Monologues are art, not pornography

Having read the enlightened opinions of Messrs. Hegseth and Feeney ("Vaginas Around Campus, Whether You Like It Or Not," Feb. 7, 2002) in Thursday's editorial — about the advertisements for "The Vagina Monologues," such as, "It's 10 p.m.; do you know where your clitoris is?" — I now know that I no longer have to worry about whether the Republican party will have a shortage of bigots and misogynists among their ranks in the years to come. Among the litany of ignorant, insensitive, ill-informed and arrogant statements contained in their editorial, a few stand out.

Number One:

"No one on this campus seems to be in any way shocked by the words written on those signs." Of course not. If the gentlemen representing the Tory would quit their self-appointed moral pedestal and take a look around, perhaps they'd realize that we no longer live in Puritan England but in a world where sex is not taboo and where women have the right to a voice with which to express their opinions. Did Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Feeney fail to notice that when the same play was featured each of the three years they've been students here at Princeton, using similar advertising techniques? Have neither ever heard the word "cunt," or used it themselves, or heard or used other "vulgar" words?

Number Two:

"[We] applaud those who have . . . put the production together, even if the explosively vulgar and abrasive nature of its content may not appeal to a majority of . . . students." Has either gentleman seen the play before? Do all conservatives, or only Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Feeney, share with Jesse Helms and Rudy Giuliani the inability to distinguish between art and life? Are they all unaware that art, as in this case, not only reflects but positively influences life? Are they so blind to reality as to not realize that "pornography" (their term) like "The Vagina Monologues" has been invaluable towards the promotion of awareness of women's issues over the past decade? Surely these gentlemen aren't opposed to supporting victims of domestic violence.

Number Three:

"[The signs] force those who have no desire to experience the perverse nature of TVM to do just that, and in doing so, commit a serious wrong." Are we really supposed to take seriously the argument that our personal freedoms are being impinged upon by 8" x 11" paper signs and chalk marks on a sidewalk? Moreover, the parodic signs that the Tory has posted around campus — with the expectation that "a likely response will be disgust, and, in fact, it should be" — are indeed disgusting, but not, by any means, because they contain the words "cock" and "penis." They are disgusting because they are the humorless product of prejudice and ignorance, and not statements of social concern. If the members of the Tory staff don't want to see the play, then they shouldn't go. There are plenty of students on this campus with a legitimate interest in legitimate art — and who know the difference between art and pornography — who would have been happy to occupy the seats that Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Feeney wasted last night. Unless, miraculously, they approached the play with their minds open. Who knows what then might have happened? Perhaps they even could have learned where the clitoris is. Dan Wachtell is a philosophy major from Rye, NY. He can be reached at watchtell@princeton.edu.