Ie the exception that proves the rule

Takes away from the main issue...consent and power.

It should be more about no one wants to feel powerless or at the mercy of a person who has power over them or their career.

Let's pick a generic handsome actor who I have had a huge crush on:
Scenario 1: nude scene in a movie...I pay to see the movie and hope it's a good view.

Scenario 2: at a party, actor corners me alone in a room and starts masturbating and blocks me from leaving

Both scenarios involve seeing his penis, only one involves consent. Only one scenario is assault. Neither has anything to do with how attractive his penis is.

how is it possible that there is an argument that this is about the aesthetics of dicks?

sink makes me smile, some creepy hostile stranger's while I'm ordering a drink at a bar entirely different.

It's ALL about consent.

I get the feeling that there are some truly clueless men, and then there are some that want to *play* clueless "Gwarsh, I guess I'll have to stop being polite and not say 'good morning' to my female co-workers lest they bring charges against me... Shucks, I guess even flirting is not allowed..." (no, Steve, not if "flirting" means pressing your pelvis against a co-worker's backside in the supply closet by "accident".) "Well, I guess you'll have to make me a list of exactly what I can and cannot do and say..." (facepalm)

So for these people, the oversimplification is the easiest thing to say. "No, Ralph. Nobody wants to see your dick."

Of course, there are levels to it. A guy streaking at a party is not harassment. A guy disrobed for a life-drawing class is not harassment. Someone walking in the room while someone else is changing who then immediately leaves is not harassment. It's all about context and number of people in the room, and consent. Sometimes, we all like looking at a dick. We like Greek statues. We like Puppetry of the Penis.

But as stupid as it is, some dudes honestly think the sight of their impressive anatomy will somehow make a woman lose control of their senses and allow them them the no-pretext, no hassle, instant sex they desire. They believe it's truly an accident that their member makes unplanned guest appearances on a regular basis in non-sexual situations. I believe because many men often experience this sort of mental "stunned and dazed fascination" at the sight of a beautiful person, or random naked breasts...they think they're going to flash the magical kryptonite totem (their wang) and similarly hypnotize the woman into a carnal frenzy.

For these guys, falsely or truly deluded, nuance is a waste. "No, Doug. Nobody wants to see your dick."

Most of this stuff is an expression of hostility, including the pretenses you described.

The time I joined coworkers at a male strip club (in Hollywood, full of wannabe movie stars), I was very struck by charm and humor of these guys. Even the one who presented himself as dangerous (tingly good!) somehow charmed. Every one came across as liking women, of being very successful with them of course, and there wasn't the slightest whiff of hostility among them. The club clearly knew what women wanted, and what turned them off.

At a male strip club, everyone is in on it, and having fun as a group. There's enthusiasm on display.

At a female strip club, there's a total air of voyeurism, serious noninteraction. Men are satisfied to watch and be in their own world.

I don't actually think I've ever heard of a woman going to see male strippers alone.

were about non consent.

State "no woman wants to see a dick" like that in and of itself implies consent or lack there of.

Like obviously it's harassment or assault no matter what the context because what woman would want to see a penis? That has become the sole argument. And I am saying that is missing the point.

i think we know the disgust is due to the non consent.

there isn't really much confusion on this.

it's like when when people say "i am a feminist but i don't hate men".

That it excludes other lives.

This has do with the fact that some people are replying to comments about consent with the stand alone argument of ...no woman wants to see a dick pic

As if that makes the argument. And when pressed, they continue with how ugly dicks are and why do men think anyone wants to see them.

And further comments of no woman I have ever known has ever wanted to see dick pic, why do men think their penises are so attractive.

This is ridiculous. None of these responses are about consent.

you are trying to create some argument which doens't exist.

nobody is objecting to anything involving consent. just as nobody said all lives don't matter.

it's trying to change the subject.

Women have actually made the argument that any dick pic is an unwanted one because dicks are ugly and women don't like to look at that.

That blows my mind

Because it skips over the issue of consent entirely

Why is that so hard to believe? Why is so hard to see the comments by some who go off about how ugly penises are and how nasty they are that no "normal" woman would ask to see it?

