P.I.S.P.A.*
by Jerden Purmort
WARNING:
The following pages contain small,
black-and-white images of the male reproductive organ.
For the sake of modesty,
the images have been censored.
Still, sensitive citizens may be offended
and should seek their click kicks elsewhere.
One of the oddities of this allegedly post-patriarchal society is a bi-partite, perhaps hypocritical attitude toward genitalia. The fixation on certain secondary sexual characteristics (read: breasts) persists and is still widespread. Just as persistent is the still-widespread revulsion toward public display of the male organ. Because of extensive exposure to the whole range of female mammary development, we all carry about with us built-in responses to breast-shape and breast size. We associate a certain kind of person with a certain kind of breast. We easily assume that she will dress in a certain way, talk in a certain way, have certain views of the major issues facing the world today, and so on. Which is not to say that those assumptions are necessarily correct. They are merely the inevitable result of extensive social-- and other types of-- intercourse. Upper torso stereotyping, in other words. To lapse into a different jargon: breasts function as sometimes useful, sometimes entertaining social signifiers. But what of the penis? Hidden away, smoothed over by cleverly marketed tight-fitting undergarments, its very existence is wrapped in concealment. One might almost conclude that we inhabit a civilization in heavy phallic denial. Only in lockerrooms, doctors' examining offices, funeral home prep facilities, and the rare nudist colony does the penis flop free, so to speak. Are we not missing something here? Is it not possible that the male organ could be as rich a source of additional social inference and information as the mammary organs? No doubt about. Though the task before us is immense, and expanding daily, we now propose to make a beginning, no matter how small in this long-neglected area of male epidermal semiotics. On the following pages you will find a series of small, extremely NON-prurient photographs of a variety of male organs. To these photos we have appended notes on signification, trying in each case to answer the question: What does the type of organ reveal about the bearer of the organ? In the interest of scientific rigidity and hard objectification, we have attempted to take into account pertinent aspects of each organ. Size, of course (which does matter, but in this context, it matters only through what it reveals), girth, overall shape, degree of wrinkling, angle of dangle, and so on. While the quantity of our research is pitifully small when compared with the amount of exposure we all have to human mammaries, we feel that the quality of our conclusions, interpretations, and extrapolations will meet the test of time when, in the future, investigations on a far larger scale are at last undertaken. We have in fact succeeded in reducing the male half of humanity to precisely seven phallic types. All we can say is that our research confirmed what women have long maintained, namely that in every way that counts "they" all look pretty much the same. As with wines, only the connoisseur can perceive and properly evaluate the differences. *The Purmort Identification System of Phallic Analysis.
|
| We
love to get mail from our readers. |
