I don't know how many times I've come across articles like this where the subject is an image or a video or some other media and yet the article doesn't actually contain it. This one is like an extreme version of that where they have quite a few nice illustrations... but not the actual poster.
It's mentioned in the article that the artist has sued people over unauthorized use in the past, so maybe that worried their lawyers. Though you'd think they'd have a reasonable fair use case here.
Fair use is a defense. But if someone sues you, you still have the expense associated with going to court. Even if you win, you'll probably still be out thousands of dollars.
That would be for a judge to decide. Certainly one of the things that makes reproducing photos/artwork tricky is that you're reproducing the complete work. Fair use is rarely completely straightforward.
I assumed they were subtly making fun of the editor and/or sponsors.
Article summary:
> Those other publications were unbelievably prudish for historically sexist reasons, and also due to hangups revolving around typical male insecurity. Fortunately, we’ve progressed beyond such things. Here it is in its full glory:
[CENSORED]
(Nice try. I don’t care how much you’ve bet in the office pool. No dick picks! — ed.)
To be fair, I do find it infuriating when the news is basically outraged that someone did something offensive in the media, and then keep displaying shots and samples of it so you know what they're talking about.
I remember a talk show host on Fox News going on and on about Janet Jackson's alleged wardrobe malfunction at the superbowl this way. I actually missed the incident during the superbowl, but boy did the people who were most outraged about it make sure it was shoved in my face.
Incredibly the image at the top of the article is a low-quality drawing of the poster itself in a picture frame. I thought it was just a cartoonish outline of the concept but its almost as detailed as the original..
I came across this poster, or perhaps an enhanced version of it, while at a customer's location where I was working on their computers. It was in the bathroom. So poignant.
Wow, I remember a girl in high school showed me this ad in the back of a magazine in the library and we had a laugh. What a delightful surprise to be reminded of that with a whole article!
And even in our “progressive” tech bubble it’s taboo. Male nipples are a-okay on social media while female nipples violate community standards on most of the major platforms.
Edit: your name gives off Dutch vibes, so now I'm looking up "penis" in all the Dutch-adjacent languages, Low German, Frisian, Low German, Limburgish, Luxembourgish, etc., but so far no luck.
"
Further, Lehman notes, “Heterosexual men may fear that the representation of the penis gives women a basis for comparison and judgment, and, although men have long engaged in such behavior toward women, the thought of the tables being turned is nearly unbearable.”
As a result, representations of human penises tend to be strictly regulated."
I rolled my eyes so hard I sprained them. I don't know what it is with a certain class of people who need to explain everything in reference to straight men.
If there were no regulation on representations of human penises, these same people would explain that due to straight men: "Because heterosexual men have penises, representations of penises are celebrated and glorified..."
Not to mention that the exact opposite is true. Nude men in statues and paintings often have penises with pubic hair, while women have no pubic hair and no genitalia at all.
> I don't know what it is with a certain class of people who need to explain everything in reference to straight men.
> these same people would explain that due to straight men: "Because heterosexual men have penises, representations of penises are celebrated and glorified..."
You are setting up a bit of a weak man fallacy by presenting it this way without evidence, but I imagine there probably is cognitive dissonance around this (and other topics about men).
Partly, I think it's because there are no groups that represent or advocate for men. This hypothetical group, in the current cultural climate, could be hijacked by bad actors or other identity groups, or it could result in an even more monolithic or myopic view of men than exists in pop culture today. Such a group would need to be prepared to deal with these issues without being exclusionary, divisive, or dehumanizing. I think this challenging and would take all the right people to organize such a group.
Identity based groups tend to project a monolithic image of people that is inaccurate. For instance, if you browse the internet long enough you'll probably develop a fairly myopic view that lends towards some -isms that certain groups have, however, if you talk to people in different cultural regions you'll likely discover that what large groups represent is largely in-contest.
Edit: the earlier version of this comment confusingly stated that there's "good reasons" that these groups don't exist.
> Partly, I think it's because there are no groups that represent or advocate for men, and probably for good reason.
Change the word "men" to "women" in that sentence to see how patently absurd that claim is. Women have unique needs that men do not, and organizations that help them navigate unique challenges. Why wouldn't this also be true about men? But our society is still so obsessed with "liberating" women that we can't even imagine that men might benefit from having their own spaces and advocates.
Let's talk about homelessness, criminality, or suicide rates, and see if you can convince anyone that it's "for good reason" that men have "no groups that represent or advocate" for them.
> Change the word "men" to "women" in that sentence to see how patently absurd that claim is. Women have unique needs that men do not, and organizations that help them navigate unique challenges
I think you're getting the idea that I don't want groups for men. "For good reason" is probably quite nebulous, so I'll go fix that. Thanks for pointing it out.
>> Partly, I think it's because there are no groups that represent or advocate for men
> Let's talk about homelessness, criminality, or suicide rates, and see if you can convince anyone that it's "for good reason" that men have "no groups that represent or advocate" for them.
This gave me pause, because there are definitely groups that advocate on those issues, they're just rarely framed as being "for men".