That shouldn't matter

What matters is we have somehow created a society when a man thinks it is perfectly ok in a business-type setting to address a woman (or two women) who are fully clothed, there ostensibly to talk about non-sexual issues to say "hey want to watch me masturbate"

And women are too shocked, too terrified and feeling too powerless to say no because of ramifications, fear, or just shock

So please stop trying to gaslight and lecture.

was not that nobody ever wants to see a dick, but to emphasize to clueless men in a simple, bumper-sticker sort of way that they must not assume women want to see their dicks. A woman with whom they have a relationship might want to see it, but I think it's safe to say that very few women will want to see an unsolicited photo of the pecker of some guy they barely know. So to make the obvious point, the statement "Nobody wants to see your dick" carries with it the unspoken caveat "unless they specifically ask for it."

the discussion. We were trying to emphasize to men that no, your dick is not so pretty that it should be on display anywhere; no, seeing a dick does not have the same effect on women that seeing breasts has on you; and so on. Many men think that others think exactly like they do, and that's just not true.

It is consent

This is like parsing Not All Men or All LIves Matter. You know what we meant, so stop.

If a woman -- or man -- like seeing dicks, so what? Unsolicited dick seeing is what we mean, and you know that.

Because when people comment about consent saying "no woman wants to see a dick pic" that makes the argument only about the body part.

When arguments continue along the lines of "dicks are ugly, no one wants to see that" again, consent is now being implied that well if dicks were more pleasing to look at it wouldn't be such a bad thing.

When people make comments that they aren't visual and don't understand why anyone would want to see a dick pic...again the issue of consent and context are ignored.

These are stand alone arguments being made in threads about consent and they make no sense. Whatever your thread is about, if you made it about consent I have no issue.

"No woman I have ever known has ever asked for a dick pic"


How am I to know that means unsolicited? Because asking for one implies consent does it not?

and no one woman she has known would, that means NO woman ever would.

That's what is so difficult

period.

I am NOT saying people want an unasked for dick pic

I am not making the argument that some woman opened up her messages, see an unsolicited dick pic and wept for joy

My point is some posters have made the STAND ALONE ARGUMENT that NO woman ASKS to see a pic of a penis because they are ugly.

That purely on the basis of this and this alone, no woman would ever welcome an ASKED FOR dick pic because those women do not exist

Don't send dick pic.

Don't whip your dick out at an office and masturbate in front of women.

You could say... well some women like that.. I bet there are a few.. but most women are not appreciative of it and consider it assault. They know what is meant. And to give into those kinds of arguments that a few women do like it, harms the womens who are victims.

I can't tell... I really can't

You seem to continue to want to make the argument that I agree with you on - that no one wants to see something unsolicited or unasked for. I agree with you. There is no scenario in which whipping out a private body part unasked for or in a non-intimate setting (ie office party, street, bar) is ok.


You seem to want to miss my point deliberately?

My point is some posters have made the argument that the very nature of a penis is so disgusting no woman would ever voluntarily ask to see it, therefore just seeing a dick means there is no consent.

That takes away from the power of a woman to say yes or no

I am not and was not saying that unasked for penis exposure is wanted

I am pushing back on the idea that just because it's a penis means automatically it's assault or harassment

women, many of whom are victims, speak in a way that in essence says, not all women don't thinks dick picks are ugly and not all women think dicks are ugly is unempowering.

Get it?

I have been the victim of sexual assault. The trauma I have dealt with is that feeling of powerlessness, of having something done to me without consent.

For someone to say I can never give consent to something also takes away my power.

or about actions that are performed with consent, is unempowering.

Of course just about EVERY SINGLE person knows that to which they are speaking.

then that is also unempowering


When you make the statement that consent cannot be given because of the nature of the subject - that is a problem

What I said is every thinking person with a brain knows they are talking about actions with NO consent.

Trying to make women explain that they know in a tiny fraction of instances that consent is given but not in their case, plays into the canard that she might be lying..

For who are we to know whether she is telling the truth or not, or how to act if some women like it.

Women need not have to provide cover for their sexual assaulters. And they do not have to qualify their remarks in such a fashion.

However I know from past arguments with you on other topics that you and I do not communicate effectively.

