emmanuel reynaud holy virility the social construction of masculinity

and then little by little it goes back to its usual shape. As for the
penis, it follows more or less the same pattern; except that
behavioural manifestations are external and there is no mucoid
secretion. In response to stimulation the blood vessels dilate
and the penis becomes enlarged; then a second rush of blood
slightly increases the circumference, mainly around the coronal
ridge and during orgasm, like the vagina, it contracts at regular
intervals― incidentally, the rhythm of the contractions is the
same then it gradually goes back to its regular shape.
And so, anatomically and physiologically, the two organs are
very similar; and yet this has not stopped man from ignoring the
vagina and regarding it as a mere inert hole, or from being
almost entirely ignorant concerning his own penis, which he
sees as a power symbol and an instrument of sexual
appropriation. Quite obviously man does not know his own
genitals, and now science has recognised this. Masters and
Johnson, no doubt wishing to make up for lost time, comment:
[34 / Holy virility]
«The functioning role of the penis is as well
established as that of any other organ in the body.
Ironically, there is no organ about which more
misinformation has been perpetrated. The penis
constantly has been viewed but rarely seen. The
organ has been venerated, reviled and misrepresented
with intent in art, literature and legend through the
centuries ... These 'phallic fallacies' have colored our
arts, and possibly, of even more import to our culture,
influenced our behavioural and biologic
sciences...Why... should the functional role of the
penis have been shrouded so successfully by the
'phallic fallacy' concepts? This, indeed, is one of the
great mysteries of biologic science.» [3]
Is it really so mysterious? How indeed can these 'phallic
fallacies' be avoided, when the penis is precisely the organ that
determines membership of the man class. Man turns a little bit
of soft, delicate and highly sensitive flesh into the factor which
bestows power on him, he is blind to the warmth, the fragility
and the hypersensitivity of his penis, he represents it as cold,
hard and sharp as a blade. It becomes a symbol and instrument
of power. He forces himself to control it and tries to separate it
from the rest of his body; often even mutilating himself in
practicing a symbolic separation through circumcision.
Circumcision is a mutilation practised widely through the world,
and doubtless has different purposes in the different societies
where it is a ritual. Bruno Bettelheim, based on his studies of
schizophrenic children and pre-literate peoples, [4] believes it
could be, for example, 'a male substitute for girls' first menstrual
cycle'. This hypothesis may be true in some cases but it does
not shed any light on the real purpose of mutilation in the
history of Judeo-Christian patriarchy.