NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/motss/54559

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 9.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!psgrain!m2xenix!agora!bcapps
From: [e-mail] (Brent Capps)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: penis size
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jan 93 13:16:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: agora.C08A7z.152
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Lines: 208


This is my absolute last word on this subject.

Hi Jess,

I make it a policy to ignore flames, but I didn't really consider what
you posted to be a flame.  Clueless and hurtful, yes.  But not a flame.

I think my husband Barry has already responded to your posts because he
saw how much I was hurt by some of the things you said.  Barry loves me
very much and naturally wants to protect me.  However, I'm a big boy :)
and I can take care of myself.

From your first post:
> In the given case, based on all past transactions, it's my
> impression that Brent Capps is a very nice man.

Why, thank you very much, Jess.  I didn't mean to hurt anybody by posting
this and I am keenly aware of how sensitive a subject it is for many
men.  But these are feelings I've been carrying around for a long,
long time and I've never seen this side of the size issue openly
discussed before in the community...for reasons that, by now, should
be all too obvious.

> But the thing that's bothering him about his body and his self-image
> is entirely the fictive product of his interior mental processes.

Ouch!  Fictive product of interior mental processes?  What's your
evidence for that?  It's an incredibly presumpuous thing to say
given that you are hardly my therapist.  For one thing, she charges
a lot more than you do! :)

> It would hardly be supportive to nourish what is at base a
> self-limiting ot self-destructive pattern of thinking.

Ow ow ow!  You are so sure you are right that you are going to invalidate
my feelings "for my own good"?  Gee thanks a lot.  And supposing you were
wrong in your belief that this was a "fictive product of interior mental
processes"?  Samples from my mail bag (no names!):

Letter 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------
: I can only imagine what you go through with this, having several acquain-
: tances at each end of the scale, and getting comments and stares about the
: ring (a Prince Albert) in mine.  You're not alone.

: Only ONE of them was able to come to peace with himself over it (and he's
: forearm-sized, if my whole forearm were the same size as my wrist), and
: he decided the solution was to flaunt it - that way no-one freaked when
: they took him home, he learned to enjoy peeing at the "trough" in the Leather
: Stallion, and he doesn't have problem finding partners for the casual en-
: counters he prefers (believe it or not, he has a girlfriend at home!)

: The others either were extremely modest, extremely embarrassed (if big)
: or apologetic (if small), and they also tried to hide it, to the point
: that if anyone came on to them that even remotely seemed to be interested
: for that reason they were written off without any consideration.  They
: found extremes of size limiting to their sex-lives, that sex-talk seemed
: to center on it, etc.  Yes, they felt like freaks.

Letter 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------
: I totally identify with you...totally. It's very discouraging sometimes!

Letter 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------
:  While it's not a problem I have, I do have embarrassing
:  problems (at least *I* think I do) and your writing succeeded
:  in evoking these such that I understood very well what you
:  were talking about.  It echoed the sentiments and frustration
:  I've heard from two other friends as well.  It was a good
:  response and I appreciated the difficulty you must have
:  had in making it.

So if you think this reaction is unique to me, guess again.  I just
had the guts to openly discuss my feelings.  So what was your reaction
to my honest and painful admission?  From your second post:

> [Steve Dyer] suggested you could be making too much of a deal
> about it all.  I may put it differently, but that's what I
> think too.

Throughout your post you continually dismiss my feelings as:
> ...of no great importance.
Gee thanks a lot Jess!  I think this is the point Stan addressed when he
said soc.motss is not a safe space.  That, along with your inappropriate
e-psychoanalysis of me, what what I found so hurtful of your posts.

> Frankly, Brent, I think you create *most* of the problem for
> yourself, possibly without being aware of it.

Now we're getting to the heart of our disagreement.  I object to being
reduced to a dick size.  You dismiss my feelings by saying I'm blowing
this all out of proportion:

> it seems to me you're being rather
> hyper-reactive, to judge by your response to Steve Dyer.

