another. We can agree to disagree on that (as if either of us have any place to judge what others can and cannot do with their bodies, anyway).

Uncle Dan, your comment about what would happen if a similar act was put on about men, a Penis Monologues- you are assuming that men and women experience the world in the same way, when in reality, women are still very oppressed as a gender. Some could argue that men are oppressed in different ways, but the fact is, if the Penis Monologues were laughed off the stage, it would be because they would be largely unnecessary. Awareness, for the most part, does not need to be raised about the violence that is aflicted upon men, as a gender, because for the most part, there isn't any. Or maybe there is and my awareness has not been raised and we actually do need a Penis Monologues. This is the function that the Vagina Monologues is serving.

Sexual mores, again, are very relative to the culture. Some cultures are very relaxed and some are very uptight. The United States, which I would think most people would say is legally and religiously very uptight about sexuality, has a very high rate of teenage pregnancy compared to Europe, which has more relaxed attitudes towards sexuality. Hmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because "thou shalt nots" are not effective means to guide people's behaviors? Perhaps it would be more effective to acknowledge that people will do what they want to do and anticipate that by setting up appropriate responses to things, like teenage pregnancy, when they happen, instead of just forbidding it (or perhaps even preventative measures!).

I know personally, my sexual mores have evolved over time (time for some confessions, Misty!). Throughout puberty (roughly 7th grade to sophomore year), I sporadically struggled with an addiction to pornography. Looking back, it was more just curiosity over what the female anatomy looked like, but with my Catholic guilt, that curiosity was blown way out of proportion, and so I thought that simply seeing a woman's naked body was sinful. It seems silly for me to even call it pornography now that I look back because it was never sexual, just nudity (and yes, I am saying that nudity is not necessarily connected with sex. I'm a nudist, remember?), but that's what I thought it was at the time. I don't struggle with that any more (nudism cleared up my misconceptions very nicely (no nudity in that link, just lots of text about it)). At the same time that this was going on, though, I held pornography to be a lesser sin than masturbation. That seems so completely backward to me now. When I would confess my sins in the confessional (twice a year, sometimes three), I would confess my struggle with pornography, and often the priest would ask if I masturbate, immediately following, and I was very proud to answer no. Somehow, in my mind, I had convinced myself that masturbation was more sinful than objectifying another human being, so I had never even tried. I don't think I even knew how to. From what I gather, Catholicism is the only christian religion that condemns masturbation (correct me if I'm wrong). I'll just remind everyone of the fact that I am no longer Catholic and leave it at that.

Uncle Dan, I'm sure I don't live up to your standard (and furthermore, I don't believe I am living in sin), based on what you and I have said. I want to assure you that I am not void of any personal ethics, though. I still do not believe that promiscuous behavior (in which one would sleep around with many people, not being committed to any of them) is a good way to live, and I do not plan to live that way. I still do not judge people who might choose to live in that way, but that is only because I am tribeless at the moment. Within a tribe, it makes much more sense to set up and enforce standards of sexuality that are consensual to the whole group. I would happily live up to standards in such a context. (Let me remind you that a tribe, as anthropologists have determined, is limited in number to about 150. There is an essay here that explains why (which I have only read the abstract and a bit of the body of). This is the more accessible essay where I first learned of this idea, from Anthropik. But I digress.)

Uncle Dan, even though you probably would not appreciate the Vagina Monologues, should you ever decide to actually see them, I still encourage you to do so at some point in the future. I usually consider myself pretty aware, and I know that my awareness was still expanded farther by seeing the Vagina Monologues. To see a glimpse of what its like to get your first period, to experience a little bit of how it feels to be ashamed of what is inbetween your legs or to have that area violently violated, to understand what it is like to be forced to wear a Burqa, and to have described to me how difficult and wonderful the process of giving birth can be, and yes, even to understand a bit of what sex is like for a woman- these are all valuable things to have experienced. I am glad that I went to see the Vagina Monologues.