*trigger warning for sexual violence; not safe for work*
In a wonderful article called It’s Only a Penis, anthropologist Christine Helliwell talks of how her time with the Dayak community of Gerai in Indonesian Borneo changed her perceptions of the sexual body. She writes of a time when a man crept through a window and into the bed of a sleeping woman. She continues:
[She] awoke, in darkness, to feel the man inside her mosquito net, gripping her shoulder while he climbed under the blanket… He was whispering, “be quiet, be quiet!” She responded by sitting up in bed and pushing him violently, so that he stumbled backward [and] became entangled with her mosquito net… His hurried exit through the window, with his clothes now in considerable disarray, was accompanied by a stream of abuse from the woman and by excited interrogations from wakened neighbors in adjoining houses.
The next morning:
I awoke… to raucous laughter on the longhouse verandah outside my apartment where a group of elderly women gathered… They were recounting this tale loudly, and with enormous enjoyment… one was engaged in mimicking the man climbing out the window, sarong falling down, genitals askew… both men and women shrieked with laughter.
Helliwell was appalled. It sounded to her Western ears like a case of attempted rape. It was frightening, not funny. But, when she explained to the local women that what he did was bad, one replied, “No, no bad, simply stupid.” Helliwell turned to the woman who had been approached by the man and said, “He was trying to hurt you.” She replied, “It’s only a penis. How can a penis hurt anyone?” The Gerai had no word for “rape.”
I often think of this story when observing the way that women’s and men’s genitals are represented in Western culture. I find the Gerai’s perspective intuitively pleasing. Penises are, in fact, very sensitive dangly bits imbued with much importance. I can imagine a culture in which their vulnerability was front-and-center, so to speak. I’m reminded of an observation made by my colleague Caroline Heldman regarding the seemingly secret pact of all men not to fight “below the belt” so as to never draw attention to men’s obvious and uniquely male physical weakness.
Yet, in Western cultures, we do imagine the penis to be a potentially threatening piece of anatomy. In contrast, Helliwell writes, the vagina is often “conceived of as a delicate, perhaps inevitably damaged and pained inner space.” Accordingly, we have collectively agreed to somehow believe that penises are potentially brutalizing and vaginas easily brutalized.
Where do these ideas come from? Well, here’s a clue: the frequency with which penises are represented, literally, as weapons. Kira recently sent in this example: a lubricant with the name “Gun Oil” advertised in the San Jose Mercury News (this is also going straight to our pointlessly gendered products page).
A while back, we received this safer sex ad from Germany:
And Julie C. sent along a link to a set of safer sex ads that included these three:
While I am all for encouraging sexual pleasure and safer sex, I would prefer that such efforts not conflate the penis with a weapon. Doing so only contributes to the idea that the penis is inherently useful for enacting violence and women’s bodies naturally vulnerable to violation from men. Moreover, Helliwell’s experience suggests that this isn’t simply imaginary, but may also contribute to the enactment of violence or lack thereof.
Cross-posted at Pacific Standard.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 98
Miriam — June 18, 2009
That is intensely disturbing. Of course I support safe(r) sex, but as the child of a survivor of gun violence, I really wish that firearms weren't so pervasive in our culture as a symbol for "you're putting yourself at risk!!!"
Also, of course the female body in the final picture is extremely thin and totally faceless. *sigh*
Jenn — June 18, 2009
Oh my God. That last one is hideous and painful to look at. As I type out this comment, I had to purposefully scroll down the page so I didn't have to look at it again. How on earth did anyone think that was a good idea? They must not have a single person with a lick of sense on the board that approved that. It's the most dehumanizing thing I've ever seen. The woman is reduced to her sex parts, spread eagle in her vulnerability and naked. The man is anonymous and therefore powerful, holding a weapon pointed at her sex organs with the intent of destroying them, or more metaphorically, destroying the female sexuality.
