Manparts deemed too offensive by Filament printers.

// 5 August 2009

The awesome new women’s magazine Filament, which I reviewed here, is having problems getting its latest edition printed because it features erect cocks:

Explicit images of women are available at any newsagent, but Filament, the world’s only magazine featuring male pictorials designed for the female gaze, is finding itself between a rock and a hard place when it comes to printing explicit images of men.

Filament only prints explicit images when these are of high photographic and erotic quality, and clearly designed for women – we won’t ever be putting hard cocks on every page. The problem is, all the printers that a small, independent magazine like Filament can afford have said they won’t print images of the male of the species in a state of obvious arousal. Reasons given include that printing these images may cause offence to ‘women’s groups’.

Offence to women’s groups my arse. It’s ridiculous that the erect male penis is seen as this almost mystical object that must. not. be. shown. in print or on screen. It’s perfectly normal, and it’s perfectly normal and reasonable for straight women to want to look at it. Again, it comes down to women’s bodies being associated with sex and sexualised images of women being so normalised, while men are afforded protection from the gaze and straight women are bizarrely assumed to be uninterested in looking at the object of their desires.

Filament only need to sell a few hundred more copies of their first edition to afford a new printer which will allow them to continue in their mission of elucidating the straight female gaze. If you want to help them, you can buy a copy here.

Comments From You

Jennifer Drew // Posted 5 August 2009 at 5:51 pm

Agree it is ridiculous that penises are still deemed ‘obscene’ and in need of covering up but women’s bodies including full frontal female nudity are widely available for men to consume. All one need do is enter any newsagents or supermarket and they will be assailed with images of naked women in pornographic poses and the magazines are masquerading as ‘lads mags!’

The usual excuses are used claiming it might offend women’s groups etc but reality is it is men who are afraid that images of penises might actually dispel phallocentric myths concerning male sexual organs.

Even the gigantic ‘David’ statute by Michaelangelo still elicits male feelings of embarassment and the only reason is because ‘David’ is portrayed totally naked and the penis is visible.

There is a very, very long history of how and why naked male genitalia is deemed to be ‘obscene’ and it has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s views, rather it is about men protecting their self-proclaimed right not to be reduced to women’s sexualised commodities.

Women but men are the ones who can and are reduced to dehumanised sexualised commodities. This is because we live in a phallocentric and patriarchal society.

JACKIE BATHER // Posted 5 August 2009 at 6:24 pm

To be honest,I really wouldn’t be that interested personally, in looking at pictures of erect penises..they ARE faintly ridiculous at the best of times, aren’t they ? Having said that, I would support the rights of any woman who wants to look at them, in the interests of equality.Something that I’ve just remembered…I saw a programme on telly a while ago, about censorship, presented by Joan Bakewell and it seems that erect members cannot be shown for legal reasons, on TV.It seems that naked women are fine, but not stiff willies.Does anyone know if magazines are regulated in the same way, by law ?

Kath // Posted 5 August 2009 at 7:41 pm

Tbh I’d have to say I’m glad about this. Why should anyone see sexualised images of (real) people they don’t know? Currently, women are exploited but I have no desire to turn the tables to exploit men (I’m not saying this is likely in our patriarchal society, just that any instance of objectifying is wrong). If only printers would take a stand against sexually objectifying images of women too..

SAWDUST // Posted 5 August 2009 at 9:00 pm

Thank you F-Word for letting me know about this! To show my support I have ordered a subscription :)

Laura // Posted 5 August 2009 at 9:28 pm

Kath,

I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with looking at sexualised images of people you don’t know, as long as those people have given consent and are happy for their image to be used in that way. As I said in my review of Filament, I think it’s perfectly possible to admire someone’s naked body without dehumanising them.

