High School play depicts rape, filthy acts, language and public urination

turzovka

Gold Member
Nov 20, 2012
5,195
1,039
265
(Bold Italics are excerpts taken from the article)

Carnegie Vanguard High School’s one act play had a little something for everyone: depictions of male-on-male rape, male-on-female rape, filthy language, on-stage urination, and an actress who simulated wiping her private parts at center stage. Oh yes, there was also a scene where a male cast member turned his back to the audience and dropped his pants, as fellow cast members deliver dialogue about the size of his appendage.
[Don’t you just love how avant garde “art” edifies our culture?]

The parent told me he confronted Carnegie’s principal immediately after the performance – but his concerns were dismissed. “At first, he said, ‘well ,you know, everyone has a different tolerance level,’” the parent said. “I told him, ‘No, sir. You cannot possibly tell me that it’s appropriate for any audience for a young lady to portray wiping her vagina after having sex behind a prop on stage.’”
[Is this principal a pervert?]

The district released a statement defending the theatrical production – noting they are “extremely proud” and they stand by the students “100 percent.”
[ Extremely proud? Now maybe you liberals can better understand why we deplore our educators who are so hung up on nothing but sexual liberty and choice, and gay is beautiful, and embrace the transgender movement, and watch this graphic video how to have sex, and we can get you a secret free abortion, and grab a bunch of condoms on your way out of class --- all the while castigating Christian thought and its morals.]

“People were disgusted and there was complete shock at what they had just seen,” he told me. “Elementary-aged children were exposed to this show.”
[“Yes, so? You want us educators to leave it to clueless parents how to expose them to safe sex and all that?”]

(One mother of a cast member student defended it asking ) “Isn’t theater supposed to challenge people?” she opined.
[Challenge? You mean like watching a student piss into a bucket on stage? The godless in this nation are blind and the Christians like me are cowards or maybe just giving up.]

An (approving) Houston Chronicle columnist described the show as “psychologically intense, an exploration of subjects such as violence, sex and race.”
[Boy if there is anything we can say our high schools now excel in it is the exploration of violence, sex and race. These educators need to be shot.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
School play depicts rape, filthy language and public urination | Fox News

High School play depicts rape, filthy language and public urination

Carnegie Vanguard High School’s one act play had a little something for everyone: depictions of male-on-male rape, male-on-female rape, filthy language, on-stage urination, and an actress who simulated wiping her private parts at center stage. Oh yes, there was also a scene where a male cast member turned his back to the audience and dropped his pants, as fellow cast members deliver dialogue about the size of his appendage.

The Houston high school’s racy production of “Holy Day” has generated great angst among the good church-going people of the Lone Star State. “Hello Dolly” it is not.

A Houston Chronicle columnist described the show as “psychologically intense, an exploration of subjects such as violence, sex and race.”

Carnegie’s eyebrow-raising show recently advanced in the Texas One-Act Play Contest – leading to a number of complaints – mostly from the parents of teen actors at competing schools.

“I was completely flabbergasted at the content,” one parent who saw the production told me.

One enraged father who attended the April 23 Region III-6A play competition filed a formal complaint with the Houston Independent School District.

“I was deeply offended by the obscene and inappropriate content,” the parent wrote – demanding the school be disqualified from the competition.

I spoke at length with the father, a former public school educator for 18 years. He asked that I not disclose his name – fearing it might cause trouble for his children.

His son was also competing in the one-act play competition – representing a different school. He said many people were shocked by what they saw during Carnegie’s performance.

“People were disgusted and there was complete shock at what they had just seen,” he told me. “Elementary-aged children were exposed to this show.”

The parent told me he confronted Carnegie’s principal immediately after the performance – but his concerns were dismissed.

“At first, he said, ‘well ,you know, everyone has a different tolerance level,’” the parent said. “I told him, ‘No, sir. You cannot possibly tell me that it’s appropriate for any audience for a young lady to portray wiping her vagina after having sex behind a prop on stage.’”

The University Interscholastic League told me they are “aware of some concerns” and are investigating the content of Carnegie’s play.

“UIL is making every effort to follow up with members of the public that have expressed concerns,” a spokesman wrote in a statement. “The administration of the producing school shall assure that the director complies with these requirements and that the play does not offend the moral standards of the community.”

