The Vagina Monologues was first performed in 1996 and, since then, has become a world-wide phenomenon and the centerpiece of a very impressive charitable organization / event called V-Day. Written by Eve Ensler, and based on a series of interviews with a variety of women, the concept is simple and effective. A number of women perform a number of monologues in which their vaginas are discussed and, in this way, issues in sex, personal identity, and violence against women are identified, addressed, and discussed.

I saw my first production of The Vagina Monologues this past Saturday at Carleton University’s Bell Theatre. This version featured twelve monologues, twenty-nine women, and was entertaining, moving, and illuminating.

The monologues are performed in a very straightforward and bare-bones fashion, with each performer essentially talking directly to the audience using a microphone and minimal physicalization. Not all of the performers are totally polished and refined talents but, because the script is much more confessional than theatrical, every performance is effective and entertaining. The darker moments — concerning violence and abuse — are handled with tact and sensitivity and the lighter moments are ably exploited to the audience’s full delight.

All in all, the show was very enjoyable and well-worth seeing. Sadly, Carleton U’s short run is already over. Notably, ten per cent of all proceeds will be passed along to the V-Day organization (the standard playwright’s cut) and everything else will be donated to the Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre. Keep an eye out for next year’s production.

Not surprisingly, some of the issues, themes, and topics addressed in the script and performance align nicely with some of the discussions we’ve been having around here lately. Here are some thoughts that came to mind while watching and thinking about the performance and the script.

Some of the script’s assertions about feminine sexual identity is somewhat perplexing for me and the kind of feminism with which I identify. I grew up intellectually at a time when one of the important lessons to come from feminists (once you cut through all the intellectual fancy-talk) is that we’d all be much better off if men, women, and society generally became much less obsessed with and focussed on the penis — both literally and symbolically. So, from that perspective, a play which celebrates and discusses the vagina is great. From the same perspective, however, a play that makes the claim, as this play does at different times, that a female’s essential nature is intimately tied to — and even reducible to — her vagina seems to me a total misstep. Just imagine some guy going around in this day and age proudly stating that his essential nature is his wee-wee. It feels almost as if the male obsession with genitalia is simply being transfered wholesale to female genitalia. Celebrating and discussing the vagina is a great idea — making it the be all and end all of female identity seems a mistake.

One monologue discusses how a young male’s insensitive reaction to a young woman’s positive but unexpected physical response to his sexual advances (she gets very wet when he kisses her) essentially ruins a woman’s sexual life. This certainly lends credence to the idea that leaving sexual education in the hands of teenagers can be as destructive as anything adults can come up with. I am sure many women and men are still haunted by the thoughtless and insensitive actions and reaction of boys and girls who are simply too naive and insecure to handle certain sexual situations with any sensitivity. Of course, age is no guarantee of increased sensitivity either. We’ve been talking about this over here.

Another monologue documents two very different kinds of rape experienced by a girl growing up. The first is a negative, unexpected, and coercive rape by an adult male when the girl is ten. The second is a positive, (more or less) planned, and consenting sexual encounter with an older woman and, because the girl is sixteen, is still technically a statutory rape in many parts of the United States (in the original version, the girl is thirteen, but the script has been revised to sixteen — the most common age of consent in the US — due to the controversy). This made me think about Amanda’s comment about the uncertainty of picking an age at which we could imagine a girl consenting to a positive sexual experience. Given the tone of the piece, one can only assume Ensler thinks thirteen is an acceptable age (although, she might still claim it depends on the context of each case) and that well-intentioned sex with an adult can be good for a minor. Apparently, in the original version of the monologue, the final line is “If it was rape, it was good rape.” Our discussion about this is also over here.

Several monologues usefully and effectively highlight the too easily ignored realities of violence against women and how it is so often directed towards a woman’s sexuality specifically. I think almost all men and women would agree that sexual assault is worse than non-sexual assault. So, what is it about the human psyche such that the ultimate expression of oppression and dominance is universally regarded to be sexual in nature? Is it simply iconoclasm taken to its most repugnant conclusion?

One monologue claims that to love a vagina one must also love hair and that pubic hair is essential to the well being of the vagina. It documents how a woman is forced to shave her vagina by her husband and then convinced by a female (and a German I assumed based on the accent employed — a very curious detail) couples counsellor to let him do it again. This piece was unquestionably in line with the view that a clean shaven vagina is perverse and ultimately an expression of male hegemony. For more on this topic, see here.