The men in the magazines choose to be there, they are not exploited, and they are treated as subjects rather than objects. I think this argument actually cuts in this case (where it might not when used to justify the portrayal of women in lads’ mags), as there isn’t the same pressure on men to value themselves according to their ability to sexually please the other sex and perform their sexuality by posing naked. It’s clear from the interviews with them that they genuinely want to be there, and the Filament ethos is certainly very different from that of lads’ mags.

Jack Leland // Posted 6 August 2009 at 1:10 am

“[T]here isn’t the same pressure on men to value themselves according to their ability to sexually please the other sex and perform their sexuality by posing naked”

I can’t see how this magazine would create such pressure or how, even if it did, that would be a reason not to print it.

“If only printers would take a stand against sexually objectifying images of women too….”

I think the stand is against women enjoying the sight of an erect cock. That’s just wrong.

Catherine Redfern // Posted 6 August 2009 at 9:47 am

There is certainly a difference in feminism between those who want to fight double standards by allowing women more access to the things that men take for granted, such as looking at naked women, and those who think that it is wrong whether everything is equal or not, and don’t want to subject men to it.

This isn’t just happening with erotica but with other issues too.

I don’t know whether those two positions can ever come together, as basically there are different moral views at the heart of it. But I consider both to be feminist positions and I understand where each side is coming from.

Suraya // Posted 6 August 2009 at 10:41 am

Wow – great to see this article here – thanks for your support everyone!

Jackie: I think part of what makes us consider erect penises faintly ridiculous is that they’re usually photographed in a distrespectful, gratuitous way. I so hope that we get to publish the image set we’ve got for Issue 2 and show that erections can look beautiful and erotic.

Kath: I feel it is hard to argue that Filament ‘exploits’ men. We go to a lot of effort to make sure the men are doing it for the right reasons, allow them to withdraw their consent to the images being used at any point (up until it’s printed) and have turned down some guys for whom modelling for us might make their careers difficult. Agreed that porn is often exploitative, but we are committed to making porn that isn’t. Would welcome your suggestions for how we can take this further.

Catherine Redfern // Posted 6 August 2009 at 11:09 am

The idea that erect penises are ridiculous is really interesting and I think is totally cultural.

I watched a documentary recently in which the reporter attended a Japanese Fertility Festival called Kanamara Matsuri. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanamara_Matsuri

This involves giant erect penises which are basically worshipped, paraded through the streets and thought of as granting fertility. (Totally phallocentric/male-centered idea obviously but that’s by the by for the point I’m making).

The reporter, who was British, could hardly believe what he was seeing and kept asking the person in charge of the penis shrine whether it seemed silly or ridiculous or embarrassing to them.

There was fun and laughter in the festival, but basically there didn’t seem to be any concept of the erect penis being ridiculous or embarassing at all.

Possibly because they are used to seeing the phallus in that culture they don’t consider it odd or something to laugh at. As I udnerstood it, it was basically considered sacred*. Whereas it’s so hidden in our culture, maybe it’s why we react with laughter…? I think it depends on what you’re used to in your culture.

Maybe it could be argued that there is something inherently ridiculous about it. But you could say the same thing about breasts, or other body parts, and sex itself. Growing up I sometimes felt that breasts were rather silly objects. I mean… round wobbly things growing out of your chest? What could be more silly that that?

Obviously I feel slightly differently now!

But basically I think a thing, especially the human body – can be ridiculous and silly and also beautiful and amazing, and yes, erotic, all at the same time.

(*Interesting also that something considered sacred does not mean that it should be hidden from view – in fact the opposite.)

Lara // Posted 6 August 2009 at 4:50 pm

The printed image of the male erection will no doubt make men feel inferior: is mine as big, as wide, as hairless, with as big balls, or firmer balls, or the right colour etc etc and men control the media.

What is this law that says a male erection is indecent, but a full frontal of a vagina isn’t.

Could we start a petition? I wouldn’t mind starting a facebook group?

Who knows the law / the clause?

