Last night I went to a production of The Vagina Monologues at Princeton Theological Seminary. I remember hearing about them being performed in Spokane while I was in college and I remember thinking, "Oh god! What is our society coming to - The VAGINA Monologues? Good lord, this must be some horrible secular thing." It sure is fun to see how one changes over the years.
I am so glad that I went, and I believe that it is an incredibly important production. I hope that more and more seminaries will help put together productions of it in the future, and I’m very glad that The Women’s Center at Princeton Seminary put on the event. I have a lot of thoughts on The Vagina Monologues, and I’ll write just a few of them below, and I hope you’ll give me some of your feedback as well…
I’ve been trying to process all of what I saw, it’s difficult. So, let me just write a few random thoughts from my Vagina Monologues experience:
- I think the thing I noticed most was how I was somewhat uncomfortable during parts of the monologues. Not uncomfortable in such a way that I thought "These aren’t things we should be talking about" but, almost, that I was involved in the social processes and ways in which women had felt abused, were abused (physically, emotionally, sexually) that caused women to neglect such an important part of their body: their vagina.
- I was struck simply by the magnitude of violence and abuse that takes place to women in our world today. As is the cases with most things, hearing statistics is one thing: hearing stories, spoken monologues, by women who have lived the horrific experiences of rape, abuse, psychological abuse and violence…that is an entirely different thing.
- I laughed a lot. Perhaps sometimes because it was a nervous reaction to hearing a seminarian screaming "C U N T" or saying "twat" and probably at the very beginning just went they kept saying vagina, vagina, vagina. Part of the monologue itself talked about how odd of a word it is - no matter how you say it, it’s just…odd. Other times simply because it was hilarious, absolutely hilarious.
- I got all hot & bothered at one point. Even started to sweat. For those of you who have seen it - yes, it was definitely during "The Woman Who Loved To Make Vaginas Happy." The moaner, and her visual and physical on-stage demonstration of over, god it must have been, over 20 or so different types of "moaning" (basically, having orgasm after orgasm after orgasm on stage). My favorite might have been the "Seminary Moan" for those who live in CRW, which went something like "OH!! OH!! THE WALLS! THE WALLS! THE WALLS ARE THIN, THE WALLS ARE THIN, THE WALL ARE THIN!!!!!!"
- I got pretty uncomfortable during "The Little Coochi Snorcher That Could" as it depicts the sexual encounter between a 16-yr old girl (which, apparently used to be a 13-yr old girl until that drew too much criticism) and a 24-yr old woman. That’s the only one that ended and I wasn’t sure how to process that. In one sense…yup, that’s definitely illegal, and hell, had that been my daughter, that woman would have gone to jail. And then on the other hand, this girl had gone through so many traumatic experiences in her life, and had been so oppressed by her mother, it was this liberating sexual experience that caused her to fully come into herself (no pun intended), into her full being. Yah, I really don’t know what to do with that one.
- One thing that I definitely had never thought of before, was the fact that many women have never seen their vagina. One of the therapy techniques that was discussed numerous times for women called for them to actually get a mirror out, and try to actually find their vagina and look at it. Obviously, men don’t suffer that problem - it’s just…there. We can’t help but see our penises every day. In the monologues, there was a woman who was 72 who had never seen her vagina.
- Finally, "I Was There In the Room" was probably the most moving monologue. The seminarian who performed it was absolutely brilliant, and it detailed being in the room with a woman who was giving birth, and describing the vagina during that life-giving process. She was in tears because of the vagina’s beauty, it’s sacrifice, and I was entranced by these detailed, visual descriptions of the vagina during that birthing process. [I only hope that I will be able to be that enthralled when I actually am in that situation...I'm very afraid that I'm going to be the one fainting...]
There are two more perspectives from male PTS students here and here; I appreciate their honesty and vulnerability.
