V*** Monologues and Catholic Universities

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally, I think a child is a child, no matter how they dress or act, and if they can’t consent to vote, no way in hell should they be able to consent to sex. And it wouldn’t matter if an older man or woman took advantage of my teen son or daughter, I’d still want to rip them apart. As for teens, the law considers them children and for good reason! They have mature bodies and feelings, but have no idea what to do with them. Most haven’t developed a sense of good judgment. Hell, you’re still living with your parents and you depend on them for everything!

I’m sorry, but twelve year olds don’t have the maturity for sex, even if they “want to”. Kids want a lot of things, that doesn’t mean they’re mature enough or responsible enough to handle it. And any older adult who takes advantage of that should be locked up.

And Lethe, in the monologue, the girl was raped at ten…by her father’s friend (yes, I listened to it on Youtube, “Know thine enemy”).

Yeah, I think it’s sick that the Vagina monologues has such a story. If a man got that girl drunk and started touching her like that, people would be up in arms. But because it’s a woman, that makes it OK?

Kids love attention, they want affection, and teens especially want to be seen as mature. An older adult who takes advantage of that…that’s pretty damning.
 
Two thoughts.
  1. As a theatre major, the Vagina Monologues are NOT the best piece. I personally find them to be a bad piece of literature and shouldn’t be done on that basis alone. They aren’t even indicative of a large range of “vaginas”. I mean, it’s not like there is a “Mom of 8 kids who loves her husband” vagina.
  2. I attended the (catholic in name) University of Detroit Mercy. As a woman in the theatre program I was encouraged to take part in the Vagina Monologues production. In fact, it was almost expected of me and I very nearly got in trouble for NOT participating. I regret not really saying why or putting up more of a fuss, but I’ll forgive myself cause I was young(er). From what I understand the University itself (which is run by Jesuit priests who are still fairly involved) doesn’t care what the theatre company does. I was required to do props for one show that featured stripping and large amounts of pornography (that I was required to obtain and maintain). There is no oversight of the theatre program by the school.
Fun fact: the year I declined participation was the year that former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatricks wife took part in the monologues.
 
*a lesbian is just as capable of transmitting an STD as a heterosexual male
  • That isn’t true. Well, capable, maybe, but STDs are much more likely to be transmitted through heterosexual sex than lesbian sex. It’s a fact.
That besides, I didn’t know the girl was 12/10 in the scene. That’s pretty sick. For some reason I was thinking 14… Maybe they changed it to that? I’m only 20 and I can remember being 14. Whilst I didnt have sex at 14, I dont think I was unable to make that choice, so I would still disagree with many of the comments - the exact age of consent is a legal thing, not a moral thing (obviously I do agree there should be one, but it’s different in different countries anyway, and here in the UK you CAN, legally, have sex before you can vote. I see no problem with that - I think relationships/love are easier concepts to grasp than politics.)

Why, if Catholics are so into Natural Law, is it wrong to have sex with someone younger (but beyond the age of puberty)? I’m seeing this as a real contradiction with the Bible… That involves many older men and younger girls/women marrying - or is it fine if they’re married?!
 
Lethe said:
*a lesbian is just as capable of transmitting an STD as a heterosexual male
  • That isn’t true. Well, capable, maybe, but STDs are much more likely to be transmitted through heterosexual sex than lesbian sex. It’s a fact.
That besides, I didn’t know the girl was 12/10 in the scene. That’s pretty sick. For some reason I was thinking 14… Maybe they changed it to that? I’m only 20 and I can remember being 14. Whilst I didnt have sex at 14, I dont think I was unable to make that choice, so I would still disagree with many of the comments - the exact age of consent is a legal thing, not a moral thing (obviously I do agree there should be one, but it’s different in different countries anyway, and here in the UK you CAN, legally, have sex before you can vote. I see no problem with that - I think relationships/love are easier concepts to grasp than politics.)

Why, if Catholics are so into Natural Law, is it wrong to have sex with someone younger (but beyond the age of puberty)? I’m seeing this as a real contradiction with the Bible… That involves many older men and younger girls/women marrying - or is it fine if they’re married?!
Click to expand...
Natural Law? Not sure to what you are referring. The Catholic teaching is no sex unless in marriage. I believe this is the teaching of Jews and other Christians too.