Sandra Lavoire // Posted 6 August 2009 at 6:46 pm

Okay I’ve worked in print and still have contacts so I asked my manager, who used to do the production on a few adult magazines some years back, if there was ever any resistance within his company because of the content. Maybe things HAVE changed since than but in his case the typesetters were ALL women, and they did NOT mind the fact that women were being ‘exploited’ by the publications – they were shown the magazines when the company acquired the titles to print, and none had any objection so I’m even more questionable about this ‘womans groups’ excuse! I think it’s more to do with the men in the still very male-centric and male-dominated print and distribution (distributors, my manager informed, wield MASSIVE amounts of power, such as WH Smith’s own line) feeling a bit belittled by the move. It’s parochial, bigoted and IMHO completely wrong! Apparently ‘Filament’ initially had distribution problems because they had a guy on the cover! Romantic and erotic book publishers have now realised that having a hot guy on the front sells better – why the difference with a new woman’s magazine that dares to be different in direction, design and content, if it is dragged back to the 20th century (or even the 19th!) by a seemingly faceless bunch of arrogant idiots!? (Admittedly the cover of issue 1 didn’t quite pull that off IMHO but early days… )

For my money, I’m not one to hunt out pics of naked guys, cute or not, to ogle but every now and then – one example put on another supporting blog made me go ‘ooh!’ *blush* – but I would stand by the right for ‘Filament’ to publish and be damned, and pushing that boundary for us all!

jemma // Posted 7 August 2009 at 10:32 am

quote “[T]here isn’t the same pressure on men to value themselves according to their ability to sexually please the other sex and perform their sexuality by posing naked”

i would disagree with this to an extent. maybe the pressure is different or not as bad, but i have male friends who do say that they feel they have alot to live up to in terms of “manliness”. you only have to look at every advertisement for a razor to see that a certain level of sexiness and sexuality is expected of men too.

Laura // Posted 7 August 2009 at 10:55 am

Point taken, Jemma, but how many guys do you know who would happily pose naked for a women’s mag, and how often have you heard teenage boys say they want to be strippers? A survey a few years back found that more teenage girls aspired to be a glamour model than a doctor/lawyer etc; I doubt you’d get similar results from teenage boys, because the same pressure to be a sex object and perform your sexuality isn’t there.

My name is Jose // Posted 7 August 2009 at 2:52 pm

“There is a very, very long history of how and why naked male genitalia is deemed to be ‘obscene’ and it has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s views, rather it is about men protecting their self-proclaimed right not to be reduced to women’s sexualised commodities.”

“The printed image of the male erection will no doubt make men feel inferior: is mine as big, as wide, as hairless, with as big balls, or firmer balls, or the right colour etc etc and men control the media”

I did chuckle when I read these two comments.

You know it’s quite possible, considering that men ( on average ) watch far more pornographic films than women do ( or at least admit too ), that men have seen more depicted erect penises..and are usualy fine about seeing them!

They aren’t pixelated out, they aren’t hidden from shot and, as far as I know, don’t upset most men in the slightest. But apparently, we’ll start feeling ‘inferior’ if this magazine starts printing pictures of an erect penis!

Jackie Bather // Posted 7 August 2009 at 11:02 pm

Suraya and Catherine:I agree that the context that an erect penis is shown in, does make a considerable difference to how it may be perceived. Also, I do accept the point that there are cultural connotations to this issue.I guess that I was thinking of the lack of control men have over their erections.They tend to pop up at odd times…and this phenomenon occurs in the gender that most likes to control others, especially women.

Doreen // Posted 8 August 2009 at 12:42 am

I think there is a huge imbalance in the amount of pornographic/erotic material available for men and women. Porn for women is not mainstream..I believe “Playgirl” tried and failed..the world was just not ready for it. The closest we have got since then would seem to be ‘girls’ magazines with ‘position of the month’ etc. The media is bombarded with images of what a ‘beautiful’ woman looks like..newspapers and magazines zoom in on a tiny bit of cellulite on the arse as soon as one of these ‘beautiful’ women gets her cheeks out…the media sets the standard. Airbrushed famous faces simper at us to buy products cruelly tested on innocent animals and little girls are growing up to believe that all they want for christmas is a Lollipop head..