So much bullshit. Penises are literally the favorite thing of many men across human history to draw, in all shapes and sizes, any preferably the most public location. It was even a plot point of a major movie a few years ago.
My issue with this is the assumption that women want longer lengths.
Maybe that was the driving force in the 1980s when this piece was published and debated, where women were communicating with a smaller group of women about sexual pleasure and optimizations.
But this seems very inaccurate and tone deaf to read now.
I met Jim Knowlton when he came to attend the IgNobel ceremony (as an alum) in 1994 or 1995. He was great friends with the Post-Doc I worked for, both having earned PhDs at Columbia.
Of course that poster was on every door in my dorm, so it was great fun to meet him!
The poster comes with an insert that gives extra detail about the penises. I asked him to read the clip "The porpoise has a remarkable penis..."
I had to dig way deep (disk image backup within disk image backup 5 layers deep), but I have found it and now you too can experience his narration:
52 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] thread"The Penis Poster That Rubbed People the Wrong Way"
I wonder if that was the work of a human editor, or a more powerful bot?
Article summary:
> Those other publications were unbelievably prudish for historically sexist reasons, and also due to hangups revolving around typical male insecurity. Fortunately, we’ve progressed beyond such things. Here it is in its full glory:
[CENSORED]
(Nice try. I don’t care how much you’ve bet in the office pool. No dick picks! — ed.)
I remember a talk show host on Fox News going on and on about Janet Jackson's alleged wardrobe malfunction at the superbowl this way. I actually missed the incident during the superbowl, but boy did the people who were most outraged about it make sure it was shoved in my face.
They sell lots of novelty goods like this still.
Who says grad school is useless?
Doubly so when there's a double standard about certain body parts.
A woman can be thrown in jail for revealing her nipples, while no one will blink twice when men do it.
You'd think that in the 21st Century we'd be long past such taboos.
I mean taboos have been around for thousands of years, new ones are created, old ones die. Why do you think the end game is “no taboos”?
Edit: your name gives off Dutch vibes, so now I'm looking up "penis" in all the Dutch-adjacent languages, Low German, Frisian, Low German, Limburgish, Luxembourgish, etc., but so far no luck.
[0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Penii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_Landscape
As a result, representations of human penises tend to be strictly regulated."
I rolled my eyes so hard I sprained them. I don't know what it is with a certain class of people who need to explain everything in reference to straight men.
If there were no regulation on representations of human penises, these same people would explain that due to straight men: "Because heterosexual men have penises, representations of penises are celebrated and glorified..."
> these same people would explain that due to straight men: "Because heterosexual men have penises, representations of penises are celebrated and glorified..."
You are setting up a bit of a weak man fallacy by presenting it this way without evidence, but I imagine there probably is cognitive dissonance around this (and other topics about men).
Partly, I think it's because there are no groups that represent or advocate for men. This hypothetical group, in the current cultural climate, could be hijacked by bad actors or other identity groups, or it could result in an even more monolithic or myopic view of men than exists in pop culture today. Such a group would need to be prepared to deal with these issues without being exclusionary, divisive, or dehumanizing. I think this challenging and would take all the right people to organize such a group.
Identity based groups tend to project a monolithic image of people that is inaccurate. For instance, if you browse the internet long enough you'll probably develop a fairly myopic view that lends towards some -isms that certain groups have, however, if you talk to people in different cultural regions you'll likely discover that what large groups represent is largely in-contest.
Edit: the earlier version of this comment confusingly stated that there's "good reasons" that these groups don't exist.
Change the word "men" to "women" in that sentence to see how patently absurd that claim is. Women have unique needs that men do not, and organizations that help them navigate unique challenges. Why wouldn't this also be true about men? But our society is still so obsessed with "liberating" women that we can't even imagine that men might benefit from having their own spaces and advocates.
Let's talk about homelessness, criminality, or suicide rates, and see if you can convince anyone that it's "for good reason" that men have "no groups that represent or advocate" for them.
I think you're getting the idea that I don't want groups for men. "For good reason" is probably quite nebulous, so I'll go fix that. Thanks for pointing it out.
> Let's talk about homelessness, criminality, or suicide rates, and see if you can convince anyone that it's "for good reason" that men have "no groups that represent or advocate" for them.
This gave me pause, because there are definitely groups that advocate on those issues, they're just rarely framed as being "for men".
Maybe that was the driving force in the 1980s when this piece was published and debated, where women were communicating with a smaller group of women about sexual pleasure and optimizations.
But this seems very inaccurate and tone deaf to read now.
Of course that poster was on every door in my dorm, so it was great fun to meet him!
The poster comes with an insert that gives extra detail about the penises. I asked him to read the clip "The porpoise has a remarkable penis..."
I had to dig way deep (disk image backup within disk image backup 5 layers deep), but I have found it and now you too can experience his narration:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c2g5irqb7s1vpee/porpoise_penis.wav...
> TypeError: Cannot read property 'length' of null
Some nerdy innuendo or the site used to work and has some content?