If I thought the artwork could possibly be offensive, I never would have showed it to my 13-year-old son. He didn't know what the big deal was. Apparently, the only ones who could find this beautiful piece of artwork even remotely offensive are folks who have an idea of what a vagina looks like and are uncomfortable at the sight of one. It's these people who most need to see the show.

The newspaper's refusal to run the ad is exactly what the Vagina Monologues is all about.

At the Seattle Times, the vagina is apparently so taboo that an abstract artistic representation of it is considered unsuitable for publication. Isn't this precisely the mindset that the play challenges?

So, just because your 13-year-old son hasn't seen a spread open vagina with an engourged clit yet, the artwork is perfectly fine? How about a large, erect penis with pre-cum dripping down the side? That's OK, too? Oh, wait, if not, you must hurry to see "The Penis Monologues!" How trite and dimwitted...

Uhm, Yeah - you sound really outraged. What, did mommy take your sucker away too early? Get rejected by the little red-haired girl back in Grade 1? Have more than your share of humiliating, failed sexual encounters? All of the above? There's got to be a reason you would think there was something wrong with that poster.

Oh, I see: I have issues because I won't let my notions of proper societal norms be dictated by the experiences of a 13-year-old child? Really, Mrs. Robinson?

Uhm, you didn't answer if it was also OK for a poster to feature an erect penis...certainly you must have seen one up close or at least in a picture...

What's so dangerous about a penis or a vagina, engorged or otherwise? I personally see nothing wrong with posters of either. But then, I'm not particularly repressed, nor fearful of sex.

Anyway, penii are not the issue here. A stylized vagina, rather nicely designed, is. I can't think of anyone who would be damaged by seeing it. Can you? How would they be damaged?

"Proper societal norms" is precisely the problem that Ms. Ensler's brilliant scripts want to bring to our attention for the purpose of changing the kind of attitude so robotically expressed above by Mr. Yeah. Go see the show, sir. Confront your anachronistic hang-ups.

"you didn't answer if it was also OK for a poster to feature an erect penis": We see those all day, every day. Buildings, cucumbers near kumquats, rockets, Hummers. The image of the penis is extensively portrayed in all its many stylized forms all over. That's why a vagina is so challenging.

You see a penis in a kumquat. Really?

OK, I've seen the play. I get it. And I love vaginas! I'm in one almost every day!

What I don't get is why anyone would argue that a poster of an spread vagina with an engorged clit is OK simply because a 13-year-old was too inexperienced to "get it."

And you can deflect from my original question, but I persist: Would you also support a similar poster featuring an engorged, dripping penis? If so, then I buy your stance. Now, please address it...

"Um yeah"...
The first poster didn't say the 13 year-old didn't know what it was, the comment was "He didn't know what the big deal was". Big difference there.

There's also a difference between a tasteful child-appropriate work of art that expresses our sexuality and the beauty of our bodies, and "a large, erect penis with pre-cum dripping down the side", which is a graphic sexual image.

If you would kindly draw your attention to page A4 of the Times, bottom left-hand corner, you'd see a scantily-clad couple engaged in an embrace that imples sexual intercourse is occuring under the word "sex" in large bold print. You would also see the words "sex for life". This is an ad for a male erectile dysfunction clinic.

I find it unbelievable that as a society we would censor the most tasteful female-positive images of fertility, life-giving empowerment, and body image, yet feel comfortable using images of a sexual nature to promote sexual health for men.

Can you address that?

I'd be happy to: I am not comfortable with those images, used in those ways, either.

However, the story was about whether The Times thought the vagina graphic was too graphic. And I disagreed with the 13 year old (you seem to have an insight here...I am still not convinced he has enough experience to discuss this intelligently with Mom) and sided with The Times.

I am not pushing other graphic images, either. That was my rather non-subtle point, I think.

If you feel so closed down by society and your life experiences that you need to be uplifted by a poorly designed vagina image, then so be it. I prefer something a little more sophisticated. Others' tastes seem to coincide with that of a 13-year-old boy.

Just for fun, I Googled images for "The Vagina Monologues" just to see how others had illustrated the play as it has been done everywhere and been illustrated countless times. Many, many images of women and illustrations of the "V" being used in creative ways. Very classy images and very professionally done in terms of fonts and images.

No other one I saw was illustrated in such an amateurish manner.

The Times has a right to publish whatever it thinks is most appropriate and we all get to debate the merits. That's what this exchange is all about.

The artwork was inspired by the monologue line, "I stood and her vagina suddenly became a wide red pulsing heart". As a retired nurse who has attended many childbirths, I find the image
and the body part beautiful. Over the years I have illustrated for many individuals and groups, and this is the first time I have been called (to my knowledge) an amateur. Thanks for the opoportunity to be a 'visual voice'.