I thought of PPBP during the monologue about birth because of her concerns about the “care of self” vs. “care of other” dynamic in the feminine. In contrast to the other monologues, which emphasized the “care of self” side of the dynamic (e.g. sexual pleasure), this monologue seems to emphasize the “care of other” side — so much so that the birthing woman is reduced to her incredible life-giving vagina and, because of this, the community of other people taking part in the birthing process (Ensler, the nurse, the husband, the baby) seem much more important than the woman who is actually giving birth.

I also couldn’t help but notice a lot of performers were wearing clothing and accessories (heels, skirts, nylons, make-up) that a certain breed of feminists would consider symbols of male hegemony and, furthermore, from a performance and staging perspective, unless demanded by the script, that are also not entirely practical choices. I can’t help but wonder what these old guard feminists might think about these fashion choices. I’m all for women wearing whatever they please but when I see young women let fashion sense trump practicality (hmm, I need to move furniture and dance, maybe high heels aren’t a good idea), my second-wave feminist Spidey sense begins to tingle. Of course, on the other hand, the women found ways to negotiate the practical difficulties and, thereby, indirectly proved that the choice isn’t necessarily either – or and my first / third wave inner feminist is satisfied.

I should also probably note the audience was a pretty solid mix of men and women of all ages. Everyone seemed to me to be enjoying themselves thoroughly.

And last but not least, I can’t help but reflect on Ensler’s accomplishment. She has taken a very simple but extremely effective concept, touched the lives of millions, and leveraged her success to effect real and positive change in the world. She is is living proof that an artist can make a concrete and positive difference in the world, if she chooses to. The life lesson she and her monologues confirm: do what you love and, based on your level of success, do what you can to make a difference.

For more post likes this, click here.

Last night, I went to see A Gladstone Production of John Patrick Shanley’s Doubt. Some people may be familiar with the recently released film version of the play which I have not yet seen. I am now really looking forward to seeing it because the script is very good. Regrettably, the performances at last night’s production were not nearly as satisfying as I might have hoped. Based on my experience, I can’t recommend seeing the show but I should say that the rookie theatre-goer I brought along with me was pretty satisfied with the experience. So, it may still be a good way to see a highly acclaimed and award winning script, especially if you are not as fussy as I am.

As it happens, the script provided some questions well worth discussing. 

Doubt, as the title suggests, is a play concerned with unanswered, perhaps unanswerable, questions. There are three in particular, I would suggest — with a wink and nod to the Doctrine of the Trinity. One question drives the narrative of the play, one question provides the theme of the play, and one question challenges conventional mores. 

Did an overly familiar priest who wears his nails a little too long initiate a sexual relationship with the only black child at the school? This question drives the narrative of the play. An older conservative Nun, who is well aware of her second-class status in the hierarchy of the Church, is convinced that he did. A much younger nun’s convictions shifts through the course of the play. The priest denies everything and, by play’s end, there is no definitive proof either way. 

The overarching theme of the play emerges from the question at the heart of the Reformation. Should a person have faith in her own convictions or should she have faith in the decisions of her community and its recognized political authorities? Arguably, it is the fundamental question at the heart of society for any relatively independent thinker. The play suggests uncertainty, in the end, may be the only outcome either way.

Finally, the third question concerns the now conventional assessment of a sexually intimate relationship between a minor and an adult who occupies a position of authority. The mother of the boy, when confronted with the possibility of the encounter, indicates that the she thinks the boy is gay, desperately needs some positive attention from an older and well-intentioned male figure (his actual father is abusive), and is prepared to accept that the experience could be on balance beneficial. The playwright is smart enough to highlight the racial and economic disadvantages the boy faces and how this also motivates the mother’s assessment. To get into a good high school, the boy needs to graduate from this school, and it is clear the mother is willing to turn a blind eye for the long-term benefit of the boy. Clearly, a mother who is not trapped in the circumstances of institutional racism might reason differently. Even still, the essential questions hangs in the air: if a minor benefits from a relationship with an adult and that relationship involves non-coercive sexual intimacy, is it really wrong?

I think most people accept that boys and girls should have meaningful relationships with adults who are also not their parents — especially in this age of the (often fractured) nuclear family. What is it about sexual intimacy that changes our assessment of the value of that relationship? Is the present day obsession with preventing and punishing sexual relationships inhibiting the quality of the non-sexual relationships between minors and adults? The law often distinguishes crimes and punishments based on intent. Is it possible the some allowances could be made in criminal law to distinguish between coercive and non-coercive sexual relationships between adults and minors? 

Any thoughts?

For more posts like this, click here.

In the large majority of cases, the law reflects moral values – its common sense. It’s morally wrong to murder, there’s a law to state what happens to murderers.  Same for robbery.  Same for whacking up somebody because you felt like it.

