Bel Homme XVI

Image: Subject and photographer unknown.

Rethinking the "Normal" Penis

I dare say that most males, at some point in their lives, have reflected on how 'normal' their penis is in terms of size.

Yet according to Peter Lehman and Susan Hunt in Lady Chatterley's Legacy in the Movies: Sex, Brains,and Body Guys, the need to define a normative penis is a relatively recent phenomenon. They also contend that it is "ridiculous to measure all men against one model of 'correct' . . . penis." Nevertheless, they concede that Western culture has "adopted an invisible norm against which some penises are judged small and others large."

In their book's chapter entitled "Hung Like a Horse . . . or An Acorn," Lehman and Hunt explore this "invisible norm." They do so, they say, because, "as the penis becomes more and more commonplace in movies and on television . . . it is imperative that we understand what kinds of penises are represented and in what contexts." The authors contend that: "It is also vital that we notice what kinds of penises are excluded. How do these representations of the penis contribute to our ideas about male sexuality and virility? In a world without an invisible norm, a man couldn't joke with great humor and insight that he is 'hung like an acorn.' Stripped of its comic context, the description 'hung like an acorn' applies to commonplace perfectly 'normal' men."

Following is the first of two excerpts from this particular chapter of Lehman and Hunt's Lady Chatterley's Legacy in the Movies: Sex, Brains,and Body Guys. (For a previously shared excerpt, one that explains the book's title, click here.)

_________________________________

. . . After myriad studies the statistical norm is now accepted as four inches flaccid and six inches erect, meaning that the flaccid penis hangs completely or nearly completely over the scrotum. A humorous anecdote widely circulated in the media demonstrates the excessive "need" to always see this normative penis when the penis is publicly visible or represented. An exact replica of Michelangelo's David was displayed in the Appian Way shopping area of Caesars Palace Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. The statue was temporarily removed however, when tourists regularly laughed at the smallness of David's penis, which, in fact, does not hang down far enough to cover the entire scrotum. The statue was replaced for public viewing after a couple of inches were added to the penis, thus defiling one of history's greatest artistic masterpieces.

This obsessive need to perceive the penis as impressive is a twentieth century phenomenon, and it all begins with Sigmund Freud. A widely circulated story about Freud has him remarking, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Before the twentieth century, sometimes a penis was just a penis. Since the twentieth century, however, it is never just a penis. Freud writes, for example, "little girls . . . notice the penis of a brother or playmate, strikingly visible and of large proportions, at once recognize it as the superior counterpart of their own small and inconspicuous organ" (quoted in Heath 53; emphasis added). With his notions of penis envy and castration anxiety, Freud theorizes that our formation as gendered beings all comes down to that strikingly visible organ. Girls envy it and boys fear losing it. By the latter half of the twentieth-century, not only is the penis still central to masculine identity, but the issue of specific size becomes integral as well, a phenomenon succinctly summarized by David R. Reuben in his extremely popular 1969 sex manual Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask). The first question the book poses is: "How big is the normal penis?" The answer begins, "That is the question of the century.

By the time we get to the twenty-first century, the notion of establishing a penis-size norm reaches an almost desperate level. The evidence of this curiously brings us back to Michelangelo's David. In 2005, two Italian art historians, Massimo Gulisano and Pietro Bernabei of Florence University, actually attempted to explain David's "smallness" utilizing a modern notion of scientific measurement, assuming his usual penis size demands an explanation. One of them remarked about his penis, "David is not really highly gifted, but he is totally normal. His penis measures 15 cm which, considering the height of the statue, corresponds to 6-7 cm in an adult [2.4 t0 2.8 inches]. . . . Here we have a naked man who is about to fight. He has an orthosympathic activation consistent with the combined effects of fear, tension, and aggression. A contraction of the genitals is totally normal in such conditions."

The assumption here is that David is only normal if we view his penis as being retracted owing to fear of battling the giant Goliath! In other words, in a more relaxed state he would hang further down, fulfilling our expectations for a "normal" if not "gifted" man. Without such contextualization he is indeed small. The art historians assume that the penis has always and only been perceived in terms equivalent to that of medical measurement and judged by a fixed historical norm and that a physiological response to the unusual context explains the sculpture's small penis. They do not, however, even consider as an option that there are many men whose usual flaccid size is in the two and four-tenths and two and eight-tenths range and even smaller, and that such men are perfectly "normal." What if Michelangelo's model was one such man? What if it didn't matter to Michelangelo, or what if he preferred it to the four inch flaccid norm?