The one question that I kept asking myself last night was "What was it like for a woman to watch this performance?" I can’t imagine what type of experience it might have been for women to watch this, so I’m hoping that some of the women readers of this blog, who have seen The Vagina Monologues, will share some of their experience…
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for these thoughts, Adam. As usual, I appreciate your willingness to process on the blog, and especially to solicit comments. I’m trying to take you up on your question about what it was like for women to watch them. I think that I resonated with many of your thoughts… it was overwhelming, thought provoking, emotional, intense. As a woman, there’s maybe a little more of a “blush factor” but also a sense of relief and liberation that we can talk about these things as a community. For me, the most important and emotional moment was the chorus talking about the comfort women of WWII and their fight for an apology. I’m curious to hear from other women at PTS. To those who performed in the VM this weekend - kudos! Excellent work.
>>>As usual, I appreciate your willingness to process on the blog, and especially to solicit comments.
As long as those comments agree with him, of course.
>>>>As long as those comments agree with him, of course.
I too was uncomfortable with the Coochi-Snorcher story, but I guess that’s the point of it. It certainly does push the audience to question the definitions of sanctioned and non-sanctioned sexuality, as well as childhood sexuality.
It’s been quite a few years since I’ve seen the Monologues, but from what I can recall, I found the experience to be a positive, affirming one — especially the “CUNT” chanting part!
Though I have to say that the Monologues annoy me to a large extent because the tend to perpetuate the misconception that the vulva and vagina are the same thing, when they’re clearly not! That’s a somewhat minor beef, though, when it comes to such a significant cultural artifact like the Monologues.
For an alternate view, try:
http://www.salon.com/sex/feature/2001/03/05/clitoris/index.html
>>>his blog, his world. I don’t see a problem.
Certainly. But that doesn’t mean we can’t call a spade a spade.
david,
i’m fairly certain that YOU do not want us calling things as they are.
if you have a personal vendetta against adam, approach HIM on it, and please stop leaving childish, unrelated comments on this blog. no one wants to read them. otherwise, i would suggest some therapy.
Adam, thank you for this post. I would not find myself even remotely interested in seeing VM, and now I almost feel like I need to. Even if I don’t, you’ve given me and other ministers (especially men) who preach all the time to women fairly blithely about healing and identity and newness of life a great deal to think about.
Regarding David: If you don’t like Adam’s blog, don’t read it. Your immature whining does not change anyone’s thinking about Adam, but greatly affects our opinion of you.
Hi Adam, I came to Princeton this weekend especially to see the Monologues. (I saw you in the caf). I found it an eye opening thing myself. I was part of the first cast of Vagina Monologues on the seminary campus. We took a lot of heat about performing it on campus and had hundreds of folks turn out just to see it. I do have to admit that when I performed it it changed my life. It made me see myself and women differently. You are right so many women have been abused and raped and ignored. The Monologues did not make me feel uncomfortable because there are too many women in this world who have been hurt just as all the women in the monologues and their voices need to be heard that I could never be ashamed. I’m glad you went.
i went for the second time this year, and was still uncomfortable with the coochi-snorcher monologue, but am glad i did. check out my notes on it.
on another note, i think this is a show that more Christians should go to, if only to let the voices of the women who are hurt in relationships echo in our ears. in texas alone last year, there were half a million instances of domestic violence. do i see any of it? nope. does it still need to be exposed and stopped? yep.
>>>i would suggest some therapy.
Petras,
how interesting that you would preach to Reno on his blog about “shaming” people for simply calling them out on their behaviour, and then come here and gratuitously insult me with that comment. What is one to make of that? Perhaps that you’re a hypocrite?
I may have a “vendetta” against Adam (for the same reasons Reno does), but I don’t insult him personally, and I’ve even defended him (twice) when others do. I have no desire to shame nor demean him, nor do I care to raise myself up in your estimation (nor Brian’s). It’s his behaviour that I call attention to, and I don’t apologize for it.
that’s fantastic david…keep at it man.
Regardless of the acclaimed importance of this work, I can’t get past the Little Coochi monologue. There’s no other way to interpret it: it depicts child sexual abuse. (”If it was rape” she says, “it was good rape.”) What if the 24 year old character had been male? Would supplying a 13 (or 16) year old with alcohol before having illegal sex with her be equated with rescue from oppression and abuse?