What can I say?  Hide and watch.  I know I'm getting roasted to a crackly
crunch on soc.motss; I could have predicted ahead of time who'd be the chefs,
too.  If I were really hyper-reactive as you say I'd be flaming them back.
Instead I have no intention of continuing this discussion there.  This
post is my final word on the subject and my arguments will just have to
stand on their own merits.  Does that suggest I'm being hyper-reactive?

> You start out by telling the clinical details and by
> *assuming* it will lead to flames.  For one thing, there's
> an element of fortune-telling involved there: why would
> anyone flame you for telling your own story?

Did it ever occur to you that this may not be the first time I've gone
through this discussion?  And that that caveat may be based on prior
firsthand experience?  Really, get a clue, Jess!

> For another
> thing, you know, surely, what the world is like; knowing
> that, it's odd that you express surprise when people react
> in more or less expected ways.

Oh boy, you really need that mirror here, Jess.  This is almost
*verbatim* the argument my mother uses when I try to explain to
her how anti-gay discrimination hurts me.  When the world is wrong,
you work to change it, according to your own particular talents,
needs, and situation.  I happen to think it's wrong to objectify people
based on their dick size (small OR large), breast size, height, weight,
age, sexual attractiveness, physical appearance, etc.  It's dehumanizing,
and frankly I'm surprised at you for trotting out this wheezy tired excuse
of an argument to excuse its perpetuation.

> But it's not reasonable to expect the
> entire universe to revolve around your self-consciousness, either.

Why Jess, what an inclusive thing to say..."We can't expect the majority
to care about the concerns of every minority group that comes along!"

More invalidation of feelings.

> You can't do much about the society at large, probably, nor
> about the usual conventions of the society of gay men.  What
> you *can* do something about is your own sensitivities in
> the matter.

As I said in another posting, my purpose in bringing this subject
up was to educate gay men in particular on a seldom-discussed topic.
I know perfectly well that I'm not going to change society with one
article.  Cut me some slack here, Jess.

> I don't think the dick-size/breast-size analogy is all that
> apt.  Sexual dynamics for women are different enough from
> those for men, I think, that the similarities you note here
> are somewhat superficial.

Oh, baloney Jess.  That analogy was suggested to me by a woman through
e-mail:

Letter 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------
: As confirmation of what you say about being different, I have heard
: almost exactly the same words from women with extremely large breasts.
: Particularly the pain of being considered just _their_ support system.

and confirmed by another person:

Letter 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------
: I had a (female) cousin with a similar problem:
: her breasts were huge, and she found it very
: difficult to deal with.  Of course, she
: was able to arrange for reduction surgery,
: which is not, I expect, an option for
: you (ouch!).

BTW I don't need a lecture from you on feminist issues.  I've been active
on feminist issues for even longer than on gay issues, organizing for passage
of the ERA and serving as a women's clinic escort from the time I was a
college freshman.  Nobody appointed you to be the network clue server on
feminism.

>>Every size queen on the net has been pestering me for details.
>>None of these guys ever bothered to reply to my posts before.
>>What kind of a message do you think that conveys?  That I'm a
>>piece of meat, that's what.

>I'm sorry to say it, but this is a baseless whine.  What did
>you expect?

I can only hope that you can eventually come to see how hurtful a
remark that was.  Again, more invalidation of feelings.

>Matthew is right: others have comparable concerns.

It's not a contest, Jess.

>If the prevailing mores change in such a way that this issue
>tends to be diminished, so much the better.  But there's little
>point in holding your breath until that happens.

So why bother, right?  Gosh, I guess I might just as well go back into the
closet.  Oops...I mean...

Well, Jess, I've given it my best shot to drop a few clues for *you* here.
If you can listen half as well as you can speak, maybe you'll pick a few of
'em up.  If you don't, well, at least I can say I gave it my best shot.
Are you big enough :) to admit that you just *might* be wrong?

--
Brent Capps                          | "I could love any creature on Earth
[e-mail] (gay stuff)    |  that appeared to wish it."
[e-mail] (telecom stuff) |                      -- Lord Byron
--
Brent Capps                          |
[e-mail] (gay stuff)    |
[e-mail] (telecom stuff) |