This is satire... Writing seriously something like that would show supreme lack of awareness about the way female human brains work on average. It's just to exaggerate the way men sometimes write women (I have no idea if this is even a thing nowadays). Perhaps from now on in every thread where people ask "how should I write my female character?" instead of the standard "just write them as people" we should reply "just make sure they don't think about their boobs too much, and you're good to go." Having said that, men, if you feel like you shouldn't write a female character who admires her body, banish the thought. We do. At least I do. So if it feels like the kind of thing that'd fit the character's personality, go for it, just be aware we usually aren't that obsessed over dem boobs
But then you aren't working in a job where your economic success depends on men noticing your boobs (or other provocative areas). I'm certainly not saying that its okay to write every female character from a "hey boobies" perspective, but if the character concerned is say a hooker or a pole dancer or similar, her "physical attributes" could be plot important, and her dress would be intentionally provocative to the male gaze. Sex workers don't generally dress like nuns (you have to pay extra for that ) Likewise if she's meeting a lover it would be plausible that a certain sort of woman might choose a thin shirt/no bra and intentional knowing that her nipples would be prominently displayed. Just as its plausible that a certain sort of guy might chose a tight tee, or a pair of trousers that show a genital bulge, or which show off his ass or whatever. Of course not every woman (or man) would choose to dress like that or have that mind set but that's not to say no one does.
Mmm.... See - and to try to swing all this jocularity back to writing - I would argue that the he felt should go. It's filtering and it's happening at a moment where it shouldn't. The proto-erection is contextualized as part of "his" sensation and awareness as a result of his memories and thought process, which are the next few words in the sentence. This is quite different, IMO, from the satire of the original post wherein there is no possible contextualization for Cassandra's hyper-awareness of her breasts. She's not described in any way as looking at or regarding her breasts in such a way that she would even be aware of the manner in which her nipples are visible through the fabric of her shirt, so yes, we most certainly have a case of omniscient breast in the OP. I don't have to look at my penis or hold it or touch it to know when I am getting an erection. Direct biofeedback tells me this, and since it is an unusually sensitive organ, the biofeedback data stream is of a pretty broad bandwidth. You did make the same observation in your post that I am quoting, I recognize that, but in this case I don't feel that the filter verb was the needed dynamic to make the in-scene observation valid. His cock grew heavy would be enough without invoking an intruding peeping tom of a narrator. If Moosie were to go on to describe visual aspects of the penis in question that aren't naturally in the character's field of view (I'm imagining the character with his face held up to the stream of water from the showerhead) then yes, we would defo be in the same zone as Cassandra's Amazing Breasts, which again, you did also make note and I am merely acknowledging agreement on that part. I just don't think that removing the filter verb in this particular case would create a Peter's Pulchritudinous Penis.
Presumably by the same token a woman would be aware of her breasts lifting with her arms , or indeed of the warm sun on them. Without a 'felt' being needed I think in After the Wave you are right it would read better as "his cock grew heavy, he contemplated killing it" I'll put that on the edit list. I'd also say that peni don't lend themselves to emotive description in that sort of way, the 'last turkey left in the shop' look not being particularly visually attactive
But, to put this into context, and because I defo think all of this topic centers on "male gaze" - perhaps this is because the penis is not an object of desire to you, a str8 guy. To a fellah like me, it most certainly has its charms of which I am wont to wax rhapsodic in the erotica I write. There was a thread a while back that delved into this area in relationship to why the exposed penis is so absent on the "big screen", and I just don't think the idea that wieners are ugly holds up as a valid reason. I can totally see why str8 guys would wonder why anyone would regard a flaccid penis with an aesthetic eye, but this also seems to be part of the male gaze phenomenon in that it would seem to deny women the right to their own gaze. Just as any str8 guy knows an admirable bosom when he sees it, so too am I aware of a handsome cock.
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not certain what you're saying, but I'd sure would like to know if there's a right I must reclaim.
I'm not sure its as simple as a gay/straight thing because I'd say that in purely aesthetic sense female genitals are not the most attractive thing either ... this doesn't of course mean that i don't appreciate them in other ways, but some things were made to be used rather than looked at So while every man gay or straight knows that his penis sets the standard by which all other peni should be measured (and found wanting) he may not want to look at it or display it to others. Breasts are inherently more attractive to look at in an objective sense being rounded and smooth, in the male form they'd be analgous to a well muscled torso which I can appreciate from an asethetic point of view despite having no sexual desire for the latter
He's saying the dominant narrative is womens nude bodies are the be all and end all of sex appeal while male nudes are a subject of mockery and hilarity because of the penis, which straight men are more comfortable seeing it as ugly and women and gay men as completely mysterious and unfathomable for having any interest in it at all. This is so straight men can keep from thinking of men in erotic terms even in a theoretical sense. To say breasts are inherently more attractive is at once a strong assertion of straightness when the subject veers to homosexuality, reflexively planting "the straight flag" and erasing the views of those with different orientation who disagree as "blind to objective truth."
