B.P.A.

(Big Penis Art)
This post grossed me out. I blame Mr Neasley.

I was asked a while back if I’d share my thoughts regarding photographs of magnified male genitals, which often appear on Deviant Art, Photosig and other similar forums. Now I’ve been putting off writing about this for ages, partly because I’ve realised that I don’t much like these photos either.

The question is why? I believe in wide comfort zones, I approve of tolerance and recognition for all types of art, plus I’m a heterosexual female for heaven’s sake. I’m a big fan of good male nude photography, and I simply adore the male member, so why on earth do I dislike looking at extreme-close-up penis shots?

Personal thoughts as follows (please feel free to disagree):

1. It goes against our taboos. Western societies are all about equality between the sexes. The erect penis is a symbol of domination, of overpowering of the woman, and is therefore unacceptable under modern moral code. And At least that’s what I’ve read, but I suspect many of you may know more about the social anthropology of this than I do. (And yes, this theory may be a load of bollocks - sorry, couldn‘t resist.)

The Cerne Abbas Giant, UK, believed to date from the 2nd Century, depicting Hercules.

2. In ancient history, and nowadays in some tribal societies, the penis was worshipped and depicted in art as normal and acceptable. However, in many Western countries (including the UK) it is illegal to show any image of the front of a naked man. If I showed an actual photograph here of an erect penis, I’d have the police on my doorstep within 24 hours, I guarantee it. Society’s hang-ups have now become the viewers’ hang-ups over time. I even have difficulties finding Mapplethorpe’s penis shots via Google.

Last week when we visited the Photographer’s Gallery in London, we visited their famous bookshop. I did look for Mapplethorpe’s work there (purely in the interests of research you understand. I don’t roam London looking for mighty wongas, sorry to say.) Sure enough I found his book, on the top shelf of the bookshop, about 10 feet up, too high for even Rich to reach, and it was monitored by a lone security camera pointing at the book. No kidding. It would take someone with balls of steel to pluck up the courage to browse that book, and I refrained from asking the tiny grey-haired little old lady manning the shop to climb up and pass me the porn. It wasn’t exactly being marketed as a warm and fuzzy reading experience, if you know what I mean.

3. It’s all in the lighting and composition. Big penis shots can be art too, but the photographer has to be talented enough to portray them artistically. There’s no eroticism in a clinically shot close-up photograph of genitals - where‘s the mood and the turn-on in that?

I do think that such close-up graphic shots are very difficult to do well, and only a few succeed. There’s Mapplethorpe of course, and Andreas H. Bitesnich has shot some absolutely magnificent erect male nude shots which are clearly art, and quite beautiful because they are well lit and composed. On the other hand, badly exposed snapshots of someone’s boyfriend’s penis, touted as “photography” really makes my blood boil. I guess this is a typically snobby reaction on my part against bad photography, and has nothing to do with the subject matter. Let’s face it, a talented photographer can make anything look good, even a pair of hairy balls.

4. Floppy winkies are icky. I’m sorry, but “yuk.” If you’re going to shoot big penis art, please please shave your balls and shoot a boner. Make it big, make it proud. Make it a potent symbol of your manhood. Big glistening slongs are magnificent, an example of man at his most primitive, sexual and potent. Combine this with good lighting and composition, and you will have mighty powerful art.

5. Most people are not used to looking at Big Penis Art, so it is outside their personal comfort zones.

When I first saw Hotel Room Nudes a couple of years ago now, and viewed Don’s close-up female bum-hole shots (as I call them) I was completely repulsed. It took a year of regular exposure for me to accept them, and even now I have to remind myself occasionally that they can be art, albeit not necessarily to my taste.
Homophobia on my part? Yes, almost certainly. I do think biological conditioning has a lot to answer for. Extreme close-ups of any woman’s genitals (including mine) can be a bit of a reach for most heterosexual women, entirely understandably too.

As for me, over the last couple of years, since I’ve become interested in nude photography, I’ve come across thousands and thousands of photographs of women’s genitals, and I’ve taught myself to recognise them as art. Self education? Brainwashing? Either way, if you actually looked at photographs of men’s genitals every single day, my guess is you’d get used to them and accept them as normal everyday viewing, pretty darn quickly.

IMO, there’s no difference between acceptance of male or female genitals as art. The same argument applies to both. You too can teach yourself to expand your comfort zone as I’ve done. You can learn to accept that which you find distasteful as normal. You can even recognise it as art and learn to like it. I guess the question is: do you want to?



This is not me! (Hurrah!) But is it "dodgy porn?"
Hmm...once upon a time I would have thought so...