Sunday, August 03, 2008

When a pole meets a hole

About five years ago I had a theory about penis and males’ domination. Generally, some blokes in the corner of the street will probably think that men are more powerful than women. Their belief comes from the distinctively different features that men and women have. You all have known that this sort of crazy idea prevailed in the past. All great thinkers even thought the same way. Daniel Defoe once wrote about the difference in gender role between men and women and was seen it as something natural.

My theory was that the shape of penis and its function in the sexual intercourse made men aware of their social position. Let me elaborate this further. During intercourse, penis will penetrate vagina. This activity reflects on how men are exercising their power of penetrating women’s territories. Vagina, on the other hand, has a role as receiver, opening itself up to be penetrated by penis. No matter what kind of position that couples have, penetration is the key. So the shape of penis which is long and fits the role of penetration and this role is manifesting at social and cultural realm.

I am fully aware that the flaw of this theory is in the over emphasis on the heterosexual relation. It also begs the question of when do men begin to be conscious about the shape of their penises and their perception on males’ social and cultural roles. I am not an expert of psychoanalysis but somehow when I thought of this, the image of Freud might have come into my mind.

While the shape of penis and its impact on subjectivity isn’t appealing anymore to me, penetration still gets me fascinated, nevertheless. In most sex, penetration is generally practiced. If there is no cock, finger or dildo will certainly do the job. But why is penetration? Can people have sex without involving penetration either with penis, finger, or dildo? I truly believe that people can do it without penetration. Yet, the answer that I am after is not whether people can do it or not. Rather, I am interested to know whether the concept of penetration in sexual activity might relate to the prevailing notion of heteronormative culture. Well one has a hole and the other has a pole and it seems to be natural, doesn't it?

Same sex relationships, to some extent, exist to contest the hegemonic idea of heterosexuality. And if their relationships mean to challenge heterosexual relationship then can it be said that penetration in same-sex relationship could arguably mean as nothing as perpetuating heterosexual culture. Should there be creativity in defining the role of a hole than something penetrable? And for a pole, it could be more challenging to use it without thrusting it into a hole, whatever hole it might be. The role of dildo in lesbian sex, for example, is puzzling but also interesting. Although the fake penis implies the presence of man in lesbian sex, its presence is pretty much controlled and defined by two women. The penis belongs to no men but them and this means disempowered. Despite the absence of a real man in lesbian relationship, penetration using the dildo does not challenge the seemingly natural role of a hole and pole.


EmmaK said...

this is all a bit deep for me but...
here is one instance in which the natural order of hole and pole went AGAINST NATURE:
The film is a true story about a Seattle man who insisted on having anal sex with his horse and surprise surprise a horse's dick is too big for the hole and punctured his colon. He subsequently died. There's a lesson to be learnt there somewhere.

Rob Baiton said...

Interesting post...

Nice take on, "what is the meaning of life?"

I have gotta say I have never pondered the fake penis (aka dildo) and its role in the male / female and female / female relationship!

I am not sure that I learned anything from this post but it was fun to read :D

Helen said...

I don't think that the dildo is ALWAYS a neutral (erm) member in lesbian sex, there are still power plays.

I'll send Spiky Zora Jones over to weigh in, too.

Katadia said...

Interesting post. I thought about this the other week just as I filled up the car at the petrol station :).

Still, you need to elaborate more on how the hole and the pole theory manifests in contemporary gender role specialization.

M said...

I've spent a lot of time musing about these kinds of things over the years. I have no answers. However, where things may feel like 'natures' way doesn't mean we haven't also inscribed a different meaning on top of it. There fore right or wrong, culturally speaking, the penis does present a certain ideology of strength (there is much about men maintaining strength through viagra too) - but it's everywhere, in the language used to discuss the penis, what the penis does and how it does it. Likewise I suppose a dildo has the same kinds of language and ideology inscribed onto it also - that is despite who is using it.

I wonder if there fore - despite the fact that a rather larger than anybody ever wants to talk about percentage of women do not 'get there' via the route of vaginal penetration that it's still used in lesbian sex. Maybe it is about the power?? No one is doubting the 'like a glove' fit of penis and vagina sex - but culturally speaking there are many other ways to read it.

Syaldi Sahude said...

Buset! Nice writing. Tapi nape blog loe kagak pernah di up-date man...?

Ms Penny said...

What a great thought provoking post!

I've often pondered the symbolism of penis/vagina and always come unstuck when I get to the homosexual side of things.

My brain is firing off in a thousand different paths right now - thank you for that! =)