For gawd’s sake give us a bit o’ penis…

Laura // Posted 8 August 2009 at 1:24 pm

Suraya sent me this info on the legal status of erections in print:

Filament has, of course, sought legal advice on whether erections in print are legal or not at this point in time. Basically the score is that the legislation hasn’t changed (The Obscene Publications Act 1959 and 1964), but the interpretation appears to have. The legislation is very vague and makes context all-important, which I think is absolutely right for legislation.

The law defines obscenity and separates it from serious works of art.

The definition reads:

“[A]n article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.”

Of course, the bodies responsible (The Police, The Home Office, CPS depending) are never going to make an explicit statement on whether erections are legal or illegal.

CPS’s ‘charging practice’:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/obscene_publications/#a05

says “It is impossible to define all types of activity which are suitable for prosecution; however, the following categories are those most commonly used:” They do not list erections, although they do list bondage, which would probably surprise a lot of people.

Essentially this means it’s up to publishers like Filament to produce and distribute material to see if it gets banned, which is a bit of a scary concept when you’re a small publisher.

However, there is good cause to consider that erections, in a reasonably artistic context like Filament, are acceptable. Many mainstream bookshops stock artistic photography books that contain such images. For example, I bought the book The Romantic Male Nude by James Spada in Foyles – it was not even wrapped in plastic, and it contains several erections. In a non-art context but within clearly R18 environments (this is where the issue of being mail order rather than shop-sold for Filament may be relevant), there are free publications being distributed in gay nightclubs which contain sex worker ads which demonstrate the hardness of the goods. And of course you can buy erect penis images in gay mags in licensed sex shops – which isn’t really a useful place for Filament to be sold, because most of them don’t have a huge female foot traffic.

There is, however, still clearly a public perception that erections are illegal. For example, some comments on The Indy article about Filament which imply that erections cannot be printed, therefore Filament can’t arouse women:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/can-an-excivil-servant-finally-persuade-women-to-buy-erotica-1691814.html

which is what we’re butting up against with printers and distributors. Our printers’ response, which appeals to what other clients might think (which is bizarre because I don’t understand how their other clients could know that they print Filament) was a response to me basically saying to them “Look, I don’t believe that erections are illegal to print – get your own legal advice and find out”. It might be that they had a “Er… it’s a grey area… ” response from their legal advisers.

Also worth noting perhaps is that our printers have taken this slant on photographic images, whereas they were happy to print the illustrated erect penises in Filament Issue 1. What makes a photograph of an erect cock more objectionable than an illustration of one? Legally speaking, nothing: the Extreme Porn Laws, which of course wouldn’t apply to Filament of course, have none the less set the precident that what’s objectionable in photography is also objectionable in illustration.

Sandra Lavoire // Posted 8 August 2009 at 2:36 pm

Oh this is downright silly! If I had a mind to, I could find no end of pornographic material featuring guys erect cocks IN USE so why the hoo-hah about more tastefully arty photos in a magazine!? There are some very two-faced values going on here…

Jessica Burton // Posted 8 August 2009 at 8:00 pm

May I highly recommend the book Pornocopia” by Lawrence O’Toole

(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pornocopia-Porn-Sex-Technology-Desire/dp/1852423951/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249757000&sr=1-1)

It gives an excellent potted history/overview of obscenity law both here and in Europe, talks about that obscenity clause quoted by Suyara above (“tend to deprave and corrupt persons” is so ridiculously vague, not to mention circular, that it subject to the whim of the time), the differences between us and Europe (they made modern rules, we self-regulate out of fear) and so on.