What contradiction with the Bible? If you want to explore Jewish thought on the subject re. older man with young girl, it was prohibited even in ancient times. Sure it occurs today with an older man marrying a younger woman and that is because it is her choice. We are prohibited from giving our children in marriage to adults. No arranged marriages.

A adult, regardless of sexual orientation, who has sex with a minor is a pedophile. Usually, a state will consider the age of the perp and the victim. Two minors, let’s say 14 and 16, having consentual sex is different than a 14 yr. old with a 21 yr. old.

Let’s not quibble or infer that sex is safer with a lesbian. Oral sex and kissing can transmit STDs. Lesbians do both and some other things which can transfer disease. No one is safe.
 
Well, take the Bible into context first of all. Back then, things like marital rape did not exist in the minds of people, women couldn’t choose their husbands, you were unclean if you were on your menses, etc. Study how Catholics interpret the Bible before you go making pronouncements.

Even if she was fourteen, she’s still a minor. There’s no excuse. Fourteen year olds think they know everything. They don’t. The law can’t make exceptions for everything, that’s why eighteen is the age of majority. If an older adult needs a companion, they can find one either closer in age or at least over the age of eighteen. There’s something seriously wrong with them if they need to have sex with young teens.

Just because a lesbian can’t get a woman pregnant does not mean lesbian rape is less traumatic. Look what happened at Oprah’s school. Volunteer at a rape crisis center. It’s true. And if you don’t believe women can be violent, watch the documentary “She Stole My Voice” (warning: very graphic scenes) or any documentary on gang girls. When put to it, women can and will be as violent as men.

And yes, you can get STI’s through lesbian sex, as you can with heterosexual sex. HPV and herpes only need skin-to-skin contact. HIV can be spread through oral sex and vaginal fluids, just as it can with semen and male-female intercourse. Others, lesbians can get through contact with fluids as well. In fact, relationship advice pages advise that these couples use barriers until they come back negative! (yes, I’ve researched this stuff).

Besides, using the excuses that women can’t get each other pregnant or that they’re somehow less violent diminishes the trauma and tragedy of abuse committed at the hands of women. It goes unreported and the justice system is likely to show sympathy and prescribe ineffective treatment. We need to recognize that this crime is disempowering, cruel, and traumatizing, no matter who commits it. That’s why we think the Vagina Monologues is so despicable.
 
fish90 said:
The thing is a Catholic University can decry rape in a better manner. Arguably, the Catholic approach would be stronger than a play such as VM.

Best,
fish90
Click to expand...
It can, but it doesn’t.
 
Wiki’d it, and my G…gosh. No. nonono. I wouldn’t ever, EVER be caught dead watching something so…tasteless. yeah, I don’t need to watch a sex worker ending her perfomance in a vocal “triple orgasm,” thanks. I’d also rather not hear some of those words made out to be a positive thing. Yeggh
 
I would have no problems if this play was focused more on the struggles and pain of women who’d been raped, assulated, etc. Even the “glorified” rape of the young girls could easily be a very profound and emotionally moving piece. I once read a story of a young boy who was kidnapped as a child and kept as the companion of a man many years older than he was. He was raped and molested daily, but he didn’t see it as such. He saw it as being loved and given attention. It was distressing, but powerful, because although is perspective didn’t tell hi it was rape, the reader was never led to believe otherwise. He believed this was a good thing, but the book wasn’t telling it was a good thing. just showing his perspective.

I haven’t seen that particular scene in VM, but I feel that if it was “glorifying” by means of showing the girls’s damaged psyche, it wouldn’t be problematic. She may very well see it as “good rape” because she knows no better.
 
Lutheranteach said:
It can, but it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Really? NO Catholic university addresses sexual assault in a better manner than the Monologues? You’ve been to every Catholic college and can assure us of this fact? :rolleyes:

As I explained in my earlier post on this thread (#26), Notre Dame is a good example of this debate we’re having here playing out over time, as students debated and then created **more effective, respectful, and CHRISTIAN ** approaches to addressing the problem of the objectification of women in sexual assault, pornography, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top