Culture of the Phallus

This thread begins with an idea that Dunamis brought up here which this thread will attempt to investigate a little further.

The idea starts: the phallus is a male clitoris.

Biology does lend support to this idea: Sexual Differentation

from healthyplace.com/communities … _page2.htm

from salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/sexdiff.htm

Yet far beyond the biology of the matter is the what culture teaches us. So what does culture teach us? One of this things is does not teach us is to consider the phallus as a male version of the clitoris.

We could ponder for a moment about the hedonistic focus on individual pleasure that is part of our culture. Perhaps that has something to do with our conception of the phallus as something different from a male clitoris.

from arhp.org/healthcareproviders … hanges.cfm

Biology here points to the clitoris as more sensitive than the phallus. Yet still the comparrison seems odd. There is something altogehter alien to thinking of the the phallus as a male clitoris. So beyond its hedonistic function what does the phallus mean?

The phallus is symbolic of masculinity, and masculinity is short-hand for a kind of dominating-power. The kind of power expressed succinctly in the word, “fuck.” This of the idea of “getting fucked” always implies an act of dominance. That phallus is here a weapon. Not a powerful weapon with that one can use to attack another other in strength, but a weak weapon, used to attack only the very weak or extremely vulnerable.

This is the Culture of the Phallus, a divided world separated into the fuckees and the fuckers. A competitive culture of antagonistic hierarchies and “dick-sizing contests.”

Against this backdrop the idea of the male clitoris seems bizarre. A woman can never literally be a fucker, she can only be a fuckee.

That is my current perspective, what’s your take?

The clitoris is a lot like the penis and even looks like it if you draw back the foreskin, but it’s not the penis. It bears a resemblance to it and that’s about it. The penis changes into something that has a lot more internal structure and it has several different functions. All of this means that it has to “work” and do things. If it is working then it acts as a projecting delivery system for procreative material. It also feels good, and you can eliminate waste out of it.

It’s the Swiss Army clit.

That makes it no clit at all.

There is no man-clit just as there is no girl-cock.

Fun post though.

Xander,

The clitoris is a lot like the penis and even looks like it if you draw back the foreskin, but it’s not the penis.

It can’t be “the penis” because only the Man has the Penis (Really the phallus). All hell breaks loose, if you loose track of this ”fact”.

It bears a resemblance to it and that’s about it.

Yes. We mustn’t confuse resemblance with “essence”.

The penis changes into something that has a lot more internal structure and it has several different functions.

Just like men, who transform themselves into “functioning”, “internal structure” types. The types that get things done, and don’t go around simply feeling things passively.

All of this means that it has to “work” and do things.

Like a real Man, this little Man knows how to put his hard hat on and get down to work.

If it is working then it acts as a projecting delivery system for procreative material.

Like a real Man, it delivers the entire package. It does not fail.

It also feels good, and you can eliminate waste out of it.

Incidentally, it might if a bit weak, feel a thing or two, but this has absolutely no bearing on its primary function, to MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. And yes there is waste. This can’t be helped.

This is how a real Man thinks about his man-clit.

Dunamis

this thread is far too naughty for me…

I real man realizes that there is no man-clit.

Adl.

I real man [intermediary caveman talk] realizes that there is no man-clit.

Yes, you real man. Sheer fear in loosing what you don’t have I suppose. :slight_smile:

Dunamis

It sure looks like a small penis head, or rather a penis head looks like a really big clit. I can move mine up and down like a tiny penis…it’s kinda cool.
I think they are much better than penises sexually. You could have back-to-back multiple clitoral orgasms all day if you wanted.

Plus, we don’t get it caught in zippers, we don’t have to “adjust” it in our clothes,and we can be sexually excited without worrying about “pitching a tent”. Everything tucked away neatly and safely. :slight_smile:

Having a clit is a great alternative to having a penis.

Meanwhile, one should stick to the quality stuff if one is not good at insults, as one is much better at that.

:laughing:

Regarding the theme of this thread, it is ultimately not coherent, in my view, to conclude that the penis is somehow ‘ultimately’, ‘essentially’, or ‘originally’ an outgrowth of the clitoris. The idea seems to be that the male is somehow an aberration of the female, which represents the original essence of the ‘pure human’. You will notice, perhaps, that I am (mis-)using the above anti-essentialist polemic in order to flesh out the other side of the coin which Dunamis seems to have left unturned.

As I’m sure he is aware, this kind of thing…;

…can be applied both ways, unless we wish to draw some kind of “factual” distinction after all. (i.e. that the male ‘grows out of’ the female)

The original dichotomy, then, is problematized from both directions; ‘put under erasure’, if you will; which I suppose is what makes the recourse to biology desirable in the first place. (Though the validity of this recourse remains beyond my ability to judge - not because of the ‘validity of biology’, whatever that might mean, but because of the questionable validity of transposing categorical - and at least partially sociological - dichotomies, such as ‘male/female’, into biological research.)

