I was rather taken back by Katie Wilcox's letter "Silence 'Monologues;' keep indecency out" (SN 2/24). "The Vagina Monologues" does deal with female sexuality but does not seem to be creating any problems.

Black's Law Dictionary defines pornography as "material depicting sexual activity or erotic behavior in a way that is designed to arouse sexual excitement." The objective of the play is to explore feminine sexuality, so naturally there will be allusions to sex and reproductive organs, but just because it uses terms such as vagina does not make it pornographic or obscene.

In fact, it doesn't seem that the play is intending in any way to be sexually arousing or could be taken to be sexually arousing.

I also do not agree with the characterization that the play is disruptive or that it degrades the learning environment on campus.

I have seen flyers around campus and in East Lansing for the play but have not seen any public outcry about the play. Indeed, college students have heard words like vagina and penis before and are more likely to look at language referring to genitalia in a mature manner than high school students.

This mature look at sexuality with an open mind seems to be the whole point of the play; thus college students are an excellent audience for the content.

As a male, I was also rather incensed by the comment that this is "an opportunity to glorify social deviancy and promote sexual perversion while assaulting and condemning men."

As I previously indicated, the content of the play might deal with female sexuality, but that does not mean that it is necessarily anti-male. Women's empowerment does not equal man hating or the condemnation of men.

Furthermore, whether one agrees or disagrees with the content in the play, it is intended to take on serious issues and give a message against violence toward women.

The cast was made up of MSU students who certainly would argue that there is merit in the play or they would not have performed it. The university also gave its seal of approval for the play to be performed. It is highly unlikely that it would have done so if the commentary in the monologues were derogatory to any part of the student body or was merely made to be vulgar or obscene.

Not liking speech or disagreeing with its content is not a good reason to silence it.

John Bergman
Third-year law student