Vaginas!!!!

So, I saw The Vagina Monologues at Oglethorpe University on Friday evening. I thought it was thoroughly entertaining. I was especially excited to see it because of Jane Fonda's slip up on the Today Show(?). If you didn't hear, she was talking about the play and said the c--- word and as we all know, thanks to George Carlin, this is one of those 7 words you cannot say. The monologues were funny, well written, witty, and overall entertaining. I went with another guy and a lady friend of mine and we all had a blast. I recommend it to all!

That word "Vagina" is so scary. What's that about? There must be some sort of pop culture-related reason for that.

Also: why so many mentions of penises in our text books and yet none of vaginas? Are vaginas more vulgar?

Ah my friend, good question. That's a little oppression we like to call phallogocentrism, or the privileging of the masculine in the making of meaning. When we get to some of the gender stuff, we'll see the female genitalia make its way into the arguments, but yes, by and large, and largely thanks to Freud, it's all phallus all the time. Or as a couple of our testosterone-laden 2160 dudes call it, a sausage fest. Freud's assertion that those who have it are afraid of losing it and those who don't have it, want it has haunted us for nigh on 100 years now. It took 2nd wave feminism for anyone to stop and seriously question that premise. And yet, despite the questioning, it still prevails. What's up with that?

Because having a penis is awesome, though often frustrating, like when you're trying so very hard to listen to what Dr. Goodensexy's telling you about that lump growing in your lungs but she keeps tossing her hair and giggling and god DAMN you could park a fucking jumbo jet in her cleavage!

But I digress.

Yes, a lot of the things Freud postulated was him projecting his own problems and trying to justify them, but if you accept that our conscious and subconscious is divided into the ego, id, and superego (which I think the psychological field still takes as valid), then the penis is a concrete manifestation of the id. It's not out there floating in the ether, you can yank it and spank it.

Very satisfying.

I hate how penises are seen as "something" and vaginas are seen as "nothing." If men knew anything about the female anatomy, they would know that women can "yank and spank," too.

...wow...not the topic branch I was expecting but interesting.

... i concurr with heath, this is an excellent thread

emily wrote:women can "yank and spank," too.

Not literally they can't

Really? Not literally? Hrmm, that's an interesting if wholly erroneous perspective.

Juliarn wrote:Really? Not literally? Hrmm, that's an interesting if wholly erroneous perspective.

Yeah, I was going to wait and let the other female back me up here.

Proof.

Say what?

There's nothing there to yank!*

*outside of certain Southeast Asian countries

Did any of your ex-girlfriends ever introduce you to the clitoris? Or is that why they're your ex-girlfriends?

Ouch! Getting personal there

See I figured this was a communcation breakdown: I wasn't saying women can't masturbate, what I am saying is yanking the clitoris sounds painful, not fun. More of a rubbing, circular motion stimulates the c-izzy, as I (and my ex-girlfriend) understand it.

It was the "nothing there" comments that I was taking issue with.

And without getting into much detail, every clitoris is different.

Well if you go back and read the first four posts you'll see I never actually used the words "something" or "nothing," you did.

Checkmate, as they say in Russia!

O RLY??

Fair Tao Clitus wrote:There's nothing there to yank!*

I said first four, first four!

EDIT: would be a pointless shouting match about vaginas gets to multipages first on our little corner of the internet.

Okay, my original comment about "something" and "nothing" was in reference to Freud, which you referenced within the first four comments.

I would argue that Freud's whole theory about penises involves having a penis and not having a penis. Women aren't seen as having vaginas; instead they are seen as NOT HAVING penises.

That is what I was originally talking about.

And then you yourself perpetuated this idea by adding the comment that I quoted above.

But you didn't quote Professor Hawk quoting Freud, you decided to dissect my yank-and-spank comment and tag on your own baggage to that, not Freud. Reader response theory (which is pretty Freudian if you think about it) says this is all in your head, so in conclusion -

That was a totally nonsensical response. Therefore, I still maintain that I am right.

No it wasn't. Ignore the silly picture and analyze what I said.

EDIT: And do your homework

Just own up to the fact that you said "nothing there" and deal with the consequences like an adult.

BTW, why are you so offended by my clitoris comment if it's not true?