‘Vagina Monologues’ permissive of statutory rape
I recently attended the UA production of Eve Ensler’s “”The Vagina Monologues.”” While I was very impressed by the skill and passion exhibited onstage and grateful for the attention given to widespread acts of violence against women, I was taken aback by some of the messages portrayed in the show.
Two points in particular offended my “”feminine sensibilities.”” No. 1: Since when is it all right under any circumstances for an adult to engage in sex with a minor? Known to most of us as statutory rape, it was celebrated onstage in “”The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could.”” Somehow, the fact that the adult was a woman made it acceptable, even laudable, for her to give the girl alcohol and then “”make love to her.”” As one of the one-in-four women sexually abused or assaulted in the U.S., and particularly as a survivor of child sexual abuse, I find it intensely offensive to see such an act celebrated as a feminist expression of sexual liberation. Point No. 2: Why is it considered a step forward in women’s liberation to epitomize our ultimate focus in life as being sexual? I am not so self-righteous that I missed “”The Vagina Monologues'”” point in reclaiming and celebrating women’s right to their sexuality; however, I don’t understand why the complex issues surrounding women’s rights should be boiled down to such a minimalist point. To the contrary of “”The Vagina Monologues'”” proclamations, I am more than my vagina. Additionally, I am a woman with career aspirations (I do not expect to leave my successful career because I’ve “”discovered”” women and their beautiful sexual moans) who desires to be a mother and has concerns about health care, child care, safety and equality of opportunities for myself, my sister, mother, friends and future daughters.
While these issues are certainly not as titillating as those of a sex worker devoted to bringing women pleasure, wouldn’t they be topics to address in such a production? Isn’t the celebration of women’s sexuality a little one-sided if we remain unable to address the other challenges that continue to plague women worldwide?

Students should register as organ donors
I want to echo the words of Thomas Boyer (yesterday’s “”Liver transplant program restarted””): “”Without donors, there’s no transplantation.”” Please, take a moment to absorb that. Over 91,000 people in this country are currently on an organ transplant waiting list. The need for donors is desperate, and can be alleviated through donor registration. If you are not a registered organ and tissue donor, I encourage you to educate yourself and consider registering at www.azdonorregistry.org. The reward is the gift of life.

Students should have Presidents Day off
I can’t believe we have school on Presidents Day. We don’t have a single three-day weekend between the beginning of the year and spring break (two months with no break). Full-time students definitely need the little bit of extra time to catch up on the gradually piling workload. Also, since the flu went around, a little extra time to get better, do some reading and basically get our lives in order is a must. While spring break gives us a week off, we need time in between to stay on top of things. How can the university expect us to maintain our studies (and grades) if we don’t get a break?

Modern Republicans not the party of Lincoln
In response to the assertion that “”no Republican ever owned a slave”” made by the Republican author Michael Zak, it seems to me that if we ignore the absurd generalization of that statement and take it as fact, the statement that no liberal ever owned a slave would be just as true. The reformers in the party of Lincoln were known as radical Republicans for good reason.
They were reformers and progressives residing on the far left end of the political spectrum. The Democrats of that time period were undoubtedly the party of the majority of conservatives. To compare the staunch conservatism of the modern Republican Party to the radical progressive agenda of the founders of the Republican Party is absurd; it would be best to say liberal reformers have a rich civil rights heritage that they have not neglected even in the present day.

Flag idea impractical, but not ‘stupid’
I would like to respond to the editorial about flags in the classroom. Due to limited funds, the idea of putting a flag in every classroom may be impractical, but please describe it as such instead of “”stupidity”” and “”pursuit of the inane.””
For countless people decade after decade, both here and abroad, the American flag has represented freedom and hope. We as Americans have been given lives that have had more protection and opportunity than we would have gotten anywhere else in the world, and our flag is a symbol of that. Out of mere respect for the good fortune we have of being given such gifts, we should hold our flag in the highest of esteem, which includes being mindful of how you describe it.
We have enough people burning our beautiful flag around the world as it is … let’s not do so in our own hearts as well.

Muslims can’t force others to agree with them
I’d just like to say in regards to Nick Hormung’s letter yesterday that I agree with him 100 percent. Since Christians permit the portrayal of Jesus, obviously there’s no comparison between a blasphemous portrayal of him and any portrayal of Muhammad (peace be upon him), which is categorically forbidden in Islam. After all, Christianity is popular, which means you’re allowed to make fun if it. But Muslims are a minority in this country – and in America, being a religious minority means that your beliefs are automatically immune to criticism. And let’s all remember: Just because you’re a non-Muslim living in a democratic country doesn’t make you any less obligated to submit to Islamic law!
To my Muslim friends I say: I respect your beliefs though I may not agree with all of them, but you have no right to force them upon others. That first paragraph is what a joke looks like. Learn to take it like the rest of us – you can even make jokes of your own. Don’t worry – in America they don’t kill you for that sort of thing.

ROTC building an appropriate place to protest
Oh brother Riches, how far out art thou. ROTC has been historically targeted for protests by people opposed to war. What better place is there to get your message across but to the poor individuals who are going to sacrifice their lives for corporations and draft-dodging politicians?
As a law student, Riches should know better, especially considering the Soloman case, in which law students brought actions against their universities for violating their antidiscrimination policies by allowing ROTC and other military recruiters on campus (the military being notorious for its discrimination against gays).
The ROTC building was a fine location for a protest. Perhaps if a few more of these individuals were educated as to the policy decisions and the obvious corporate push for this war, fewer individuals would be willing to be signed up and indoctrinated, not educated.
War is an ugly thing, but its uglier when an unelected president invades a country at the behest of his oil company contributors on a mission to avenge his father’s failings while taking away troops from Afghanistan, where our real Sept. 11 enemy was hiding. This war made all Americans more at risk for terrorism. Let the people protest wherever they can.