Ok, let's see if I can long story short this... In that other thread (this was the thread in which a certain member who will go unnamed sockpuppetted his way through a completely ludicrous train of argument), it was argued that there is an objective standard of beauty (ha!) and that the penis simply doesn't fall within the parameters of said "obective standard". The standard described was little more than typical male gaze dynamics. In that thread every aspect of masculine beauty was denied as not present, and the penis was decried as the butt of the male joke. The person arguing seemed obtusely and willfully unaware of the Hellenistic tradition of art where the male form is elevated to a very lofty pedestal indeed. About the only thing about Hellenism that would seem strange to modern eyes as regards the penis is that the penis on display is typically of modest size because for them being hung like a horse was seen as animalistic and not desirable. But the penis itself, regardless of size, was everywhere seen in sculpture and painting. Now, @big soft moose, I'm not saying that this is the train of thought you are asserting. I just read your last post. I said what I said because the thought process I mention (and which @Phil Mitchell also iterates) exists and, again, it tends to deny the idea that women (or gay men) can or should have an aesthetic appreciation because (and here's the unsaid part) heaven forfend that men have to deal with the same pressures and stressors that women deal with under the "male gaze".
Nope - its an objective statement based on aesthetic appreciation (stripped of any sexual connotation) , gentle curves are more attractive to the eye that tubular odd dimension sided objects with folds at the end ... this is why architecture embraces the dome, but the odd folded thing has never been a dominant architectural trope. The genitals of either sex are not particularly attractive aesthetically which is due to biological evolution and a triumph of function over form. Taking that a step further the penis of a pig is a sort of corkscrew shape, and viewed from a purely aesthetic position is more attractive to look at than the human penis... which is completely different from saying that looking at one grants any kind of gratification
When i'm talking about aesthetics I don't mean beauty in the sexual attractiveness sense, but in the purely artistic appreciation of shape and dimension, where there are things considerably more aesthetically pleasing than the genitals of either sex. I also would not deny that women or gay men should have an appreciation of the male figure, I'm just saying that that torso of either sex is more attractive (aesthetically) than what happens to be between their legs, which as you note was common in hellenism where the main focus of the appreciation of male form was in studying and portraying the muscular torso of gods and warriors (hence the expression built like young greek god) ETA I'm also a photographer and although i specialise in weddings I've done a certain amount of 'art nude' with both men and women. Art nude is not glamour or porn and is about displaying the beauty of the body in an aesthetic sense not for titillation. With a male model I would focus on the chest, the curve of the muscles of the back or ass, and close up on legs or arms. Using lighting and shadow to highlight the curves . With a female model the areas pictured would be much the same.
I don't know that we can divorce our aesthetic sense from our other understandings of the world, though, can we? I mean, I agree that a phallus isn't an intrinsically pleasing shape, geometrically, but I think geometry is only a very small part of what makes something aesthetically pleasing. Honestly, most breasts, in their non-supported state, don't seem too geometrically pleasing either. I remember reading a male author (John Irving, maybe?) who used the phrase "pendulous" about five times in the same book to describe breasts that he was referring to in a very favourable light. But there's nothing geometrically pleasing about a pendulous bag of skin-covered fat and glands. Many overweight men have breasts of a similar shape to the breasts of women, but I don't see these male breasts being celebrated as aesthetic ideals...
You're making claims about objective reality based on an ad populum fallacy. Anyone who appeciates the art technique of pleating might take issue with your claim that gentle curves are objectively more appealing than folds. Tubular odd dimension sided objects are impractical to build so don't feature in architecture. But to use your logic, most architecture is phallic an tower like over dome shaped, so I guess that means erect penises are objectively more attractive than boobs and asses? No, that claim would be ludicrous. Again, people are not blind to "objectivity" when they don't think boobs are aesthetically prettier than penises. No matter how many fallacious arguments you use.
As you are clearly looking for an argument rather than a debate I'm putting you on ignore. I'd also note that your not agreeing with an 'argument'/line of discussion doesn't make it fallcious
Your argument is objectively irrational. It's not a matter of me not agreeing. Putting me on ignore doesn't matter as I have no interest in convincing YOU as an individual.
A few years ago on another literature forum, which will remain nameless, I posted a pic of myself... shot by a friend at a Halloween costume party, wherein I am in costume (wearing a trench coat and bandit's scarf, and not much else), that is to say it was a full frontal nude for all the world to see. No mention was made by the women who saw that pic before a moderator pulled it down, of the pleasant curve of my chest or my intense green eyes... they only made comments about my penis... on Facebook! We make so much noise about nudity and it just seems silly to me.
How did your penis appear? [I mean we've got one snap 'Wales Skinnydip '98' and I look a vegetable model - at a distance. On another, more of an onion ring. Everything depends on ambient temperatures and a lifetime of jelqing [sp].
I'm guessing they weren't comments about its aesthetic beauty ... that's facebook for you I also co admin a photocrit group on facebook and i've lost track of the number of people we've had to ban for making inappropriate comments about models (male and female)
I was going to start a thread about writing characters sexually attracted to male pigs- god knows we have character threads about everything else- but considering the niche nature of the subject maybe I should just PM you directly?
But then, in so many ways, we're trained to it, aren't we? I remember when I lived in Berlin and had already wrapped myself in a little group of Berliner friends. Berliners are pretty casual about nudity and on a nice day in any of the many parks in the city, dropping trou is de rigueur. The first time I was invited to a day at the Wanssee (there are rivers and lakes there with beaches) my friends invited me, but it was with an initial hesitation and a pulling aside by friend Jessica who kinda' remonstrated me before-the-fact to not be "American" and stare since few people wear anything there. I assured her that I would behave and was the first to drop my shorts upon arrival as a show of goodwill.