I agree that I have seen this play advertised in a much more tastefull manner. So you feel my attitude is repressed, so what. I feel my kids are exposed everyday to way to many graphic, tasteless images of the human body. But I will take them to an art museum to see tastefull works of art that apreciate the human form. But this poster is gross, it make me think of a woman during that time of the month in full flow. It does not make me love my vagina. Yuck. Be honest this poster does not belong in a newspaper let alone a temple.

I'm quite fond of the female clitoris, labia, pubic hair:
the whole shebang. But I don't need to see (even somewhat abstract) images of these in my daily newspaper.
That's why God made "Hustler."

Artist,

I think the visualization of a vagina as a heart, the core of our being, the life-source, is a fitting analogy.

I thank you for your wonderful work.

Only whiners are offended by cartoon cunts. Grow up you sensitive little pansies.

I agree with the Times on this one. It's the difference between Playboy and Hustler. This is spread-eagle beagle; I wouldn't want to see an oozing, festering asshole in a Preparation H ad. The ad could have got the message across in a less in-your-face way.

Until I was 15, I grew up in Seattle and I remember happening upon a girl (16 or 17 years old) smoking crack when I was 12 and offering it to me, remember being mugged by someone on my 15th D-Day while a whole crowd of people stood around watching, remember seeing a woman dragged off a bus by her hair, a mentally ill woman squatting in the corner of the Bon Marche pulling up her one-piece and peeing there on the street and some other really crazy stuff I won't even go into.

I know Seattle is demented but it is surprising to me that anyone calling themselves "Jewish" or a Rabbi could be so far from G_D in their heart and mind that they don't see a problem with this filth being spread from what is supposed to be a place honoring the Holy One.

O' wicked~ do not be surprised when judgement comes upon you.

DRS

There is a time & place for everything. Why should people (& their children) be exposed, against their will, in a public, mainstream media publication to material they consider obscene?

The agenda of the 'lost liberals' who support this
ad believe we should live in an 'anything goes' society - no limits. Why not show individuals engaged in sex in newspaper ads? Why not show individuals engaged in sex with children, animals? By the same reasoning you justify this ad, the same reasoning could be applied to my questions above, i.e., "I like it". "I see nothing wrong with it" "I think it is natural & beautiful", "Those against it just have hangups & thbey are the one's with the problem", etc.

The Suprme Court defines the issue as 'community standards'. The liberals who support this ad want no community standards - just a no-rules, anything goes society. Society will eventually be destroyed from the inside out if they get their way.

I commend the paper for taking a stand against the ad.

RE: "...this is the first time I have been called (to my knowledge) an amateur."

The Artist: I am sorry if this is the first time, but if you do a Google image search for the play, you'll see far more professional examples of illustrations.

Perhaps, as a former nurse, your artistic approach was a tad more clinical (although this is clearly a spread open vagina with a nicely engorged clitoris) than the subject matter required.

I just think that much of the blather I see here represents "Power to the Matriarchy!" and not a real evaluation of the original debate offered above.

Should the engorged genitalia of either set of sexual organs serve as an acceptable advertisement to be published in newspapers and posted in churches?

Clearly, the answer is no.

i don't know how many vaginas you have seen "uhm, yeah" but i would like to point out that this clitoris really doesn't seem "engorged" pre se. it could be that it just is there, and that with itself seems to be offensive to some, sad given the phallic representations we see daily, as already noted earlier.

when you see a clitoris, try to not push your overly sexualized thoughts onto it. just let it be what it is, a body part, as you noted, you see on a regular basis.

Perhaps we could enlist Rush to test out Uhm, Yeah's theory. Would the Seattle Weekly run an ad for the band's upcoming "Snakes and Arrows" tour featuring an array of penises, from the long and limp to the straight and narrow? Methinks not.

It looks like that one's had a couple kids. Scratch and Sniff is the only way to know if the swellin' ain't gellin'.

Nicely engorged clitoris? That little circle at the way top? Dear me. You people need to do some more research...
I especially note the comparison to an anus, dripping excrement. What a shockingly potent metaphor for misogyny. It makes me so sad that the portal through which we emerge into life could ever be viewed this way. Do you feel that you are a piece of trash, sir??

To me, the "sex for life" ads are pathetic & crude. Yet somehow they are more appropriate than a red heart, with abstract labia and a teeny circle for a clitoris? As for calling Daya's artwork amateurish, we will have to agree to disagree, politely! Everyone has their own idea of art, hence the many varied portrayals in museums and art galleries around the world.
As for comparisons to Hustler...sigh... I hope none of you are raising children.
Another point: The money raised by the performance is going to victims of violence, women & girls, all over the world. Perhaps critics need to attend, if only to hear about the Bosnian woman's brutal gang rape that left a chunk of her labia torn off. That might explain to them the pride & appreciation felt in this Vagina Monologues community about the lovely image in the ad - a whole, big, vagina-heart.