But there are some instances, where the law cannot, must not, reflect morality. These are quite a small minority, but a very important minority. What are they? I’ll cover some of these cases here, but these are not exhaustive. They fall mainly into the domain of health. I’m not too sure why; is it because this is the area of my specialty (I’m doing my PhD studying unborn babies….) or because it’s the nature of how our health and psychology works that makes it that way.

Anyway, the areas I’ll be talking about to illustrate my point : 1. Drug use / prostitution     2. Sex with minors (below 16s)/Abortion      3. Euthanasia       

1. Drug use / prostitution.

During the recent AIDS conference, a HIV prevention activist from Sydney, Australia gave a keynote lecture, describing some of the more successful strategies. Two of them were providing drug addicts with free clean injection needles and de-criminalizing prostitution.

How does that work? Drug addicts who inject drugs usually share needles – they spend all their money on drugs, no money to buy clean needles. Drug addicts also tend to engage in prostitution to support their habit. So the percentage of HIV cases amongst drug addicts is very high because they are constantly engaging in 2 sorts high-risk behavior.

But the percentage of drug addicts amongst the total number of HIV cases is actually very low – because most people in Sydney are not injecting drug abusers!!! However, because enough “normal” men visit prostitutes/ drug users, the prostitutes/drug users become the “seed” through which HIV is spread to the larger community. The “normal” men then take the HIV back to their wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, casual sex partners etc. Therefore, cutting off the infection at the “seed” will reduce spread into the mainstream.

To do that, the Australians set up places where drug users can get FREE CLEAN needles, without getting arrested for drug use. At the same time, the Australians still maintain their opposition to drug abuse.

In the same way, they also set up education programmes to educate and empower prostitutes to practice safe sex , to use condoms, without arresting them for prostitution. At the same time, the Australians still do not view prostitution as a morally acceptable behavior.

Because the drug users/ prostitutes can adopt healthier practices without the fear of being arrested, they of course do! And in doing so, they prevent the rise of HIV infections.  If they will be arrested, or if the authorities refuse to help them at all and still criminalize them on moral grounds, then it will drive them underground, where the HIV will go up and go into mainstream society. Not that Australia condones drug use or prostitution – they don’t.

This is a classic example of how, on one hand, everyone holds to the same moral value – NO to drug abuse and prostitution – but policy, (even if the law must be there still) has to be different from the moral values, and TOLERATE it, because the cost of policy adopting a moral high ground would be a much larger cost to the health of a greater number of people.

1. Sex with minors (under 16)/Abortion

In Singapore, having sex with a girl under 14 is considered Statutory Rape , with 20 yrs jail, 12 strokes. Having sex with a girl or boy under 16 carries 10 yrs jail.  That law upholds the moral value that adults should not take advantage of the ignorance and emotional immaturity of the child. Great moral value there, and certainly a very useful law to bring these child exploiters to justice.

What’s the backlash?

In the course of my work with the teen girls, I’ve met girls who really loved their boyfriends( could be teens like them, even more immature, could be adults), so much so that when they get pregnant, or get an STI, they never go to the doctor, never tell a single soul. Because they are so afraid their boyfriends would have to go to jail for 10 or 20 years, when the doctor finds out.

What do they do?

I tell them, your life and health is the MOST important. No matter what, go to the doctor, ASAP! And no doctor can make you reveal who your boyfriend is. No doctor will imprison you in his clinic for days and days until you confess. If you never reveal, no one can arrest your boyfriend.

There was a recent case, where people were very appalled because a 12 year old girl went to the abortion clinic and she didn’t dare to disclose or report the rapist. The parents didn’t know and so could not help her. The public felt that parents should be made to know, to help her.  I fully agree with their thoughts, but I will never want to see parental consent made compulsory by law, because the consequences will mean the deaths of even more young girls. I would rather pay the price of having disobedient or even bullied teenagers. Bad as that may be, death is worse.

1. Euthanasia

Firstly, bear in mind that medical care, even the most basic, HAVE to be State subsidized, or else it will be beyond the reach of the majority. Even your polyclinic is VERY VERY subsidized. But countries usually subsidise only a specific list of STANDARD medicines. The newer, more expensive, better medicines are not on the STANDARD list and not subsidized. The number and cost of medicines on the STANDARD list will depend on how much subsidies the State wants to provide. Drug companies tend not to sell lousy medicines when good ones are already available, or they will not make lousy medicines more expensive than good ones – that’s common business sense. Furthermore, if the expensive ones are not better than the cheap ones, your doctor won’t even prescribe to you!! So what’s this argument about expensive not being better?