He makes a good case for the fact that the law is in one way unworkable and draconian, but in another way technically easy to slide past, because there is no real way of proving or not proving if something “tends to deprave” a person, especially when you’re on the grey area boundary of erotica/porn.

By this definition hardcore porn is blissfully fine because, as Suraya says, it is in an appropriate context.

What I basically got from the book was that no-one gets arrested for obscenity, Brits actually hugely self-regulate (for a variety of reasons) and no-one knows where the boundary is on this vague law until someone publishes something which they thought might be near the line and surprise! no-one says anything.

Because how could they hope to successfully prosecute a case with that law? They have to prove an erect penis depraves people…. not even that, it’s a picture of a penis that depraves and corrputs people… Adult people who have subscribed!

No way. If so I am being depraved nearly every day. In real life, by a REAL WILLY.

I say go for it! Tell the printers/distributors it is NOT illegal, and get it in my mailbox.

Shan // Posted 9 August 2009 at 4:12 am

Jennifer:

“ridiculous that penises are still deemed ‘obscene’ and in need of covering up but women’s bodies including full frontal female nudity are widely available for men to consume.”

Yes quite, but there is a distinction between beaver (exposed vagina) shots and full frontal.

“why naked male genitalia is deemed to be ‘obscene’ and it has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s views” Yes I agree it’s mainly about mem mystifying and protecting themselves from being sex objects. But I don’t agree it has “nothing” to do with women’s views.

If a man exposes himself to my view I can appeal to the law to stop him. I did so do once and the police were entirely on board that his exposure was to me, a threat.

Jackie:

Absolutely agree that penises are ridiculous. In our family we refer to them affectionately as a design joke by the Goddess. A delight to touch but not made as a visual art. But then other women feel differently. As Catherine says later this can be said about breasts too.

I recently went to a naturist club because I prefer having a sauna naked. I found it uncomfortable being around men who weren’t my lovers, or close friends, or relatives, who were exposed to me at very close quarters. Frankly I found the poor bits exposed ugly, which is not at all how I feel if I have a link with the person.

Just mentioning this because I think there is a tremendous ambivalence about penises.

I will never forget exploring our feelings together in the early days of marriage (after a considerable series of lovers of both sexes in the years before). I was amazed and sad to discover how my bloke had been conditioned to think his penis was dirty and should always be hidden. Of course we healed that together. Later I taught my son to call his penis a dragon, because they fly doncha know! and they breathe (sexual) fire. This seems to have worked out well judging by his adult attitudes today.

Catherine:

I’m used to the idea of sex being sacred in my religious beliefs, which includes the phallus/ balls and vagina/ clitoris/ breasts you name it. Perhaps it seems odd because the Western idea of religion is peculiar, coming from Christianity and its guilty discontent.

There’s no contradiction for me in seeing the phallus as sweet, cute, sexy, comic, ugly, sacred, awesome, vulnerable … Religion can include ALL that if we let it.

Hmm – I once had a dialogue with a liberal Christian lady who was keen to show that Christians could also be open minded, and we agreed on the idea of divine sexuality. But I had a shrewd idea that her ideas didn’t go quite as far as mine. So when I asked gently if Jesus became her lover, or Mary became her when they came together, I was unsurprised she was shocked.

Jose:

Good point on men revealing their penis in porn videos. But I think that is not the same. In that context the penis is not the focus, it’s a kind of utensil for the male viewer to use in order to access the exposed female. The camera typically shoots so as to show as much female as possible: I haven’t seen a full central close up of the penis as you see the vagina. When they are conjoined the angle displays the vagina, and only partially the penis.

To conclude I thank you for the debate. I think there needs to be more attention to how threatening a penis, actual or image can be.

Not that they are in themselves. The masculist language about them frantically emphasise hardness until you’d think they are made of steel! when in fact they are velvety, soft, rubbery, sleek … many qualities but not ever so hard as to be metallic.

Of their own nature they do not hurt, or invade, but do get misused. The well known parallel with guns and knives is relevant here. Sad, anger making, that the great sacred pleasure giver is so distorted and abused.