The 13-year-old got it. Unlike you, he saw the image as something that is a normal part of real life rather than something pornographic. And, by the way, art is in the eye of the beholder. You looked at that drawing and interpreted the inclusion of the clitoris in a way that suggests sexual climax. I see it much differently. To me, it looks as if the artist made sure the clitoris is visible because she considers it to be an important component of womanhood. Notice, too, that the vagina figure is shown within a heart shape. The heart has often been used to symbolize emotion in general, love in particular, as well as pride and courage. Juxtaposing the vagina, complete with clitoris, and the heart represents female identity, strength, and spirit.

If you think that is pornographic, please stay away from women. You say you've been "in" many vaginas. If you had aimed much higher — for hearts and minds — maybe you would "get it."

And yes, I'd rather let a 13-year-old see a dripping erect penis than a village being napalmed.

I think the discussion here is enough to justify the Times' decision: Obviously a reasonable portion of their readership would find this offensive.

It doesn't matter what the Times executives themselves think; they obviously have a good reading of the public.

I really love the way Artist puts it. And the fact that it is hanging in temples seems ok to me. Women in the bible/torah are respected because they have the power to bring life into thi world(amoung other things too). And we wouldn't be able to do this without vaginas. And tha part about the penis makes no since whatsoever. If it was presented in such a harmless way as this then yeah it wouldn't matter. And to the part about the 13 year-old boy, most of my guyfriends wouldn't see anything wrong with it. I am a 14 year old girl just to let you know.

Now we know expressly what is meant by Yeshua, when he says "they claim to be Jews, but are of the synagogue of Satan".

As a member of the cast of this performance, I could not be more proud of this show, this artwork, and this community of women that I get to stand on stage with.
I was shocked and dissapointed to hear that the Times would not publish the ad; a move that I see as the long living legacy of institutionalized sexism. I understand cultural and community norms, and respect the fact that the Times has the right to print what they want, but you can't tell me that the artwork is any more graphic or suggestive than a majority of what we see in popular everyday print media, commercials and billboards.
I will not get in a pissing match about what a 13-year-old does or does not know about vaginas, or whether or not hanging this poster in a temple should require that someone revoke their Jewish identity, but instead praise the inspired and innovative work of Eve Ensler and the campaign that her work supports. Women and children continue to experience physical and sexual violence every day and while we may disagree on what is appropriate for publishing, we should not be at odds over the mission to end this continued violation and victimization. And really, if you want to know what all of the controversy is about, come see me and my castmates on the 24th. Pussys Unite!!!

"Synagogue of Satan"? Wow.
And "Yeshua" preached against Jews, did he, although he was one? I don't think so.
So you think calling Jewish people devils is really going to add anything of value to this discussion? Keep your anti-semitism to yourself, RJ.

PS: No real Christian would ever say such a thing.

Sex and the uncleanness of women's sex organs seems to have quite an emotional hold on Ashkenazi women and men.

Eve Ensler and Woody Allen are opposite sides of the coin. Woody fears the giant killer Jewish breasts floating across the landscape in his movie "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex" squirting him with milk, Eve Ensler has her "pussy-in-your-face" compulsion, and Annie Sprinkle (Ellen Steinberg) with her mirror, speculum and on-stage pussy inspections.

Many of us gentiles who share the United States and its public spaces with the Ashkenazim, do not have the same obsessions and therefore are more than a bit disconcerted when yet another "cure" for what seems to be a peculiarly Jewish sexual obsession is foisted on us (and our children) in our newspapers.

Most gentile men I know enjoy the mystery of Woman. We love the gradual revealing of her heart and her body with us by exquisite degrees as we get closer and closer to each other. We do not fear women's organs or consider them filthy ot contaminating. We revel in them. We really do not need the sexual "deprogramming" that Eve Ensler and Annie Sprinkle provide.

But this really shouldn't be that surprising. Not being Eastern European and Oriental like the Ashkenazim, we don't have the eon-long shtetl-Jewish fear of being contaminated or controlled by women.

Unlike thousands of Jewish rabbis today, it has never been a duty of our Christian ministers to inspect Christian women's kotex and tampons for the absence of menstrual flow before husbands and wives are permitted to touch each other ... every month.

Our ministers do not get special religious training to determine when women are unclean and therefore untouchable even by their husbands.