1. I never said bostonbean has said women cannot give consent due to the nature of the subject

2. Deep in some sub threads on different posts on this topic a few commenters have made the whole basis of their argument that no woman has ever asked for a dick pic and followed that with dicks are ugly, no woman wants to see that.

3. This statement alone "no woman has ever ASKED for a dick pic" has been used for saying any dick pic is non consensual

Tiffany Haddish made the point beautifully on SNL : if your dick is out and the other women are completely clothed ... you're wrong!

That is different from other women saying no woman asks to see a dick.

I can agree with you 100% and you will still say I am not. I can agree with your points and you will still say I don't. I can point out where I am disagreeing and you have extrapolated that into statements I never said. Once you have decided that I am in the wrong with you, you have never in all my years here on DU conceded that we agree on something.

I am sorry for this, because I think you and I agree more than we disagree but there is not point in me continuing to argue what you don't want to hear.

I figured this was only a matter of time. Just like AllLivesMatter, I guess.

Well. You know now, so does that mean you're on board now?

Last edited Mon Nov 13, 2017, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't even get how you don't see how that one, in particular, is about unwanted attention. The line about handwaving it away as perv behavior makes it clear.

You claim that it's all about consent which you feel was obviously implied. And yet other people come to a different understanding of what was meant. It's a perfect example of why consent isn't nearly as cut and dry as you think. What you considered obvious wasn't conveyed through your words.

You expressly said that dick pics are rape culture, clarifying that unsolicited dick pics are sexual violence. If you fail to be expressly clear, that's on your communication skills. You can't expressly state something and then claim implied subtext makes it mean something else when called on it. Well not if you want to be considered intellectually honest and consistent.

"No one wants to see your dick" is short hand for "Do not expose your penis in non-sexual situations that are supposed to be focused on business or social interactions."

Adult men are supposed to know this, but obviously they don't. Fully mature adults recognize that there are situations where a woman would want to see the aforementioned appendage, but as a rule -- for the socially/psychologically damaged men who can't figure that out -- the "No one wants to see your dick" is necessary.

The admonishments are appropriate for public situations and are not an assault on your own sexual aesthetics and desires as expressed in private.

And I thought WE ALL KNEW THAT

Until I kept reading threads and keep seeing posters respond with "no woman has EVER asked to see a dick pic"

followed by "penises are ugly, why would ANYONE want to see one"

But go ahead and assume that we all apparently are on the same page

That is the point.

Giving into that type of ridiculous argument and making woman have to go a million miles to debunk a ridiculous point is the problem.

I will tell any man, most women do NOT want to see an ugly erect dick pic. Period... stop sending them.

I don't want to see ANY part of ANY one unless I ask for

"ugly erect dick"

"ugly wet pussy"

"ugly erect nipples on ugly breasts"

"ugly asses"

"ugly balls"


It's all ugly when unasked for.

But to say that ANY pic is inherently unwanted because it is of a specific body part skips over the consent part

I will tell any man and any woman - don't send pics of yourself unless asked for

Personally, I don't see the difference between sending unsolicited "dick pix" and a flasher opening his raincoat out in public.

The funny thing is, however, according to my 27-year-old son - a musician who performs in clubs nationally - he gets unsolicited sexually explicit pix from women on a DAILY basis, though he never asks for them and never reciprocates.

Should these women be prosecuted along with the "pervy men" some here are calling for? (Not that my son - or most men? - would ever bring charges.)

Those women should also face the same repercussions as any man sending a dick pic. It's unwelcome no matter how wonderful he/she may look

But of course the argument has been made that well women's genitalia are beautiful while men's are ugly so what's the issue

And this is where I am losing my damn mind arguing in circles

It's consent - if I ask to see it - yay! Even if it's "ugly" still I asked for it so yay!

I don't know why so many are insisting on misunderstanding you. I saw the same comments you pointed out in yr OP.

We all agree unsolicited pics are bad.

If I ask for pics, that means I am soliciting them and want to see.

Some people are imho elliding the two situations.

One of the things that bothers me is it seems there is kind of impulse to regulate other's sexuality and insist certain things are 'deviant'.