So, if State subsidies are low, people tend to not get the best treatments, and of course they will suffer! Or they will say, don’t waste more money on medicines. And so they will wish for death. And they will be happy that euthanasia is legal. And since they are allowed to die and solve the problem, why should the State increase medical subsidies or palliative healthcare? Why should I care for you when you can just go and die?

We MUST NEVER support LEGALISED euthanasia, because it is iimportant that you have enough medical subsidies from the government and not have them tell you, sorry too expensive, but we allow you to go and die.

You think such people like the daughter-in-law don’t exist? Then why is there so many old-folks homes? Siblings fighting over who should look after parents? The Parents Act where kids must be forced by law to care for parents?

So yeah, I agree with many people that we have the MORAL right to choose our own death, and I might even do so myself. But I will never agree to LEGALISED (read: State ENDORSED) euthanasia.

Religion and policy were separated a long time ago – and we need to keep that separate.

The above post is 3^rd in a series of posts reviewing info brought up during the 6^th Singapore AIDS conference. The first described the conference. The second described the life of someone with HIV in Singapore, and hopefully makes you want to do something about the situation. This third post hopefully establishes the principles on which I evaluate and recommend policies with regards to HIV.

I was over at UmmAdams Blog the other day. She has a post about R.Kelly. The post was about him and the interview he gave for BET. It is sad…….Anyway, most comments were about how bad his actions were and how he needs to stop them. One of the comments said we need to not think about westen law and look at Allah she said

R. Kelly: Fornicator…YES!
R. Kelly: Nasty and lewd…YES!!!
R. Kelly: Predator on underage victims…NO.

A victim is a victim because of his helplessness, naivete, and ignorance, NOT because of his age.

Young age DOES NOT equal victim.
Old age DOES NOT equal victim.
Naivete at any age DOES EQUAL victim.

HUMMMMMMM, I am sorry but I do not agree and I just dont get it. This man preyed on young girls. So in my mind that makes him a pretator. Yes, I agree their are SOMe young girls that are mature for their age but do you really think he went around taking time to find out who was mature or was he looking at who was cute and had a nice body.

In Islam a girl can gett married once she gets her Monthly cycle. Ok, fine but just becuase you CAn do something does not mean it is the best thing for all people . I think looking at most men that try the big P will show us that just because something is halal does not mean it is right all the time for everyone. HERE  is a good example of what I mean.

This made me look at my childhood. Whn I was 13, 14 heck even 18 I was not ready for a real relationship. Yeah I had hormones jumping and had the same urges that every other person has at that age but was I ready for sex and all it brings. NO

At 13 our bodies may be ready but our minds usually are not. Yes, I could make a baby. I could do that by age 11 but would I know what to do with one or a husband. I think not and I really think most girls that age are not. So to say if your old enough to have sex then your old enought to get married IMHO is soooooooo wrong.

Yes, we all know we need to be married in order to have sex I am not disputing this.  But I am saying just becuase you can does not make it right. Marriage is more that sex. Yes in the begining thats about all you think about cuase it is new, that personis new to you and you just want to be with them and explore all the things you have been waiting to explore.

BUT that is not a marriage that is just a phase. The real marriage comes in a you have to budget, compromise, take orders, give orders, cook, clean, maybe change diapers and deal with children, you have to deal with in laws, mood swings, arguements, and so much more.

How many 13-15 year olds do you know that are ready to deal with that. I’m looking at my almost 17 yo and she is so not ready. Man she still plays with Barbie dolls.  So I think knowing that most girls are really not as mature as they THINK they are tells me these girls were Victims.

Heck at 15 I was grown in MY HEAD. I thought I knew everything. In reality I didnt know anything. So just because a girl agrees to have sex with a man in his 30’s of her own free will does not excuse his behavior. Her saying yes does not make it OK. Her saying I knew what I was doing does not hold water, Yes, she may know what goes where and heck she may even know positions that I aint never heard of BUT that does not mean she is mentally ready to assume all the responisbilty for all the reprocutions that can happen to her becuase of her choice.

Thats why there are laws. Yes, in the west a girl at that age cannot consent to sex becuase she is usually not mentally ready for that responsibility. And this is why in many Arab countries there is a certain age a girl has to be in order to get married.

Egypt: 18 for males and females (per the new child protection law).

Senegal: 20.

Tunisia: 20 for males and 17 for females

Iran: 18 for males and 16 for females

Jordan: 16 for males and 15 for females, lunar calendar; court permission required for females under 18 to marry men older by 20 years or more.

