What is it about our culture that makes this seem funny? Here’s part of what sociologist Michael Kimmel said about Laurie’s photographs in the introduction to Familiar Men:
“What we notice though is that the penises are flaccid, soft, and most of them appear rather small. It is an act of defiance, of resistance to traditional norms of masculinity, to appear so fragile, so soft.”
And, of course, it hasn’t always been this way.
Does anyone know when (and any of the sociology of why) public art stopped including male frontal nudity, flaccid penises, and real male bodies?
The next question is from the other comment we got to this entry, and is something we plan to discuss soon, including your responses.
“While I see what you mean about female bodies being more public, “hunk of the days” tend to be wearing jeans, or jeans and vest or shirt partly undone and pants but the female counterpart tends to be in short shorts or string bikini. Males tend to be more covered in films too whereas females bare more. Is it a ‘clothes is power’ issue?”
What’s your experience with the differences between male power and female power as expressed in clothing?