Apparently the moral standards within the Houston Independent School District are not all that high.

“Such obscene and offensive language and content has no place in any high school in the state of Texas,” the concerned parent wrote in his complaint.

The district released a statement defending the theatrical production – noting they are “extremely proud” and they stand by the students “100 percent.”

“The script has been thoughtfully modified to be appropriate for a broad, young-adult audience,” the district’s statement read. “Carnegie students have treated the script’s mature subject matter with admirable sensitivity, skill and professionalism.”

I suppose it does take a bit of skill to pee in a bucket during a live stage performance.

Perhaps the Tony Awards should consider adding a new category: “Best On Stage Depiction of Bodily Functions.”

Carnegie parents are defending the profanity-laced production. One parent convinced the Houston Chronicle to publish a column titled, “How Edgy Should High-School Theater Be?”

“The last time I saw it, some of the audience was in tears. Others walked out. Still others sat silently in their seats, stunned by the journey they had been on,” wrote Alice Savage, the mother of one of the cast members.

“Isn’t theater supposed to challenge people?” she opined.

Well, sure. But can’t they challenge us without dropping their pants and urinating into a bucket?

Critics want the show disqualified – but I sincerely doubt the powers-that-be will oblige. And I have no doubt the school’s production could possibly win first prize.

“If they do, it will not be due to their ability to shock and offend, but to move audiences with a distinctly human story,” Ms. Savage wrote.

A distinctly human story, I might add, that would be best-suited for a seedy adult bookstore – rather than a high school theatrical competition.
 
Last edited:
When people abandon God, there are swift and certain consequences, including the scandalization of children. Matthew 18:6.
 
‘Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is "God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values."’

One person’s subjective, errant opinion, no more or less valid than any other person’s subjective opinion – particularly a conservative who contrives and attempts to propagate ridiculous lies about an ‘attack’ on ‘traditional values,’ when in fact no such ‘attack’ is taking place.

And the thread premise is yet another example of the fear most on the right have for dissent and differing opinions and points of view, how most conservatives focus only on the superficial and fail to understand the message being expressed, conservatives blind to that message by their unwarranted ‘outrage.’

Free expression is often times uncomfortable and controversial, that’s what gives it its worth and value in our free and democratic society; pity that most on the right fail to understand that free expression – even when perceived to be ‘offensive’ – is also a traditional value, a value most on the right see fit to attack.
 
When people abandon God, there are swift and certain consequences, including the scandalization of children. Matthew 18:6.
Nonsense.

This fails as a non sequitur fallacy.

No one is ‘abandoning’ anything by engaging in, or showing respect for, free expression – regardless how ‘offensive’ that expression might be perceived.
 
And the thread premise is yet another example of the fear most on the right have for dissent and differing opinions and points of view, how most conservatives focus only on the superficial and fail to understand the message being expressed, conservatives blind to that message by their unwarranted ‘outrage.’

Free expression is often times uncomfortable and controversial, that’s what gives it its worth and value in our free and democratic society; pity that most on the right fail to understand that free expression – even when perceived to be ‘offensive’ – is also a traditional value, a value most on the right see fit to attack.
“Free expression” and “difference of opinion” --- these are the moral standards some loons on the left stand by to defend scandal to children and sexual deviancy in schools. Shall we give them a ‘B+’ for being creative in their defense, or an “A’ for courage in the face of an angry God? I recommend they see an eye doctor to try to cure their blindness.
 
Last edited:
Do you know what "non sequitur fallacy" means?

According to this website:

Non Sequitur

A non sequitur fallacy takes the following form:

Claim A is made.

Evidence is presented for Claim A.

Therefore, claim C is true.

Example #1:

People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea!

Explanation: As cool as the idea of sand floors might sound, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fact that people generally like to walk on sand does not mean that they want sand in their homes, just like because people generally like to swim, they shouldn’t flood their houses.

Example #2:

Buddy Burger has the greatest food in town. Buddy Burger was voted #1 by the local paper. Therefore, Phil, the owner of Buddy Burger, should run for President of the United States.

Explanation: I bet Phil makes one heck of a burger, but it does not follow that he should be President.

Exception: There really is no exceptions to this rule. Any good argument must have a conclusion that follows from the premises.