I don't mean to be insensitive. I can understand how a thousand years of that sort of religious and cultural obsession could leave Jewish women emotionally scarred even two generations after they have left the shtetls of Europe and moved to a more civilized country like America. I know that Muslim peasant women are grappling with the same issues here in the USA.

But really, you must understand that as you work out your religious issues with women and uncleanness, you don't have to do it in a public space we both share. For you, vaginas-in-your-face are liberating. For us they destroy the mystery.

May I suggest a compromise? I would think it would be enough to emblazon your temples and yeshivas with vaginas and clitorises, or even better to make your young rabbis watch the show, or even bettr still, demand that they stop teaching the uncleanness of women to Jewish men across the world.

Rather than trying to place an ad in the Seattle Times, you might be more effective in changing shtetl atitudes by placing a full page ad in the Jewish Forward.

Good luck!

Wow - the power of fear is amazing. In a few short paragraphs the topic of how to "appropriately perceive" a cartoon image suggesting a female body part most of us have passed through in order to experience the miracle of life has moved quickly from sexism to racism.

This "dialogue" only provides evidence for the need for more performances of the VAGINA monologue. The societal norm of the vagina as a taboo image and subject is about the distribution of POWER in male and female relations. Keep it hidden from public view, and you keep a source of feminine energy - LIFE energy -from empowering women and sensitizing men, which impoverishes us all.

The vagina is a singular, irreducible physical mark of difference. Luce Irigaray has argued sexism is the ultimate form of racism. This taboo supports an imbalance in power - women and men are not given equal consideration - politically, socially, economically, physically, etc. when it comes to this mark of difference. While it is the ultimate mark of difference and otherness, the vagina is NOT singular in cultural meaning. We each bring our own perceptions to it.

In Playboy or Hustler the power of the vagina is usually put into the service of men's pleasure first and foremost. Sometimes the imagery in these magazines may include the woman's pleasure as well. Where it does it is considered erotic (both parties get to have fun and pleasure). Where it does not give equal display to the woman's enjoyment and pleasure, it is pornographic. The latter imagery is about dominance - a power structure that is not a relationship between equals. Just like the act of rape, imagery that is not balanced is simply about a power trip - the power to dominate, restrict, coerce, etc.

In the poster advertising the play, the stylized form is surrounded by a rather large heart - which clearly indicates the artist's intention towards an expression of love. In the creation of any artistic expression, "it takes two, baby, it takes two, baby - me and you" to make meaning. So, we have artist, and we have audience. I get the artist's meaning as do a few others posting here. There is more space given over to the heart than there is to the stylized vagina and clitoris. For this reason, it is clear the artist wants the vagina included in love, and notions of love and loving. For those who see it otherwise, it is about you and your perception, not the artist's intention. The image, taken as a WHOLE, (not a hole) is balanced in favor of love.

The vagina is both a space for receiving the complimentary, male physical means to create human life (the penis) and the channel or passage through which human life is made possible through birth. The uterus is even more powerful -here is the space where each of us, as humans, have fully experienced at/one/ment (read: ATONEMENT)- that is to say being one with another - where two bodies are one body. Even with all our technological advances in fertility, none of us come into existence without these experiences and physical facts.

Thank you to Glenn for taking note of the dominant, pornographic imagery of the phallus that litters our culture and does far more damage to young people and our religious and cultural future than the poster.

Billy, if you really believe images have the power to shape culture and people's actions, educate yourself on the power (and limits) of images. Take an art history class and get on board with Glenn. If you consider yourself a Christian, remember you are not permitted to judge, only discern, and discernment requires a lot of education. If you are unable to do that, may you find peace from your fears and hatred and work on your faith. Remember that first and foremost, Christians are asked by God and Jesus to LOVE -period. (no pun intended.)

Natural herbal health care medicines, Articles, informations and daily updated health concerns issues and their solutions for better health and better life. www.naturalherbalz.com

I am glad to post my views and points in this blog, but I must say that webmaster of this blog has done a very great job to make his blog more informative and more discussable but unfortunately everything is same here that more than 80% in this and other blogs post their comments for making spam!!!, so i will really all this spam links to google band tool, because webmaster makes blogs for making discuss and for sloving each other problems.
thanks
http://www.naturalherbalproduct.com

Penis enlargement products at guaranteed cheap price!

penis enlargement pills, penis enlargement patches, penis enlargement devices, penis enlargement exercises, penis enlargement gel, and penis enlargement treatments with FDA approroved guaranteed. www.gordoniihoodia.net

Penis enlargement treatments, solutions and natural herbal medicines to enlarge your penis naturally like 2-3 inches gain in penis size without any hesitation, worries and side effects for making your life more pleasureable and excited. www.penissizeenlargement.net