"My student organization puts on the Vagina Monologues every year (since 1999) and I’ve been heavily involved in the production since 2007, so I’ve seen the show performed a lot.
I’ve heard this complaint several times, and I agree. The woman is 24 and the girl is 16 (13 in older versions), she gives her vodka and in older versions, the young girl says “if it was rape, it was good rape.” I agree that this is creepy, illegal and questionably ethical. I mean, maybe Eve is trying to question what we consider okay regarding agency in teen girls, but maybe not.
Eve wrote the Vagina Monologues based on interviews she did with thousands of women, but some of them are almost exactly the words of a specific woman, and some of them are mostly fictional and based on an idea Eve got from a woman of several women, and everywhere in between. So, maybe this actually happened to a young woman and Eve is giving her a voice, or maybe Eve made it up. I have really no way to know.
Should this monologue be omitted? Well, here’s the thing: in order to get the rights to perform the Vagina Monologues, you agree to a very long list of rules, including that the monologues are performed in a certain order with no subtractions, additions or substitutions. If you violate the rules and you “get caught,” your school or organization won’t get the rights again.
My organization donates about $5000-$6000 to our county rape crisis center each year through the proceeds from our Vagina Monologues production. The center would struggle to stay open without our donations.
Beyond that, the Vagina Monologues brings a lot of publicity to our group and to feminism on campus in general, and creates a comfortable forum for people to talk about sexuality.
So, I don’t know. For me, the positives outweigh the negatives.”
Yeah, read that bolded part again. And again, until it sinks in. This is why The Vagina Monologues will NEVER get a cent from me. Besides the closest to a sane and decent guy in the entire thing being a guy with a vagina obsession, you have no choice but to perform Coochie Snorcher. How lovely it must be to be a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and thinking that your ticket money will go to help others that have gone through what you have, only to discover that they’re forced to tell this story to do so. To get to relive the apparent horror as each and every memory of the main character’s vagina is tied to some horrific act; being punched there, impaled on a bedpost, and even being raped (and of course, getting to see her father shoot her rapist in a fit of rage). But all of that changes when the decade older woman arrives, bearing vodka. The magical woman that gave her that perfect sexual experience. To know that each painful emotion will be dredged up, and every pain revisited, solely so that a rapist can be presented as the girls savior from the “horrors” of men.
But the questions that no one seems to ask are these.
Why is it deemed so acceptable for her experience that, if it had been at the hands of a man would likely have ended Ensler’s career, to be portrayed in such a positive light?
Why do so many of the works supporters act as if the content is acceptable because rape “has to come with feelings of anger and disgust”, or “it’s not REAL rape” (being statutory and all), or of course “It’s a work of art! It’s freedom of expression!” On the last one, I guess someone has appointed themselves arbiters of what art is and isn’t, what with all of the complaining about misogyny in movies and video games, but not even questioning the pat on the back mentality towards statutory rape of someone barely in her teens.
With the woman in this story, just what don’t we know about her. Has she done this type of thing before? Does she seek out young girls in pain, grooming them to try and bed them? Just how young would she go? I mean, if 13/16 isn’t a stretch for her, what about 10? or 6? Or how about 4?
Since it’s always such a concern for the ‘evil, rapist, pedophile men’ to be around children, why is the author trying to force us into the conclusion that the girls rapist is a good person/saved her/did her a favor? Why is this woman still allowed to be on the streets as though she had done nothing wrong?
So no, I won’t be giving any of my money to a play that vilifies men, while praising the effects of a pedophile woman. My money’s going straight to the shelters that need it. Maybe then people will finally get the hint. My compassion is not based on fear-mongering, nor the basis of what someone has between their legs. It comes from seeing that people need help, and that they deserve to have it.
Literally “We’re being rape apologists but our money helps victims!” like how do they even manage that dissonance.