Tip: One of the best ways to expose non sequiturs is by constructing a valid analogy that exposes the absurdity in the argument.

Variations: There are many forms of non sequiturs including argument by scenario, where an irrelevant scenario is given in an attempt to support the conclusion. Other forms use different rhetorical devices that are irrelevant to the conclusion.

False or questionable premises could be seen as errors in facts, but they can also lead to the conclusion not following, so just keep that in mind, as well.


Please explain how what I said is a "non sequitur fallacy."
 
When people abandon God, there are swift and certain consequences, including the scandalization of children. Matthew 18:6.
Hmm. History would disagree with you.
What history? Where? Give specifics.
Specifics? About the "swift and certain consequences" of abandoning God? I don't think that's possible. Define "swift and certain" and tell us what kind of "consequences" you're talking about. And then I'll do my best to answer your question.
 
Before we leap here to religious prescriptions for "fixing this" -- why don't we acknowledge that the play "Holy Day" is a legitimate theatre production with a powerful message.

Holy Day, Sydney Theatre Company - smh.com.au

That leaves the question of "age appropriateness" and whether attendees should have been warned about content so as not bring younger kids..

I haven't read the script -- but it APPEARS to be available on line (at least in excerpts) so I cannot judge the context of a guy dropping his trousers and folks making comments about his junk.. Do we know what the comments are?

High School kids are beyond PG -- PG13/14 -- and onto R.. They can handle "subtle" adult content. But I imagine there SHOULD have a been a warning about content and parents should have been all signed on to their kid's participation..
 
Before we leap here to religious prescriptions for "fixing this" -- why don't we acknowledge that the play "Holy Day" is a legitimate theatre production with a powerful message.

Holy Day, Sydney Theatre Company - smh.com.au

That leaves the question of "age appropriateness" and whether attendees should have been warned about content so as not bring younger kids..

I haven't read the script -- but it APPEARS to be available on line (at least in excerpts) so I cannot judge the context of a guy dropping his trousers and folks making comments about his junk.. Do we know what the comments are?

High School kids are beyond PG -- PG13/14 -- and onto R.. They can handle "subtle" adult content. But I imagine there SHOULD have a been a warning about content and parents should have been all signed on to their kid's participation..

Apparently, the complaints are not coming from the parents of the kids in the play, or even the parents at the school where they go.

The play has won competitions, and advanced to regional levels - and that's where the complaints are coming from - the parents of schools they're competing against.
 
Before we leap here to religious prescriptions for "fixing this" -- why don't we acknowledge that the play "Holy Day" is a legitimate theatre production with a powerful message.

Holy Day, Sydney Theatre Company - smh.com.au

That leaves the question of "age appropriateness" and whether attendees should have been warned about content so as not bring younger kids..

I haven't read the script -- but it APPEARS to be available on line (at least in excerpts) so I cannot judge the context of a guy dropping his trousers and folks making comments about his junk.. Do we know what the comments are?

High School kids are beyond PG -- PG13/14 -- and onto R.. They can handle "subtle" adult content. But I imagine there SHOULD have a been a warning about content and parents should have been all signed on to their kid's participation..

Apparently, the complaints are not coming from the parents of the kids in the play, or even the parents at the school where they go.

The play has won competitions, and advanced to regional levels - and that's where the complaints are coming from - the parents of schools they're competing against.

Yeah -- I guess if you chose Oklahoma and you're losing big time -- it would look awfully bawdy...

:biggrin: Personally -- "edgy" has a very high bar for me.. It's gotta be real.. And NOT just salacious or raw..
 
Do you know what "non sequitur fallacy" means?

According to this website:

Non Sequitur

A non sequitur fallacy takes the following form:

Claim A is made.

Evidence is presented for Claim A.

Therefore, claim C is true.

Example #1:

People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea!

Explanation: As cool as the idea of sand floors might sound, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fact that people generally like to walk on sand does not mean that they want sand in their homes, just like because people generally like to swim, they shouldn’t flood their houses.

Example #2:

Buddy Burger has the greatest food in town. Buddy Burger was voted #1 by the local paper. Therefore, Phil, the owner of Buddy Burger, should run for President of the United States.

Explanation: I bet Phil makes one heck of a burger, but it does not follow that he should be President.

Exception: There really is no exceptions to this rule. Any good argument must have a conclusion that follows from the premises.

Tip: One of the best ways to expose non sequiturs is by constructing a valid analogy that exposes the absurdity in the argument.

Variations: There are many forms of non sequiturs including argument by scenario, where an irrelevant scenario is given in an attempt to support the conclusion. Other forms use different rhetorical devices that are irrelevant to the conclusion.

False or questionable premises could be seen as errors in facts, but they can also lead to the conclusion not following, so just keep that in mind, as well.


Please explain how what I said is a "non sequitur fallacy."
You trying to ejumakate a libtard? That is itself a fallacy!

:D
 
Before we leap here to religious prescriptions for "fixing this" -- why don't we acknowledge that the play "Holy Day" is a legitimate theatre production with a powerful message.

Holy Day, Sydney Theatre Company - smh.com.au

That leaves the question of "age appropriateness" and whether attendees should have been warned about content so as not bring younger kids..

I haven't read the script -- but it APPEARS to be available on line (at least in excerpts) so I cannot judge the context of a guy dropping his trousers and folks making comments about his junk.. Do we know what the comments are?

High School kids are beyond PG -- PG13/14 -- and onto R.. They can handle "subtle" adult content. But I imagine there SHOULD have a been a warning about content and parents should have been all signed on to their kid's participation..

Apparently, the complaints are not coming from the parents of the kids in the play, or even the parents at the school where they go.

The play has won competitions, and advanced to regional levels - and that's where the complaints are coming from - the parents of schools they're competing against.

Are you truly that amoral and tone deaf?
 
It's an award winning play, and this high school's performance of it is apparently very good.

An award from degenerates does nothing more than confirm itis a degenerate play.

You seem to think that kids engaging in such raw sexual display bordering onpornography is a good thing.

You dont teach high school drama, do you?
 
(Bold Italics are excerpts taken from the article)

Carnegie Vanguard High School’s one act play had a little something for everyone: depictions of male-on-male rape, male-on-female rape, filthy language, on-stage urination, and an actress who simulated wiping her private parts at center stage. Oh yes, there was also a scene where a male cast member turned his back to the audience and dropped his pants, as fellow cast members deliver dialogue about the size of his appendage.
[Don’t you just love how avant garde “art” edifies our culture?]

The parent told me he confronted Carnegie’s principal immediately after the performance – but his concerns were dismissed. “At first, he said, ‘well ,you know, everyone has a different tolerance level,’” the parent said. “I told him, ‘No, sir. You cannot possibly tell me that it’s appropriate for any audience for a young lady to portray wiping her vagina after having sex behind a prop on stage.’”
[Is this principal a pervert?]

The district released a statement defending the theatrical production – noting they are “extremely proud” and they stand by the students “100 percent.”
[ Extremely proud? Now maybe you liberals can better understand why we deplore our educators who are so hung up on nothing but sexual liberty and choice, and gay is beautiful, and embrace the transgender movement, and watch this graphic video how to have sex, and we can get you a secret free abortion, and grab a bunch of condoms on your way out of class --- all the while castigating Christian thought and its morals.]

“People were disgusted and there was complete shock at what they had just seen,” he told me. “Elementary-aged children were exposed to this show.”
[“Yes, so? You want us educators to leave it to clueless parents how to expose them to safe sex and all that?”]

(One mother of a cast member student defended it asking ) “Isn’t theater supposed to challenge people?” she opined.
[Challenge? You mean like watching a student piss into a bucket on stage? The godless in this nation are blind and the Christians like me are cowards or maybe just giving up.]

An (approving) Houston Chronicle columnist described the show as “psychologically intense, an exploration of subjects such as violence, sex and race.”
[Boy if there is anything we can say our high schools now excel in it is the exploration of violence, sex and race. These educators need to be shot.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
School play depicts rape, filthy language and public urination | Fox News

High School play depicts rape, filthy language and public urination

Carnegie Vanguard High School’s one act play had a little something for everyone: depictions of male-on-male rape, male-on-female rape, filthy language, on-stage urination, and an actress who simulated wiping her private parts at center stage. Oh yes, there was also a scene where a male cast member turned his back to the audience and dropped his pants, as fellow cast members deliver dialogue about the size of his appendage.