I honestly think that this is by far the most triggering advertisement I've ever seen. This is something that I'd expect from pornographers, sadists, and psychopaths, not a major television network. The rest of the ads are horrible too. The spider in the woman's panties, again, reduces a woman to her sex parts and suggests that a woman's sexuality is consuming and dangerous, much like in some species a female spider kills the male spider after copulation. It seems to be selling the use of condoms by the old worry that a woman's sexuality is dangerous and dirty. The first compares a penis to a bullet, echoing the very real cultural perception of a man's lust as an uncontrollable weapon that the woman, usually, brings upon herself by her sinful ways (in other words, victim blaming). It also adds a measure of the absurd. Why on earth would anyone sheath a bullet? Presumably, if you're going to shoot someone, the last thing that the person pulling the trigger would worry about is mitigating the harm of the bullet. In fact, I think that would be contrary to their aims. If the penis is a bullet, than the person who agrees with the notion that their sex organ is a weapon would also agree, by the dominant cultural narrative, that mitigating its effect is entirely contrary to the purpose of their penis/bullet.
This series of ads is pointless, degrading, disgusting, triggering, and truly heinous in execution and design. It utilizes the most bleak and damaging cultural narratives about male and female sexuality to execute a message that might not come across clearly.
What a mess. If anyone ever needed proof that we are soaking in a rape culture, here it is.
Dmitriy — June 18, 2009
Yeah, i was kind of with MTV until the last one. I especially liked the tag line for the last one:
"Girls, protect yourself.
Demand your partner to wear a condom."
How exactly is "she" in that picture protecting her self? Also, does that mean that "he" never has to protect him self? Is safe sex a one way street?
Lastly, the ad is produced and distributed in Portugal. I wonder if I am missing anything culturally. Perhaps ( crossing fingers and wishing for the best) it is a simple case of lost in translation.
rusk — June 18, 2009
And of course the woman in the last ad is shaved, so we're basically seeing a prepubescent girl being shot in the crotch... Urgh
Kelly — June 18, 2009
My god, this is probably one of the most disturbing ads I've ever seen!
"GIRLS protect yourselves?" omg....... I am at a loss for words.
A — June 18, 2009
Highly disturbing.
phillip — June 18, 2009
If MTV aims to turn me on... BULLSEYE!
HN1 — June 18, 2009
Whatever the age, that third one is basically kiddie pron. (I'm fine with waxing and personal choice, whatever floats your boat, but art directing and photoshopping something into print gives me the right to critique your work and decisions, ad agency – and you made an ad that looks like someone's trying to rape a 12-year-old).
Not helpful. Not helpful at all.
EGhead — June 18, 2009
OK, the last one is definitely way over the line. Who could have possibly thought that would be a good idea?
EGhead — June 18, 2009
Oh and I especially love that the copy says 'girls.' Not women, girls. I guess the hairless crotch should have told me that.
EGhead — June 18, 2009
OK, no that was another commenter that said that. I need a nap.
Raine — June 18, 2009
The ads are horrendous, the third one especially so. With regards to the video, though, did anyone else get a kick out of the fact that the ad ends with saying "be monogamous OR be safe"? *collective sigh*
Richard — June 18, 2009
Yeowch. That's extremely misandrous. My weiner's not a gun.
Gwrthryfel — June 18, 2009
"While I am all for encouraging safer sex, I would prefer that such efforts not conflate the penis with a weapon. Goodness knows doing so only contributes to the idea that the penis is inherently or naturally useful for enacting violence and women’s bodies inherently or naturally vulnerable to violation from men."
Seriously. I find these ads extremely disturbing. If I didn't know better, I'd say they were abstinence-only ads in disguise. They're promoting safe sex, but it's making sex look dark and sinister and violent - though safe, CONSENTUAL sex is anything but. And even without that, the third ad is extremely offensive. Didn't these people consider rape/sexual assault victims???
ashivers — June 18, 2009
I don't know if this is disturbing I just think this is a message about sex and how if your not protected you can potential kill your self if you get a disease that is uncurable. I personally don't feel like this is any kind of an offense against battered/sexual assault victims. I think now a days we need harsh messages like these to get the point accross other wise no one would pay attention. Don't get me wrong I promote safe sex. I just don't think this is a disturbing message. I think this is a message that can catch peoples attention and make them think about how they protect themselves.
