NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/motss/54552

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 4.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!psgrain!m2xenix!agora!bburns
From: [e-mail] (Barry Burns)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: penis size (was Re: Muffin on Parade)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jan 93 08:28:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Lines: 80

[e-mail] (Jess Anderson) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stan
>Brown) writes:

>>I hope that, the next time someone is tempted to post to
>>the effect that soc.motss is "safe space" or "supportive",
>>they wil remember this thread.

>I remember this thread, very well indeed.  And I also think
>soc.motss is safe sapce and supportive.  Perhaps your
>standard of judging what's supportive is not the same as
>everyone else's.  For example, many people would not
>consider it supportive to encourage a person to continue
>laboring under the influence of serious delusions.  Many
>people would consider it safe to encourage a person to
>consider more carefully the paths they choose in this life.

Jess, I too think that soc.motss is safe and supportive, at least more
so than the gay community at large, but then again that is not saying much.
As I view this thread (and I admit that my perspective is a special one), what
is lacking is maybe not so much support as it is misunderstanding the points
Brent was trying to make.  I think "serious delusions" is kinda dramatic, but
subtlety has never been your strong suit.  And actually how "safe" is it to
throw a flame-o-rama (tm) when someone is expressing true feelings, even if
those feelings are ancient history. My version of Roget's does not list
confrontational e-psychoanalysis as a synonym for safe.


>In the given case, based on all past transactions, it's my
>impression that Brent Capps is a very nice man.  But the
>thing that's bothering him about his body and his self-image
>is entirely the fictive product of his interior mental
>processes.  There was recently a good article herte on
>identity politics, much of which would apply to Brent's
>responses to his environment.  It would hardly be supportive
>to nourish what is at base a self-limiting ot
>self-destructive pattern of thinking.

"In the Beginning" (tm) of this lengthy postulation on penis size, Brent
wrote:
> It took years of
> patience by my husband to get me to see that it didn't have to be a
> bad thing and that I could allow myself to have a little fun
> with it.  So I'm not going to hide it so much any more.  But I don't
> attach any meaning to it either.  If other people do that's
> their problem.  I know it doesn't mean a goddam thing.

As everyone who has felt free to comment on my husbands state of mind seems
to have missed this portion on Brent's post, I felt it relevant to quote it
directly.  Brent clearly states here that he feels that the feelings of
self-consciousness he carted about for years have begun to fade. He implies
that this is an ongoing growth process. As a man who can best be described
as a "grower not a shower", I helped Brent realize that many people in the
gay community are concerned in a very adolescent way with their dick size,
including me. However, as we both matured as individuals and in our relation-
ship, we began to appreciate and even celebrate ourselves and our bodies in
new (and ever more creative :)) ways.  Brent's bear code was a very small
part of that celebration.  When he showed me the original post, he described
it as like another comming out.  He clearly says that he doesn't attach
any meaning to his penis size, but that he is no longer going to hide it.
Then, the fun began. The e-mail started immediately.  Much of it was
supportive, some of it was sleazy, but generally in good humor.  The really
serious flames were saved for the net.  It seems that every one with
a little therapy in their past and a few minutes to kill decided to analyze
the hell out of Brent's post.  Then came the analysis of the analysis. I
think that everyone started taking this a little too seriously.  What
Brent was trying to convey in his original post was that not everyone has
a positive self image, even if they are endowed (pun entirely intended) with
attributes that their peers deem desirable, that there are closets for
small penises/breasts/whatever as well as large penises/breasts/whatever, and
that his bear code was opening that closet door.  Sure, I think Brent still
has some self-image issues, as do all people who are striving to grow as
distinct individuals, however I don't think that having Steve Dyer and
yourself advising him of your perceptions of his psyche as determined by
one post as being very productive(or safe - or supportive).

--
Barry Burns             |
[e-mail]   |   I wasn't recruited -- I enlisted