The Houston high school’s racy production of “Holy Day” has generated great angst among the good church-going people of the Lone Star State. “Hello Dolly” it is not.

A Houston Chronicle columnist described the show as “psychologically intense, an exploration of subjects such as violence, sex and race.”

Carnegie’s eyebrow-raising show recently advanced in the Texas One-Act Play Contest – leading to a number of complaints – mostly from the parents of teen actors at competing schools.

“I was completely flabbergasted at the content,” one parent who saw the production told me.

One enraged father who attended the April 23 Region III-6A play competition filed a formal complaint with the Houston Independent School District.

“I was deeply offended by the obscene and inappropriate content,” the parent wrote – demanding the school be disqualified from the competition.

I spoke at length with the father, a former public school educator for 18 years. He asked that I not disclose his name – fearing it might cause trouble for his children.

His son was also competing in the one-act play competition – representing a different school. He said many people were shocked by what they saw during Carnegie’s performance.

“People were disgusted and there was complete shock at what they had just seen,” he told me. “Elementary-aged children were exposed to this show.”

The parent told me he confronted Carnegie’s principal immediately after the performance – but his concerns were dismissed.

“At first, he said, ‘well ,you know, everyone has a different tolerance level,’” the parent said. “I told him, ‘No, sir. You cannot possibly tell me that it’s appropriate for any audience for a young lady to portray wiping her vagina after having sex behind a prop on stage.’”

The University Interscholastic League told me they are “aware of some concerns” and are investigating the content of Carnegie’s play.

“UIL is making every effort to follow up with members of the public that have expressed concerns,” a spokesman wrote in a statement. “The administration of the producing school shall assure that the director complies with these requirements and that the play does not offend the moral standards of the community.”

Apparently the moral standards within the Houston Independent School District are not all that high.

“Such obscene and offensive language and content has no place in any high school in the state of Texas,” the concerned parent wrote in his complaint.

The district released a statement defending the theatrical production – noting they are “extremely proud” and they stand by the students “100 percent.”

“The script has been thoughtfully modified to be appropriate for a broad, young-adult audience,” the district’s statement read. “Carnegie students have treated the script’s mature subject matter with admirable sensitivity, skill and professionalism.”

I suppose it does take a bit of skill to pee in a bucket during a live stage performance.

Perhaps the Tony Awards should consider adding a new category: “Best On Stage Depiction of Bodily Functions.”

Carnegie parents are defending the profanity-laced production. One parent convinced the Houston Chronicle to publish a column titled, “How Edgy Should High-School Theater Be?”

“The last time I saw it, some of the audience was in tears. Others walked out. Still others sat silently in their seats, stunned by the journey they had been on,” wrote Alice Savage, the mother of one of the cast members.

“Isn’t theater supposed to challenge people?” she opined.

Well, sure. But can’t they challenge us without dropping their pants and urinating into a bucket?

Critics want the show disqualified – but I sincerely doubt the powers-that-be will oblige. And I have no doubt the school’s production could possibly win first prize.

“If they do, it will not be due to their ability to shock and offend, but to move audiences with a distinctly human story,” Ms. Savage wrote.

A distinctly human story, I might add, that would be best-suited for a seedy adult bookstore – rather than a high school theatrical competition.
The content of the play seems to be about real life. Good art has always depicted, examined, and analyzed society, the realities we all live with. The OP article that is used wants to suppress real life. That's not what art is about.
 
For example, in the late 1800s, the play A Doll's House, by Henrik Ibsen, shocked the Western World.

"A Doll’s House, by Norweigen playwright Henrik Ibsen, is a dramatic criticism of 19th century gender norms, which emphasized a woman’s obedience to her husband."

Copies of the play sold out very quickly, and when it was produced on stage, Europeans were shocked. Germany forced Ibsen to rewrite the ending (for productions in Germany) because they found it so offensive.

However, the play had an impact on our culture and helped lead to more progressive ideas about gender roles. The things our conservatives criticize conservative Muslims for, though they did once, no longer exist in Western society. Thanks to art, whch challeges cultural norms, our society progresses and evolves into something better than it was.

High school kids are aware of, and sometime affected by, the type of thing that seems to go on in that play. We shouldn't try to suppress cutting edge art.
 

Forum List

Back
Top