The fear of the phallus is there in both women and men. Not all, and not I think as a natural phenomenon. But very much there. So to try to reveal it brings up hackles.

Paradoxically to do what Filament intends, will I think desensitise this power of fear. If the dear little thing is seen half draped in silk, snuggled against velvet, by candlelight, surrounded by flowers, swirled in long soft hair, presented in cheeky cartoons! well such images will go far to counteract the gun/ knife/ rape cult. A wonderful resurgence of hippie philosophy!

Doreen // Posted 9 August 2009 at 4:57 pm

We can watch films now (9 songs etc) that feature not only the the erect penis, but ejaculation also. Surely if this is not banned and considered obscene then a mere photo of an erect penis need not cause hysteria…it hardly as if it is pictured in “The Jackie” after all..or are adult women capable of being corrupted by such images?

Laurel Dearing // Posted 9 August 2009 at 8:55 pm

even though theres a lack of penises as something to stimulate females, i wouldnt say there i a lack of them around. i know far more guys that run around naked in public for comfort or joking purposes, or part of a game. often its to get the girls to do the same, the difference being only the way they are looked at. its odd.

Holly Combe // Posted 14 August 2009 at 6:10 pm

Just thought I’d share this quote from an article by Kristina Lloyd in yesterday’s Guardian:

“…there’s nothing inherently sexist about depicting nudity. It’s sexist when only women are deemed to signify the erotic; it’s sexist when eroticised images of women are so normalised and widespread that women stand to be viewed first and foremost as sex objects – their value inextricably linked to their sexual desirability. The sexism is in the inequality.

In challenging a culture that positions women as sex-products for men, Filament isn’t seeking to turn the tables in an act of vengeance. Instead, it’s asking for women to be acknowledged as human beings who can look and lust just as men can.

While some contend the lack of female-oriented erotica reflects a lack of demand, claiming the free market would prevail if women wanted such material, Filament’s experience of cockblocking proves otherwise…”

I think it’s spot on.

Laura // Posted 14 August 2009 at 6:17 pm

Yes, I thought that was spot on too, Holly.

Lydia // Posted 14 August 2009 at 9:49 pm

“…there’s nothing inherently sexist about depicting nudity. It’s sexist when only women are deemed to signify the erotic; it’s sexist when eroticised images of women are so normalised and widespread that women stand to be viewed first and foremost as sex objects – their value inextricably linked to their sexual desirability. The sexism is in the inequality.

In challenging a culture that positions women as sex-products for men, Filament isn’t seeking to turn the tables in an act of vengeance. Instead, it’s asking for women to be acknowledged as human beings who can look and lust just as men can.

While some contend the lack of female-oriented erotica reflects a lack of demand, claiming the free market would prevail if women wanted such material, Filament’s experience of cockblocking proves otherwise…”

This pretty much summed up what I thought. But I still felt it necessary to write my own blog post about it (http://myswimsuitissues.blogspot.com/2009/08/filament-magazine-and-female-gaze.html)

I wish I had some money so I could actually order a copy.

Sabre // Posted 15 August 2009 at 12:07 pm

I’ve just bought a copy. I think they have to sell about 50 more to reach their target (according to the website).

Perhaps if it makes money it can become more mainstream and cheaper, and more accessible. I’d like to see something like this in my newsagent. I’m surprised there’s been such a negative reaction to it, particularly when there are already magazine for gay men featuring explicit pictures of penises. The problem here isn’t about showing erections, but that it would be for WOMEN to look at. Our culture gives the impression that it’s ok for women to have a sexual appetite, but in reality it only seems ok when it involves being a sex object.