The Daily Sawce [Thursday, 6.19] « sawcebox — June 18, 2009
[...] Safer Sex PSAs Conflate The Penis With a Firearm @ Sociological Images, linked through Jezebel. A giant WTF goes out to MTV over this… While the image is indeed powerful, I’m not sure it’s going to send out the message they were hoping for. Trigger Warning - The post might contain images that are triggers to victims of violence. [...]
hoshi — June 19, 2009
does anyone else notice that in the first three ads, the only "victim" of unsafe sex is the male's partner? even in the second ad where the bullet is in a condom, the idea is not that the bullet is protected, but that the partner isn't going to get the bullet *because* the condom is there.
the video shows that both people are indeed harmed by unsafe sex, but i don't see that balance in the ads at all. how difficult would it be (if they chose to stick with the gun motif) to simply have a picture of people holding guns at each other. if you're going to use a violent picture to get the message across, at least make people understand that both partners are at risk.
as for the third photograph.... when my page loaded i literally gasped in horror. it's very disturbing to see blatant violence against women presented to casually. if i were a teen i wouldn't look at that picture and think, "oh! unsafe sex could kill me. i get it now!" i would look at that picture and think, "oh god... men are dangerous!"
Jenn, part of your comment caught my attention. it's giving me food for thought, but i wanted to point out the conflicting view that you presented.
"The woman is reduced to her sex parts, spread eagle in her vulnerability and naked. The man is anonymous and therefore powerful. . . "
both are anonymous, but only one holds a weapon. i would propose that the weapon is what makes him powerful and not his anonymity. because if it was his anonymity that made him powerful, wouldn't it make her powerful as well?
Gwrthryfel, the idea that these are abstinence-only ads sounds plausible. although many people are shot and survive, typically guns = death in our society.
Leigh — June 19, 2009
I know men are at risk too. And men are responsible too. But any straight woman who has finally thought to herself, "Fuck it. I will clean the damn toilet since he obviously doesn't care," knows that we are responsible. Fair or not, we are. Right or not, we hold the power and 7 times out of 10, we're the ones saying, "wear one."
I don't mind being reminded that at the end of the day, I am responsible for myself and the choices I make could have disasterous consequences. My apologies to victims of gun violence, but any image could trigger any number of nightmares for a woman, we can't decide images are innappropriate based on that.
Anonymous — June 19, 2009
yeah i know when ever I am a 12 year old girl being raped i have a lot of choice in condoms and birth control.....this is kind of pointless for ads. BUT i actually did like the video clip a LOT more than the images which were sort of pointless.
Trabb's Boy — June 19, 2009
One point I haven't seen yet in all these interesting comments is that these ads probably don't seem very effective. They shock like all get out when you see them, but they don't provide any sort of reminder when it counts.
For most people, when you're at the point of deciding whether or not to put on a condom, you're not thinking about guns and rape and death. Thoughts like that would be pushed automatically out of your mind. You're thinking about how delicious this all feels and how much you want more. Ads that are more like soft porn that incorporate condoms would be more likely to bring them to mind at the time, as well as making them seem more like an appealing part of the process.
These don't make me afraid of sexually transmitted disease. They make me afraid of MTV advertising department staff.
Trabb's Boy — June 19, 2009
You know, the more I think about it, the more certain I am that these have absolutely nothing to do with safe sex and everything to do with branding MTV as "edgy." We are doing exactly what they want by reprinting the pictures and expressing our outrage.
God, I hate advertising.
Friday Blogaround « The Gender Blender Blog — June 19, 2009
[...] Safer Sex PSAs Conflate the Penis with a Firearm (NSFW) [...]
Kelly — June 19, 2009
Trabb's Boy is right. Most people would probably block these horrifying images from their mind when they're at the point of actually deciding whether or not to use a condom. A positive, fun message would be much more effective!
As an illustrator, I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I'd come up with the images above. Not only are they horrifying to previous victims of sexual assault and offensive to both men and women, they're also ineffective! I think one of the most effective condom PSA illustrations I ever saw was this one http://urbanmolecule.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ec26b4_fullsize.jpg by James Jean. Instead of sending a message of fear, the message is instead "Explore, just protect yourself." so much more positive!