I have many friends who use online dating apps. Dick pics are sent as soon as he realizes she's not a bot.

sending pics is not ok (ie after the break up as in "don't you miss this&quot

I don't understand it - I have never understood why men just think a woman saying hello means "hello - show me your penis"

That said, the argument made on some previous threads that penises are inherently nasty and therefore should not be seen misses the point of consent

Please, won't someone think of the dicks? And the people who want to see dicks? PEOPLE MIGHT STOP SEEING DICKS.

It should always be about consent

The fact that some women are horrified that anyone would ask to see a dick and therefore ANY time one is shown is without consent is my problem.


Look if you want to make fun of me that's fine...I have tough skin

If you think all I care about are penises - have at it

My issue is that by dismissing the issue to "well dicks are ugly, so if one is sent it is automatically by the nature of its penis-ness without consent" takes away from 1)how did our society get to the point that men think it is ok to even bring it up or out in non-sexual situations 2) women have the power to say no and yes

In more than one sense of the word.

"It should always be about consent.."

Who specifically is arguing that it is not in fact, about consent?

No one. Not one single person. So you take exception to a dependent clause.

Though the qualifier may be added after the fact, the argument is simply not predicated on "penises are ugly."

But yeah.. go ahead and pretend yours is a critical point to be made. However, it's not.

I have read a handful of threads where repeated comments boiled down to the fact that a woman cannot consent to ever want seeing a penis because penises are ugly

Those words are not explicit - but that is what the argument comes down to - no woman has ever wanted to see a dick pic, therefore any dick pic - asked for or not, is by it's very nature unwanted and without consent

To me that takes power away from a woman to give and withdraw consent. That takes away from the point that somewhere we have gotten to a point where a man thinks it ok to display his penis in any setting.

They just suddenly decided that dick picks are a great subject to talk about, for no reason? These handfuls of threads you read just happened for no reason? Hey, everybody, it's dickpick discussion day! That's just what penis haters would do, you know. No. You know why this subject is popular right now. So, why are you banging your head against the wall?
Come on. They're talking about unsolicited dick picks. Even the most penis loving woman isn't going to like those. This is a strawman of your making.

It has ALWAYS been about consent.

At the time and place of my choosing. 😁

At least, I was, but then I read your OP again, and it's commendably nuanced and thoughtful.

k/r

I realize I probably should have worded it better but it was early in the morning and I was frustrated that I felt the consent issued was being overshadowed by penis aesthetics.

I have a tendency to argue in my head and assume every one else knows the whole argument.

It's a charged issue, to be sure, and there can be a sort of territorial squabble in making sure that we're all on the same page.

We don't always arrive at that page via the same thought process or using the same terminology, and some friction can arise as a result.


Regardless, I hope that we can all agree that Louis CK & all the rest are skeevy assholes who deserve whatever shitstorm they get.

The "nobody wants to see a dick" is clearly talking about unsolicited images.

Beyond that, some people like to see them and some people don't. It's an individual thing. But, I don't know anyone who wants to be confronted with one without consenting to that. That was what was meant.

All of my comments in such threads are about consent. They're never about the thing itself.

It's when the comment (which was made..I'm not playing semantics) no woman ASKS for a dick pic that started to get me frustrated

I thought we were all on the same page with no dick pic means no unsolicited dick pic until I started to read comments like that followed by comments on how ugly penises are.

I agree unsolicited dick is an ugly dick, but the penis in and of itself is not so offensive that inherently any picture - even when asked for- is non consensual.

That changes the argument from consent.

It's the unsolicited, unwanted nature of most such photos that are the issue. People post stuff in response to threads that often don't really follow the theme. I think it's clear that consent is the issue. Unsolicited anything is not sent with consent of the recipient. So, pretty much any surprise dick photo is nonconsensual.

In my life, some have found my junk interesting and attractive, while others have been "meh" about it. But, the subject has never come up until things that were completely consensual got to the point where it was a topic. The junk was part of the whole thing, but never the center of it, after all. In many ways, it's just another body part, with its own functionality.

There are some people who do not even want a flirt, and then there are some who, in the privacy of a bedroom or certain establishments with a lot of "leather" decor, will willingly do things that make "50 shades of Grey" look pale, but both are okay, as long as there is CONSENT!!!