Let’s have a look though at what is said in one of your quotes;

This says that at some point, x, the genitalia of the male and female are identical. This identity is characterised by the fact that both what we later delineate as ‘male’ and ‘female’ together resemble, in a kind of ‘pre-natal’ way, the physical appearance of the latter in its completed development.

Hence we end up with something like this;

Stage 1. x (initial stage - both male and female are x)
S2a. X (the later female - resembles the initial stage)
S2b. Y (the later male - a ‘lesser’ resemblance)

What someone might interpret this quote to mean, perhaps, is that the relative ‘self-sameness’ of the pre-sexual genitalia between x and a latter point, X, which we call ‘female’, implies that the female is merely what ‘eventuates’ when this pre-sexual genitalia is not ‘disfigured’, ‘coloured’, ‘blemished’, ‘changed’* etc by the ‘addition’ of androgen dihydrotestosterone - i.e. by the ‘intrusion’ of an ‘alien’ element to distort the ‘nature’ teleology of the system, which then creates the ‘travesty’ which is the male of the species.

[size=75]*Note that the choice of words reflects differing viewpoints.[/size]

I want in the above to highlight what I believe to be the teleological presuppositions which sometimes surface in these kinds of discourses on the ‘nature of the sexes’.

(The way we describe the process by which the male genitalia develops is important.)

If we imagine that the androgen dihydrotestosterone is in some sense a ‘foreign intrusion’ to a system - a ‘divergence’ from a predefined ‘natural development’ - under this teleological view, it is very easy to conclude in the ‘aberrancy’ of the male ‘in general’; perhaps we might even link this to some quasi-sexist drivel about the ‘redundancy’ of the male in future societies. We would though be working within similar paradigms and dichotomies as in the past when the male and female were considered to be almost different species.

There is something fishy about this account, at least as far as I can see. The manner of its description speaks particularly strongly to me at these points…;

Which is precisely why, then, I would appreciate possible arguments for establishing a measure for qualifying the significance or ‘meaning’ of this physical change in appearance between the two developments;

x —to— X

and

x —to— Y

Or else, alternatively, a better argument for reducing this ‘meaning’.

Regards,

James

p.s. I have also deliberately left out all talk of the ‘sociology of sex’, and of the validity of searching for socio-sexual categories on levels, and in discourses, where perhaps it makes no sense to do so.

p.p.s the green text represent additions from editing.

They are initially identical in their indeterminacy.

Maybe I should say “they be initially identical in their indeterminacy,” but that would be as funny since it’s not a typo.

PDF: medhelp.org/www/ais/PDFs/psy … -Aug04.pdf

HTML: 64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ep … pdf+&hl=en

Read “Thinking with the phallus” by Iain Morland – particularly where it gets to Lacan’s thoughts…

James,

Or else, alternatively, a better argument for reducing this ‘meaning’.

Exaptation.

Dunamis

How do you think this would reduce the meaning, rather than (say) invert it?

James

Some people have too much time on their hands.

James,

How do you think this would reduce the meaning, rather than (say) invert it?

It does neither. It simply grounds it. The purpose of Xander’s text, at least the use of it here, it seems is to unground the seemingly profound physiological differences between the penis (phallus candidate) and the clitoris. It is not like comparing a footstool to a hanging light fixture. They are the same body part divergent. The polemical choice of the word “man-clit” is only to counter the semantic overdetermination of language and culture. There is a man-clit and a woman-clit. There are no essences, so even these descriptions are only functionals. If you want to go further on the nature of the cultural exaptation of this biological exaptation, we can (but you may have to dip into your Lacan).

Dunamis

Lacan huh? Hmm… I will pencil him in for 2009 (my next opening). :slight_smile:

James

Dunamis wrote:

Great, great line.

Anyway, our brains are our largest sexual organ. It is important to keep in mind that the brain plays a larger part in female sexual pleasure than does the clitoris. One thing tho’ – it is a fact that women always know where to find a penis, but why is it that men have a helluva time finding that elusive clitoris. Sometimes it is just easier to just find your own. :confused: Penis envy? Must be hell. God, I would hate having everyone know every time I am aroused.

Just a little aside.

Bessy,

If one watches porn then one knows where to find the clit, what it should look like, taste like, smells like, and how depilated it show be. It’s very educational really.

As yet another aside:

Try clicking on the google ads at the bottom. There’s one called Vaginal Hymen that if you click on it will send you to a plastic surgeon that will restore your hymen! Now that is an example of denial if I ever saw one.

Then, there is one for Vaginal Odor that if you click on the click will begin a loud personal testimonial from a sufferer. Being at work, I’m glad for a private office.

Love those google adds.

Ad wrote:

I didn’t realize that smell-a-vision and taste-a-vision were invented. hmmmm. Very interesting. :wink:

They will tell you about it and then you can experience it vicariously! It’s great.

It someone exclaims, “this smells like home cookin,” then I know what they mean.