Jenny is right that this forces us to question the definitions of sanctioned and non-sanctioned sexuality, but I’m not sure those definitions need to be explored. I don’t want to live in a world where predatory adults using children sex objects can be misconstrued as saving the child.
I didn’t have the chance to attend the Vagina Monologues this year, but did have the chance to go two years ago when it was performed. I was on campus then for my entrance interview, and it was definitely an eye-opening introduction to seminary life. There are a dozen adjectives I could use to describe the experience, but “deeply moving” will suffice. Definitely something that should be seen and experienced. At the same time I have a fundamental problem with one of the underlying presuppositions of the Monologues, and it troubles me that there wasn’t broader discussion about this in the context of the seminary environment. My problem? Namely, the underlying idea that the vagina somehow is equivalent to a woman’s essence or soul. This is a thread that seems to run through the Monologues — sometimes explicitly, sometimes not — and I wonder if we should challenge this supposition? While we’ve rightly become ashamed of our repressed Augustinian heritage, I also think we’ve ceded too much ground to a belief that sexuality (and genitalia) ultimately define us. The enormous debates about homosexuality in the church are a result of blindly accepting the idea that we are “fundamentally sexual” (a 20th century concept pushed upon us by Freudian psychology). Maybe we need to step back and question what role sexuality should play in defining our lives — and our selves — and in the process question the legacy of Freud handed to us in the Vagina Monologues. My suspicion is that we are so tied to such ideas that it will sound blasphemous to even suggest that we aren’t fundamentally sexual beings. However, I find it more blasphemous to suggest, as the Monologues do, that a woman’s vagina is her essence.
Well said Michel, er — Andrew. ; )
Uncomfortable with child rape?
I should bloody well hope so.
Really, how can any of you try to justify this? If the perpetrator in the story were male the outrage would be through the roof. We’d be able to launch spacecraft to Mars on the energy expended.
It appears that in the race to be seen as culturally relevant and hip, any and all critical faculties have been suspended.
Given that many of you who comment here are also actually attendees (after this I hesitate to use the term “students”) at a seminary, imagine in five years or so you’re a a pastor at a church and a 13 year old (OK, say even 16 year old) girl comes to you with that story.
What do you say then?
thanks for posting this adam - I remember seeing this play in london 4 years ago - it seems it is just as thought provoking and eye-opening as it was then, and also very, very funny… we took a class from seminary too, unfortunately a lot left after the ‘cunt’ shouting…
Hey Andrew.
This is just an FYI, not a critique in any way. The Women’s Center did have a Preforum in which the panelist discussed the theological and cultural issues surrounding the Vagina Monologues and discussed the reasons why the seminary is or is not an appropriate place to perform the play.
Also, we also had one panelist that raised similar concerns as the ones you posted so it was a great opportunity to hear a panel that wasn’t comprised of 100% support.
Hopefully next time around more people will attend the Panel/PreEvent discussions even if they do not think they want to or are able to attend the play.
One more comment…For those who have not seen the Vagina Monologues, I do want to let you know that all of the monologues are closely based on REAL LIFE stories. For example, there is a woman who lived through “The Little Cootchi Snorcher That Could.”
Is sexual abuse and rape wrong? Yes! Did this woman somehow find redemption in spite of it? Yes! Do I think the woman who raped her should go to jail? Yes! Can women reclaim negative/tragic/evil experiences and use them to empower their lives? We do it EVERYDAY.
The purpose of the monologues is to raise awareness of both men and women that harassment, domestic violence, sexual abuse, and rape happen to most women over the course of their lives…The play is a powerful way in which this message can be spread to many.
Adam, I hope to comment about my experience as a cast member of VM soon on my blog. Thanks for the post!