Consent is to be given every time there is anything romantic, and yes, it can be pulled at anytime. No Hollywood bigshot, it does not matter if your lover did things all last week that would make Porn look like Mickey Mouse, the partner can always say "NO", and the partner does not have to explain.

I use "partner" to be gender Neutral, because while this is mostly het men going after het girls, it is not always such. Rob schenider, aka that guy from "deuce Bigelow", came out very early and described how a male bigshot tried to force HIM to have sex. If we make this about Louis Cks gentials, we will miss the fact that Rape, which is what sexual harassment is, is about POWER. Could there be a time when a not het male bigshot harasses a male or female, yes, andwe will need to condemn that too.

And in the context of an equal dating/relationship/hook up situation.
Or pay for service agreement.

And yes, most work situations do not call for penis exposure.
Unless the work situation is making porn films.

I do agree that no body part should be called ugly.
To a child however, an erect penis may be scary and ugly.

But I do say I don't want to see a penis at the office, or in non relationship situation.

I think we are trying to understand why this happens, and what we can do about it.

Last edited Tue Nov 14, 2017, 06:56 AM - Edit history (2)

I responded to your DM.

... which I shared with a male friend with the comment "She's being pretty mean to dicks here, but otherwise she has a point."

I'll say my opinion in a manner more similar to Samantha's statement:

"I don't care if it's the most visually-stimulated person who absolutely loves to give oral sex to men and adores seeing and pleasing their lover's penis -- they still don't want to see just J Random Penis without at least some warning, and preferably only when they've expressed they want to see *that* penis."

Because of course it is. I've been waiting for the backlash. It was only a matter of time. The notion that women who fight back are really just man haters is so deeply ingrained.

I started off thinking we were all on the same page, read posts that made me think oh shit, maybe we aren't, got my knickers in a twist and posted a poorly worded OP.

I stand by my assertion that consent and context are the issue. I got sidetracked by comments that penises are inherently disgusting that NO woman ASKS to see them.

I think you're misreading because you're being too literal in your interpretation. Several people have told you this. I think this is a misunderstanding.

The discussion, as I understood it, was about men sending unsolicited dick pics to women they knew (or didn't know), or exposing themselves to women who didn't want or expect to see what was being shown. If I'm in a relationship with someone, however, there's a point at which it can be assumed that I don't mind seeing what he's got. Or if I want to see it I can just ask. Or if somebody wants to send me a photo of same he can ask first, and I can say yes or no. But that's not what we were talking about.

Where the creepy factor comes in is when your phone pings and you open up your messages and surprise, there's somebody's member, and maybe it belongs to some guy you know from work or that you met at a party and with whom you have no relationship where consent to be electronically flashed can be assumed. In fact, a casual acquaintance shouldn't even ask if you want to see his private parts, either photographically or in person.

Your boss or co-worker must not rub his groin up against you at work, or corner you in the copier room and show himself to you, unless you are having an affair with him (which, of course, presents other problems). Someone you just met and were having a pleasant conversation with about nuclear proliferation or Bach cantatas may not assume you want to see what he's got the minute you're alone together.

Yes, it's about consent. That's always the issue.

circumcised or un-circumcised, that be the question

So, the issue is, how does a guy decide if the person wants to see his dick?

I'd say the safest presumption would be if they start asking for you to/helping you to take off your pants in the course of foreplay, or if they ask.

I've clearly lived too long.

Make fun of us old guys, but if some pervert was snapping pictures of his genitalia and passing them out to unsuspecting ladies when I was a young man, we'd have beaten his ass on general principles.

In all their variety. In this case, as a caregiver. I see people at the most vulnerable. I respect their privacy wishes as much as possible.

It’s a bit reverse of what we are talking about; by allowing me to provide care, I have permission to intimate areas, as far away from anything to do with sex as you can get, yet I still need permission.

So yeah. It’s all about consent.

working class, etc. There seems to be an affinity for lumping everyone into a particular group-then making arguments about that group as if it were a monolithic entity, completely homogeneous with no divisions or internal differences.

Context is everything.