Dickanatomy, Dickonomics, and Dickfuturology

Debbie says:

Even when I’m screening for good Body Impolitic fodder, I rarely find three great links on any one topic … and when I do, it’s not usually male sexual organs.

***

First, Diane Kelly at Throb reports on a genuinely new anatomical discovery.

… no one knew much about how the lymphatic vessels were arranged underneath the skin, which limited treatments for swelling and increased the risk of complications during surgery.

So in a wince-inducing imaging experiment, Yan Liu and his colleagues at the Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China built a map of the penile lymphatic system using MRI images captured from volunteers who agreed to have a medical contrast agent injected under their foreskins.

The results, published in the Anatomical Record this week, show that lymphatic vessels in the glans and foreskin form a network across the upper surface of the penis before merging to form larger vessels that send fluid into lymph nodes embedded in the groin. The network isn’t connected to the erectile tissues in the center of the penis, suggesting that those tissues have their own independent set of lymphatic vessels.

Then, Alana Massey at Medium has some scorching things to say about “dickonomics” on dating sites (especially Tinder), and how women who have sex with men can think about choosing among possible partners.

Dick is abundant and low value. I had gotten my new motto amidst the worst break-up of my life. Shaken to my core by the degrading insults my ex had hurled at me but also mourning the permanent departure of some poetically good dick, I was spending a day mindlessly refreshing Twitter and reading up on how to spot sociopaths. I came across two tweets from Madeleine Holden, a lawyer and writer who regularly entertains the Twitter masses with her unapologetic analyses of toxic masculinity and her praise of amazing female-identified people:

1 G-bMq6iDoaXX7W2xdh61AwFor all its faults, I still find Tinder delightful. I’m now 29, and I set my upper age limit to a reasonable 37, my lower age limit to a rather scandalous 23. No one can address me without my consent, which I can withdraw with an unceremonious “Unmatch” at any time. … But I’ve found enough value on Tinder to keep going, swiping and unmatching bad profiles out of my life at the first sign of unreasonable expectations. Their corner of Tinder is a dark place, dense with hapless souls who didn’t realize that the centuries-long period of dick overvaluation is over.

***

Finally, George Dvorsky at io9 has entirely too much fun imagining “the penis of the future,” which is, among other things,

  • disease resistant (“a high-tech penis could be implanted with bio-sensors that detect specific foreign pathogens, alerting the rest of the body to their presence,”),
  • shape-shifting (“Ideally, men should be able to change the smoothness of their penis, or its surface structure. Penis 2.0 should be like an on-demand French tickler, with modifiable ridges, grooves, and bumps to enhance the sexual pleasure of the receiver.”) and
  • internet ready (“Once your dick is online you’ll be able to participate in virtual sex. … With the enhanced, Internet-ready penis, no external devices will be required. You could also use your bluetooth-enabled penis to track and transmit biometric data and other statistics to an online app. … Oh, and a connection to the Internet will also allow you to update any software that’s resident in your upgraded penis.)

You’ve heard of the “internet of things”; this is the “internet of schlongs.”  Read the whole thing, some of which is serious and all of which is entertaining.

Thanks to hitchhiker for the dickonomics link.

A RANT ABOUT LOWLINESS, POVERTY, AND HOUSEWORK

Lisa Freitag says:

In the May 18 issue of TIME Magazine, I read an interview with the new Prime Minister of India, the man whom everyone thinks will succeed in changing that country for the better, Narendra Modi.

I don’t have anything against Modi, really. I know nothing about him except what was in that TIME interview, but I need nonetheless write a rant about something he said. I know that his words are, perhaps, not entirely his fault. He was merely living up to a common myth, the Great American Dream of lifting oneself out of poverty.

The quote is pretty benign, taken in that light. Modi grew up in a small town steeped in poverty, and for that reason he has been inspired to make a commitment to helping the poor. Modi says, “I was born in a poor family. I used to sell tea in a railway coach as a child. My mother used to wash utensils and do lowly household work in the houses of others to earn a livelihood.” This quote is important enough that Modi actually uses it twice in the interview.

We are supposed to be very proud of this great man who raised himself from humble beginnings to a position of power. We are perhaps supposed to believe that, since he comes from there, he understands poverty well enough that he is the perfect person to do something about it. After all, he found a way out for himself, so must see the way open to others. As a solution to poverty, however, becoming the Prime Minister of India or, indeed, the President of the United States, is not a terribly viable option. Of the hundreds of thousands of poor tea sellers, only one can become Prime Minister.

I predict that he will not succeed in making even a dent in poverty. The reason is buried in his twice-quoted statement about his poor mother. He sees poverty as shameful. Or, more accurately, he sees the work done by his impoverished mother as shameful. We are to be impressed with him, because he has risen above the shame of poverty and is now in a position to raise others as well. He no longer has to sell tea, and presumably she no longer has to earn money in any way she can. Yet he has, seemingly, not thought about the nature of the work his mother did.

What awful thing did his mother do to earn a livelihood? She washed utensils, clearly a horrifying task! One has to wonder if Modi loads his undoubtedly top-of-the-line dishwasher himself, or if he considers the person who does it for him better or worse than his mother. She also did “lowly household work in the houses of others,” another thing generally acknowledged as being “below” most other professions, if it is considered a profession at all. Yet, I rather doubt Modi cleans his own bathroom. I have no idea what he thinks about the person who does, but I suspect that he does not notice her at all. He may not even realize that she exists. He is probably unaware of the size of the pittance she is being paid by the people who hired her for the task. But I have no doubt that Modi’s bathroom needs just as much cleaning as anyone else’s.

My problem, I think, is the vast set of assumptions behind the identification of household work as “lowly.” Yes, cleaning is boring, and dirty, and often hard on the knees. Does this automatically make it lowly? Carpet laying and plumbing are also dirty and hard on the knees. These professions are certainly beneath the Prime Minister, but I doubt Modi would refer to any of his constituents as a lowly plumber. Perhaps most plumbers in India are men, and only the knee-destroying, low-paid work done by women is considered lowly? Perhaps fixing bathroom leaks in India is more necessary than cleaning toilets? Or perhaps plumbing is not so lowly because it is not so terribly badly paid?

It is worth thinking about whether housework is lowly because it is low-paid, or low-paid because it is lowly. I think both of these aspects are true, and circle each other in a downward spiral that serves to keep people, particularly women, in poverty. The spiral may have started with the invisibility of women’s work, creating the impression among the rich and powerful that the world just cleans up after itself. Modi does not have to ask who will do this lowly work, after he pulls everyone out of poverty alongside himself, because he does not know that it must be done. Yet the work of washing Modi’s dishes, and cleaning Modi’s bathroom, will continue to be absolutely necessary.

The problem, perhaps, is not with the work itself, but with the lack of notice, respect, and payment given to the people who do that work. Modi will not be able to do anything substantial about poverty until he is able to recognize as essential the “lowly” work that his mother did, and that someone else must now do in her stead. As long as the essential work of the world is held to be without value, there must be people who have no option other than to do it for almost nothing, and who thus will stay poor.

If Modi truly wishes to do something about poverty, he should start with noticing the importance of the work his mother did, and stop thinking of it as lowly. He must, of course, work toward raising wages, but I think he will not succeed unless he also begins promoting such work as honorable. Getting paid more to do the dirty work is not enough, if the people doing that work are still seen as shamefully dirtied by doing it. The “lowly” aspect of his mother’s cleaning the houses of others was not just that it was badly paid, but that her son believes that it was beneath his notice.