Moral censorship is concerned more with whatever is related to social consensus regarding respectability, decency, human body and sexual moralities, among many others. Can theatre performances meet the standards of moral censorship? O’Leary answers: "As with political censorship, there is a mistaken belief that…the theatre can be cleansed of obscenity, immorality, indecency and vulgarity, then the pretence that these do not exist in society can also be upheld" (O’Leary 2016, 12). O’Leary’s definition of moral censorship justifies the grounds upon which the two versions of Ensler’s play were rejected by the Egyptian and Moroccan societies, namely the clash between raunchy and respectable content. In Egypt, strict rules were issued to con trol artistic productions. According to Selaiha (2013), these rules include the banning of the naked human body and the omission of sexual scenes or physical and verbal expressions that are indecent or against public taste. Selaiha adds that social censorship is more powerful than governmental censorship because political systems change, but social codes remain.
By the same token, in Morocco, during the period from 1960 to 1990, which is known as "The Years of Lead", moral censorship has been out of the question. There was no freedom of expression, much less artistic freedom. Many female prisoners in Morocco such as Widad Bouab, Latifa Jbaddi and Fatna ElBouih express how they are accused, arrested, punished and even kidnapped for only asking for their rights. Fatna El Bouih recalls: "We were condemned before we were even judged; we were already considered guilty. It was not for what I did but for what I wrote: I threw tracts, but I never threw bombs" (xii). In her performance of Moulat Sser, Fatima Chebchoub speaks about such sexual topics as prostitution, masturbation, rape and the female body. Chebchoub and her team are socially condemned, "because the freedom they display through dancing or acting is at odds with the social ideal of the modest, shy woman, and it is assumed their body movements reflect a moral ‘looseness’" (Jay 2016, 555).
Regarding religious censorship, there are only two scenes that must be totally deleted from Bussy Monologues. The first is the scene of the marriage between the sister and her own brother because it goes against the religious instructions of Islam. Besides, performing such a scene is legally forbidden according to Law 220, a 1976 code which requires the omission of any scene if it is "Uncovering in a revealing way that embarrasses the viewers and contradicts the customs and traditions of society" (Al-Ghannam 2009, 10). Even if incest is sometimes practised in Egypt within only poor ignorant members of the Egyptian society, it must not be told on the stage. Incest itself is a religiously forbidden crime that cannot be overcome by getting the accused married, which is another religious crime. A brother can never marry his sister even if incest occurs. The Holy Quran reads: "Prohibited for you (for marriage) are your mothers, daughters, sisters" (Ali 2020, verse 23). Psychologically, this kind of incest happens inside poor families composed of multiple members where there is no safe personal space. This is exactly what the maid reports during Bussy Shaw: "We are a poor family; the ten of us live inside one room. So, it is better for her to get married to her brother than being pregnant from any of her uncles" (Shabayek 2013).
The second scene in Bussy monologues that should be deleted is the scene of the young man who tells about sexual harassment in public transportation. The young gentleman declares that he purposefully gets on the bus twice a week to seek sexual relief since he could not marry. The scene is deemed offensive for three reasons. First, it stereotypes, time and again, the idea that women are to be blamed for sexual indiscretions because they encourage harassment by tempting young men through tight, exciting clothes. Second, the scene illustrates some women as no longer massive victims, but initiators, of harassment. The young man reflects: "They are the real experts. They move their bodies with you and rub up against you". Thirdly, it justifies harassment on financial grounds, by alluding that it might be a temporary substitute for marriage: “I only make 400 pounds. I cannot get married, not even after ten years, with a salary like that. What do you expect me to do? What! Am I going t reproduce on my own?” (Shabayek, 2013)
This behaviour contradicts Islamic instructions. The Prophet of Islam said: "Oh young people! Whoever among you can marry, should marry because it helps him lower his gaze and guard his modesty [i.e., his private parts from committing illegal sexual intercourse, etc.], and whoever is not able to marry, should fast, as fasting diminishes his sexual power" (al-Almany 2009, 1133)). Besides, such allusions are strictly condemned in Egypt. Penal Code, Article 269 states that any verbal/nonverbal signs indicating or encouraging sexuality are criminalised (Mahmoud 2015).