Alastair // Posted 15 August 2009 at 3:37 pm

There seems to be a recurring untested assumption in law concerning the representation of peoples’ bodies, aroused or unaroused, in terms of their potential to cause offense to the majority. Does anyone actually know whether 51% of people would be offended by sight of an erect penis or dribbling vulva? If this is not the case then all our anxieties are allayed, the printers can get on with their task of disseminating information, and people can use art/pornography to whatever ends they desire. Personally I simply came here in a little research into why peni are considered ‘obscene’ – given that I have one and find it merely a little ugly, cf the average vulva. The idea that familiarity with pudenda subverts patriarchy is a recurring finding, I’ll return and comment when I reach a definitive conclusion.

Meg // Posted 16 August 2009 at 1:37 am

“Personally I simply came here in a little research into why peni are considered ‘obscene’ – given that I have one and find it merely a little ugly, cf the average vulva.”

Just out of curiosity, do you mean the average vulva, or the average vulva in porn? B/c AFAICT, most women in porn have had labioplasties or at least look like it. It’s not really a fair thing to compare your own wiggly bits to, and I think almost anyone, male or female, using porn-star labia as a benchmark will feel pretty crap about hirself.

Alastair // Posted 23 August 2009 at 12:07 pm

i wasn’t meaning to be derogatory about either female or male genetalia, rather that I feel ‘love looks in at the eye’, and that some parts of our bodies are more attractive than others. I was not aware that ‘porn stars’ have surgery, personally, as a man, as outlined above I just don’t find the female bits a turn on. i think that stuff has to do with objectification of the human body, the basis of fetishism in the same way that some people find innanimate objects a turn on, and that real sexual attraction is an emotional-communication thing. not that getting down there is a problem to me but that I feel it ought to be considered the functional location rather than the emotional-spiritual one. if it is the functional location then lets just call our bits that and avoid getting all jane austin about it – patriarchy wants us not to look too closely and find out how similar our functions are, it wants us to treat the vagina as a posession that the penis has rights to. When you get close into the anatomy and function (see wikipedia on genitalia, very explicit – and consider geneder morphism) you start to see the distinctions melt away.

Doreen // Posted 23 August 2009 at 4:56 pm

Depends on who you are and what you need at a specific moment in time..agree with the objectification part but a huge part of human sexuality is objectification. We are merely another form of beast at the end of the day, our hormones dictate our behaviour and for some, particularly men, their sexual needs do drive them. Sometimes sexual organs seem hilarious or offensive (human vulnerability etc) at other times extremely sexually stimulating…but at the end of the day in the 21st century when gay men can access porn specifically designed for their needs why are women being denied the same right? There are porn stars who even have the anus “Tightened” due to overuse…saw it on the telly *gag*…

Shisa // Posted 24 August 2009 at 10:47 am

I’ve never understood how looking at pictures of people who have *consented* to have pictures of themselves taken hurts anyone. Indeed, the only arguments I’ve heard that try to defend such a view always come across to me as rather contrived at best, and quite detached from reality at worst. Still, with all that said, what’s the problem with hard cocks in a magazine? It’s not like we’ve never seen one before…

Carmen // Posted 26 October 2009 at 2:49 pm

I’m an American woman. There are many porn for woman sites and they are just as successful as the mens. Playgirl is a huge success on internet because women can access it in privacy. In the stores women didn’t ant men to see them purchase one which was hard because they were put with mens mags. Guys Gone Wild is a huge success now. Women demanded a male version of Girls Gone Wild. Women are as visual as men but men don’t want us to be. Keep fighting for your rights to look at nude males!

Have Your say

To comment, you must be registered with The F-Word. Not a member? Register. Already a member? Use the sign in button below

Sign in to the F-Word

Further Reading

Has The F-Word whet your appetite? Check out our Resources section, for listings of feminist blogs, campaigns, feminist networks in the UK, mailing lists, international and national websites and charities of interest.

Write for us!

Got something to say? Something to review? News to discuss? Well we want to hear from you! Click here for more info

  • The F-Word on Twitter
  • The F-Word on Facebook
  • Our XML Feeds