That said, I definitely agree that MTV seems to be more concerned with projecting an appearance of 'edginess' than the effectiveness of its ads in encouraging condom use.
cbt — June 19, 2009
incredibly offensive
Dusk_Blue — June 19, 2009
I've read feminist comparisons of gun violence and rape that assert that men are attracted to guns because of phallic imagery and masculine aggression. Driving a bullet into a helpless body is seen as a manifestation of the same thought processes that lead to rape, and likewise with phallic missiles attacking helpless countries to assert male domination.
These are seen as progressive anti-war statements, while the above images are seen as harmful and sexist. I'm not sure I see the difference. Could someone please explain? I am curious. Please be civil.
Ali — June 19, 2009
Kelly, I really like PSA you linked to! I might have to send it out in some Valentine's Day cards next year...
Ethyl — June 20, 2009
My jaw dropped when I saw that last picture. And all of the comments above are spot on, but I just wanted to mention as well that there are reports I've read about the continuing violence against women and girls in the Congo which includes vaginal gunshots. I can't even type that sentence without tearing up a little. Who thought this was an appropriate image, ever?
hoshi — June 20, 2009
just as a further comment.. i showed these pics to my husband to get his opinion. i asked him if the third picture made him think of safe sex, and he said, "No! It makes me think, 'Kill the sexy womens.'"
not that he would, of course. but that's the message he got from the ad.
T B — June 20, 2009
The gender and sex issues should be our primary focus here, of course, but I also find it striking how these ads normalize gun culture.
Regarding the guns -
The basic message here is about protecting ourselves without challenging the disemmination of the guns (to bring another penis metaphor into this). The guns basically are equated with natural body parts -- as though guns are normal outgrowths of our bodies. More generally, mainstream displays of guns (on TV, etc) tend to encourage people to take them for granted.
(If I were to outline my own view on guns, I would stress how we should challenge the gun industry.)
Obviously people view guns from different perspectives. I'm not assuming that everyone who reads this site has an outright anti-gun POV -- of some sort; however, I don't see how anyone could say that these ads bring a constructive contribution to controversies and conflicts surrounding guns.
(I haven't read through all of the comments, by the way. But I did notice that "Dusk_Blue" has posted a comment -- not far above this one from me -- that connects up with what I'm saying more than most of the comments here seem to.)
wiggles — June 20, 2009
Kelly - the PSA you linked to isn't as bad, but I'm not over the moon about it. Why no female sex organs?
wiggles — June 20, 2009
Ethyl - good point about what men are doing to women in the Congo. That's what that third ad made me think of too.
T B — June 21, 2009
A perspective on guns in the U.S. -
Marie Cocco -
"Guns and the Link We Won't Admit"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/16-8
I recommend that article (which was published just 5 days ago).
Pauline — June 21, 2009
Sorry but could I have a translation for the copy on the ads? I'm really curious as to what they say....
As to the imagery itself, I'm pretty disgusted.
Kandeezie — June 22, 2009
Notice how it's suppose to be from the women's perspective, warning us of the dangers of having unprotected sex, yet the positioning of the woman is from a male point of view, the same one used in male-centered pornography to help men visualize the experience. If it were truly for women, the viewpoint would have been reverse.
alana — June 22, 2009
wiggles - There are actually two posters; one with a woman surrounded by a sea of male parts, and one of a man floating in a female part space. You can see them here:http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2008/aides-explore-just-protect-yourself/
“Is that a gun in your pants or are you just happy to see me?” « Adam Joseph Drici — June 23, 2009
[...] (via Zelda Lily & Sociological Images) [...]
American gun culture | Toban Black — July 1, 2009
[...] Lisa on the Sociological Images blog - “Safer Sex PSAs Conflate The Penis With A Firearm (NSFW)“ [...]
Portuguese safe-sex ad draws ire of American feminists | David Shankbone — August 26, 2009
[...] takes these ads out of context, the ironically-named Contexts.org. They have a running “Sociological Images” bit. They make the point that the penis is, once again, shown as “inherently or [...]
Violence Against Women on Prime Time Up Since 2004 » Sociological Images — November 8, 2009
[...] nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four, thirty-five, [...]
