It is reductive to focus only on the penis as something that defines, categorizes, or damages a human being when our brains are the responsible parties.Ĭhristie: You coined a word in this book, intromittum (plural, intromitta). The human penis, on the other hand, is an anatomical structure that does not show this variability and complexity even in its function and is not a unique qualifier of masculinity. That’s because people are so behaviorally and temperamentally variable from one person to the next, and culture changes over time and under different environmental influences. What is considered masculine is not the same across cultures, and what one culture might emphasize a lot can get little attention in another. Can you say a few words about the conflation of penises and masculinity?Įmily: Masculinity is a fluid concept, constrained and defined by sociocultural context. You were 12 and his behavior scared you, but you write that “ He terrorized me, not his penis.” This seems like a running theme in the book: the consequence of our culture’s fixation on penises. “He gestured to me, leering and threatening, trying to get me to come over to him,” you write. It was amazing how fast it unfolded after that.Ĭhristie: In the book’s introduction, you write about a childhood experience where a gardener at your grandmother’s house laid in wait for you, then got your attention and pulled down his pants and started masturbating. So I sent her a quick email to that effect, and we were on the phone within the hour. Not just from being around them, but as someone who did a postdoc in urology. Emily: I was working with my agent on an idea about the brain (which is now a book in progress) when I realized, somehow not having done so before, that I know a lot about penises.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |