The Penis Poster That Rubbed People the Wrong Way (2018)

Not to mention that the exact opposite is true. Nude men in statues and paintings often have penises with pubic hair, while women have no pubic hair and no genitalia at all.

> I don't know what it is with a certain class of people who need to explain everything in reference to straight men.

> these same people would explain that due to straight men: "Because heterosexual men have penises, representations of penises are celebrated and glorified..."

You are setting up a bit of a weak man fallacy by presenting it this way without evidence, but I imagine there probably is cognitive dissonance around this (and other topics about men).

Partly, I think it's because there are no groups that represent or advocate for men. This hypothetical group, in the current cultural climate, could be hijacked by bad actors or other identity groups, or it could result in an even more monolithic or myopic view of men than exists in pop culture today. Such a group would need to be prepared to deal with these issues without being exclusionary, divisive, or dehumanizing. I think this challenging and would take all the right people to organize such a group.

Identity based groups tend to project a monolithic image of people that is inaccurate. For instance, if you browse the internet long enough you'll probably develop a fairly myopic view that lends towards some -isms that certain groups have, however, if you talk to people in different cultural regions you'll likely discover that what large groups represent is largely in-contest.

Edit: the earlier version of this comment confusingly stated that there's "good reasons" that these groups don't exist.

So much bullshit. Penises are literally the favorite thing of many men across human history to draw, in all shapes and sizes, any preferably the most public location. It was even a plot point of a major movie a few years ago.

My issue with this is the assumption that women want longer lengths.

Maybe that was the driving force in the 1980s when this piece was published and debated, where women were communicating with a smaller group of women about sexual pleasure and optimizations.

But this seems very inaccurate and tone deaf to read now.

I don't know how many times I've come across articles like this where the subject is an image or a video or some other media and yet the article doesn't actually contain it. This one is like an extreme version of that where they have quite a few nice illustrations... but not the actual poster.

Incredibly the image at the top of the article is a low-quality drawing of the poster itself in a picture frame. I thought it was just a cartoonish outline of the concept but its almost as detailed as the original..

Honestly, we have nothing to be insecure about. Those other ones may be longer, but the proportions are just wrong.

Penii if you’re a person of culture. (Well it ends in “us” in my language)

And even in our “progressive” tech bubble it’s taboo. Male nipples are a-okay on social media while female nipples violate community standards on most of the major platforms.

Why?

Where's the boundary between "such taboos" and taboos which are actually supposed to be enforced?

What’s so special about the 21st century that “wed be long past such taboos”?

I mean taboos have been around for thousands of years, new ones are created, old ones die. Why do you think the end game is “no taboos”?

"Words by Colin Dickey"

The title made me wonder which Hacker News poster it was about, and hope it wasn't me.

I submitted the article headline verbatim, but the word "Penis" was auto filtered in the title by HN.

That’s not what the article says, and they seem to have done their research. Do you have a citation?