Kuwait: No minimum marriage age identified; capacity to marry requires parties to be of age (puberty) and of sound mind, however, no notarisation or registration of marriage permitted where female has not reached 15 years or male 17 years

Lebanon: 18 for males and 17 for females

Malaysia: 21, 18 with parental consent

Pakistan: 18 for males, 16 for females

These are all Muslim countries. They all have an age limit. Most if not all are over the age of 13. There is a reason for this. Men make laws and men know men. We all know there are some men that prey on little girls. What R. Kelly did is not new. There has been and their will always be old men that only want young girls. It is our job and responsibilty to protect our girls from these pretators.  Here is an example of what happens when tere is no law to protect girls. . Would you want that to be YOUR daughter? 

We have to protect our girls. I know there are some hot mama teens out there that needs to be married just to keep them from becomming a slut. whore, no umm whats the world Im lookign for promiscuous. But really these are not the majority. Maybe in Some areas ike Philly but that is not am example of the whole world. We need to teach the girls thatare fast to have pride in their bodies and to have respect for their sexuality. If you haev a girl that is goignt o be fast, and mothers of those fast girls you knwo who they are. You need to start trainign them early to be wives and mothers or be ready to take on her and her husband in your home until they are ready to go out into the world. That is an option. If you have a girl that is hot to trot an d you want her married let her. But keep her at home so you can train her and keep an eye on her. That is better than letting her go wild or turning a blinds eyes or just saying  she knows what she is doing becuase maybe……….she doesnt.

FREE SEX VIDEOS

.

Click HERE

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

]]> http://thearjayconception.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/r-kelly-discomfort/ Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:02:16 +0000 RJ http://thearjayconception.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/r-kelly-discomfort/ http://doedi.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/lets-get-things-straight/ Mon, 12 May 2008 15:22:06 +0000 Eddie http://doedi.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/lets-get-things-straight/

I’m not a blogger! Exclamation point. Not period – exclamation point! So don’t expect me to go blogging every morning, ’cause I won’t. So let’s carry on with this floccinaucinihilipilification. (Yes, this is an actual word).

Since I have your attention, I must share this tale of bravery, pugnaciousness, torment, loathing and sex with minors.
I was walking (or “Cruisin’ in da hood pimp stylee, boi!” as the hip people say) my way to a clothing shop here in my city when nothing interested happened. So I entered the store and start looking around, with nothing to eat for days, checking stuff out, when, suddenly, a cool punk-rock-plaid-pants came up! And yeah, I’m a poser, so I thought to myself “tis going to be A-W-E-S-O-M-E”. So I grabbed the pants, got into the dressing room and tried them on. It looked A-W-E-S-O-M-E (I’ll never get tired of this). I felt like no one in the whole world looked so smoothly trendy as me! So there I was, buying the shit out of that funky plaid pants!

The weekend passed and Monday came. “This is going to be the punk-rock-plaid-pants-day, man!”, I said to myself. Babies were smiling at me. The sun was up and everything felt right! As soon as I put those pants on, I knew something was wrong. I looked like a dork with those plaid pants on! But I did not gave up. My maid said to me “be strong, Eddie! You can still do this!”. Then my mom, dad, brother… Everyone was cheering for me, clapping and giving me the green light to rock the world with those pants! It felt right!

I was wrong. It was not fun.

As I was cruisin’ in da hood pimp stylee again, I knew I’ve left my money and my sense of self-despair on that dressing room.

But there’s still hope: next step -> leather pants.

Oh, and if you’re here for the sex with minors, you should be ashamed of yourself.

The producers at “To Catch A Predator” might want to consider setting up a bureau on Capitol Hill. It seems like more weird creepy sex is going on there than even the most sketchy bathhouse. On the heels of the latest chapter of the Sen. Craig, “I’m not gay no matter how may men I have sex with” scandal, it seems a Senate staffer was caught up in a sex sting. Yep, another man, this time having a tryst with a 13 year old boy Mark Foley style. Perhaps Congress is becoming the biggest threat to our children.

The Smoking Gun broke the story that, James Michael McHaney, aide to Sen. Maria Cantwell was fired on Friday for getting caught in a sex sing after he agreed to a long lunch tryst with a 13 year old boy. Apparently, he was suspected of such activity because he was trading kiddie porn with someone who informed the FBI.

The court document can be viewed here

Further:
Cantwell aide arrested for attempting to sexually exploit a minor
Senate Aide Busted in Child Sex Sting
Paper: More gay men describe sex with Larry Craig
More gay men describe sexual encounters with U.S. Sen. Craig