Just a simple comment. I had a similar reaction to Adam–nervousness, weirdness–the first year I viewed VM. Since then I have seen it 3 more times, each around Valentines Day. I’m much more comfortable with the experience and the discussion following. In fact, some of the richness of the stories could not be communicated to me until I got past my initial uncomforable feelings. So, yes, see it once but then make it an annual event.
Hey, LoneBarista, I did know about the forum, but I was unable to attend. I was ready to raise the question I posed here. So, out of curiosity, what were the responses given at the forum?
adam, so glad you posted about this. i used to go see this every year in college… love it. love it for the mess, the humor, the questions….
i think it is a good point raised above, that these are not fictional characters, but pulled and pieced together from real people. there’s no question in my mind about the 24 yr/16 yr sexual encounter in terms of ethics, but i love the challenge it poses (and the hard-to-swallow reality) of the fact that even acts that are so blatantly wrong can somehow be redeemed… love it.
and i love the courage of Eve Ensler, to write that part of the script, to avoid the temptation of making ethics line up with reality, to show the mess as it is, not to try to clean it up to make it more acceptable to us.
So, assuming that the stories are somewhat “real”, i.e., somebody at some time experienced something somewhat like the story as written, at what point do we acknowledge that postmodernism says that there’s no such thing as an objective “real” truth to a story?
Pulled and pieced together? Please.
And in fact the very recent example of James Frey shows us that fallacy in a very real way. Where does “real” end and fiction begin? How can Eve Ensler’s stories ever be taken as literal, true or unquestioned? Tom Clancy novels are probably more true to life.
Anecdotal evidence is interesting in its way, but an absolutely horrible basis on which to base public policy.
Dave, I’m not sure it’s fair to assume that art, the Vagina Monologues in particular, asks to be the foundation on which “base public policy.” Not sure I hear anyone else on this blog saying that either. Genre, you know?
I have my ” The Good BodY” tee shirt on as I write. Love your tree…
Adam, thanks for the reflections and for posting your link on my own blog about this subject: http://mrw.typepad.com/reflections_from_the_exec/2006/02/the_church_the_.html).
Obviously we have somewhat different takes! I guess for a seminary or church’s endorsement, or just a Christian’s endorsement such as yours, I’d like to hear a bit of theological reflection, e.g. where is Jesus in this. For instance, when you mention that for the 13-year old girl, her being given alcohol and sexually engaged by a 24-year old woman “was this liberating sexual experience that caused her to fully come into herself” — I am searching for a bit of Christian reflection on what it means to be liberated or to “come into myself.” Otherwise we seem to leave Jesus behind in order to get caught up in the trendiness of promoting Eve Ensler’s vision of liberated vaginas. Help?
My point: free women from oppression, absolutely. But how do we as Christians understand this as “freedom”?
April,
Politics *is* public policy - i.e an attempt to influence the public perception of events in life and how the political system treats people.
There is absolutely no doubt that Ensler’s piece is political in nature (and would be acknowledged as such by the majority of its proponents), and thus intended to alter public perception and policy in a way favorable to her views.
With that in mind, it is vital to bear in mind that it is essentially a work of fiction, even though it may be based on stories told to her (which are unverifiably and undeniably favorable to the teller).
I’d say the nearest equivalent would be the typical TV docudrama - a story based somewhat on something that, on the surface, happened to someone, somewhere, but which has been distorted enough by the agenda of the author to become the creation of its creator rather than objective reality.
And thus postmodernism is hoist on its own petard.
Adam,
After Googling “Princeton” and “The Vagina Monologues”, I want to thank you for your comments on the production last year at the Seminary. It sounded like a very moving experience. This coming February, in 2007, I am the director of Princeton University’s production, and hope that you’ll be able to join us. It’s open to the community, and tickets go on sale Feb. 10th in person, at Frist campus center, or also online, at http://www.princeton.edu/utickets/. I know that’s a lot of info to give in an initial comment, but I’m just so encouraged by your post.
One of our main goals this year is to increase male attendance. So bring your friends!
Best,
Jean M. Beebe
Director and Producer
The Vagina Monologues
Princeton University
Feb. 15 - 17, 2007