NEXT: Part II

See also the previous posts:
• Soft
• Hard
• Not a Weapon or a Mere Tool
• Body and Soul

Searching the Stubble

Today, with vast areas producing a single crop and with the use of modern agricultural techniques, there is less variety of plants for hares to feed on. On some large arable farms all the crops are harvested within a matter of a few weeks. The fields suddenly become bare, resulting in vast areas being devoid of suitable food. Hares may be seen searching the stubble for spilled grain or emerging growth from weeds or germinating corn that has been left behind by the combine.

– Jill Mason

The Hare
p. 69

Image: Photographer unknown.

Bel Homme XV

Image: Subject and photographer unknown.

Hare Dancing with Moth

Image: "Dancing Hare" by jamjarart.

Ballerino

Recommended Off-site Link:
The Trouble with the Male Dancer – The Wild Reed (December 28, 2010).

Image: Subject and photographer unknown.

Mon Bel Ami

Image: The Leveret.

Hare of the Agave

The presence of hares in sacred and mythological contexts in Latin America is somewhat confusing and confused. One of the earliest interpreters of Mesoamerican culture, Bernardino de Sahagún, thought that the Mexican derived their very name from the god Mexitli or Mecitli, and that Mecitli means 'hare (citli) of the agave (metl).' Sahagún, a Franciscan missionary, arrived in Mexico less than a decade after the conquest of 1521, and it's possible that his interpretation was influenced by Christian animal symbolism. Modern scholars, at any rate, suggest as translations for Mexico 'Place of the Navel of the Moon' or 'Place of the Navel of the Agave.' Both hares and rabbits are associated with the moon in Mayan and Aztec iconography – no doubt because of the resemblance of the dark patches or maria of the moon to a lagomorph – but little clear distinction seems to have been made between the symbolic valences of the two creatures.

– Simon Carnell

Hare

p. 79

"Dreaming of Mexico and Dead Hare" by Suzy O'Mullane.

Bel Homme XIV

Image: The Leveret.

Totem Animal

Native American and Celtic shamanistic beliefs are strong on animal symbols. These symbols are referred to as "totem animals" or "power animals." You'll often hear the two referred to synonymously, but those that follow traditional Native beliefs explain that a totem animal is one that is with you for life, often an animal with whom you share a connection, either through interest in the animal or your resemblance to or shared characteristics of the animal in question. A power animal or spirit animal is a spirit in animal form that comes through with a specific lesson for you, and will change throughout the course of your life.

– Source

Hares are connected to both the earth element and to the lunar energies of the moon. The gestation period of a hare is 28 days, the same time as the moon.

Hares are quick with the ability to twist and turn. As a totem or power animal the hare teaches us to aim for our dreams and not let anything get in our path.

The hare is an independent, solitary animal that often lives alone. In modern society the loners of the world are often frowned upon, but history has proved these types of people to be invaluable and they should feel a sense of pride within themselves.

Unlike rabbits, hares cannot be tamed (although there is a domesticated rabbit which has the name hare, but is in fact a rabbit). They have a wild nature to them. They are the totem of people who like to run free.

Hares have been associated with magic and the ability to walk between worlds and connect to the other world. The hare is a totem of mystery and misunderstanding.

The hare is often seen as a trickster and to many people the trickster is seen as a negative trait. The trickster though may simply do things different to the norm. They may be the individual who stands out from the crowd and does things their way. The trickster is the one who will break rules and rebel; they are the sort of people that can create great changes within society. As with all attitude, the clue is how you use your power – the trickster archetypal can be cunning or foolish. They can be a power for good or a symbol of disruption. Tricksters often have two spirits that they present to the world. [They] can also be the hero. . . .

– Samantha Grayson

Image 1: "Cape Hare as Totem" by Moonvoice.
Image 2: "Hare Totem" by Christina Sargent.
Image 3: "Star Gazing Hare" by Anita Inverarity.

Morning Light XLV

Image: The Leveret.

Running Hare VIII

Image: “March Hare” by Anthony Vanderzweep.