Presenting the Penis as a Dangerous Weapon (Mildly NSFW) » Sociological Images — February 27, 2010
[...] punishment for inappropriate behaviors; for instance, a lot of campaigns that encourage condom use compare penises to guns. So does this one. This anti-drunk driving poster threatens young people with the idea of prison [...]
lyssa — July 17, 2010
http://www.coloribus.com/focus/top-safe-sex-ideas/12438455/ What IS this? This makes absolutely no sense. Am I just missing something?
These three are actually very good, I think.
http://www.coloribus.com/focus/top-safe-sex-ideas/10003305/ http://www.coloribus.com/focus/top-safe-sex-ideas/10003255/
http://www.coloribus.com/focus/top-safe-sex-ideas/10003205/
Joe — April 22, 2011
Not really touched on yet is the extreme objectification of men in this add. The concept that a penis is inherently dangerous and is analogous to a bullet or even gun is beyond offensive. Any kind of sexual objectification has the ability to be negative, but the idea of representing male reproductive organs as instruments of injury and death is deplorable to say the least. I am disgusted and personally offended of this type of depiction of male anatomy.
Tfolk — October 7, 2013
NB a penis is not a uniquely male piece of anatomy (aka trans people exist).
fork — October 7, 2013
" I find the Gerai’s perspective intuitively pleasing. "
Tell it to the Mennonite women of Manitoba Colony, Bolivia. Tell them that haha, it's only a penis. Or in the case of the 3 year old, it's only a finger.
Yeah, get over it, you whiners. Trauma, my ass. You're only a victim if you make yourself one, amirite?
Alastair J Roberts — October 7, 2013
Let's suppose that the man had succeeded in raping the Gerai woman, would "It was only a penis. How can a penis hurt anyone?" be such an 'intuitively pleasing' position? How about living in a culture that so diminished the potentially traumatic character of rape that it didn't even have a name for it?
While the fetishization of the penis as a powerful weapon is profoundly unhelpful, surely their are better ways of putting its relative weakness and power in clearer perspective.
Tallcorn — October 7, 2013
You don't have to consider the penis dastardly or weaponized or whatever to consider rape wrong. It has to do with consent, not the inherent good or evil of a specific body part.
Tom Megginson — October 7, 2013
"This is my rifle/This is my gun/One is for killing/The other's for fun..."
The penis/gun confusion shoots both ways.
Casey — October 7, 2013
A potent reminder that no matter how important all of these social issues we talk about here and today, they're still ultimately only relevant to our cultural notions of their importance. This is why movements like Femen and other attempts at globalized feminist criticism are so often irrelevant at best, problematic colonialism at worst.
Japaniard — October 7, 2013
I'm pretty sure the idea of not hitting below the belt isn't "to never draw attention to men’s obvious and uniquely male physical weakness" but is instead rooted in the concept of mutually assured destruction.
It's the same reason you don't see people trying to gouge each other's eyes out in street fights. The amount of damage done to the opponent (be it the physical pain of a kick to the crotch or the permanent loss of eyesight) would call for a level of retaliation too high for the attacker to bear
grinblo — October 11, 2013
Interestingly, the Hebrew slang for penis is, literally, "weapon." I wonder what this issue is like in other non-Western cultures.
red — October 18, 2013
It's the truth, the penis is a weapon which harms women. This is a very good analogy, and about time.
STDs, AIDS, cervical cancer, physical trauma to organs leading to castration; sexual abuse, harassment, murder; pregnancy which is more dangerous than abortion, and abortion, potential for having to use chemically toxic birth control, supporting a child all its life, poverty, potential for being prostituted, raped and serially raped in porn to feed the child(ren), becoming one of the prostitued class, almost impossibie to escape because men see you now as human garbage, all the above effect on psychologycal being, ability to get an education and earn a living, the child(ren) born of this suffer... .
What's different about this war on women, and war for oil?
Nothing. They are both by and for men.
On the (Rest of the) Net. | The Early Bird Catches the Worm — October 18, 2013
[...] The penis as a weapon (NSWF). [Sociological Images] [...]
biljana — October 19, 2013
Truth is, if a whole society imagines male genitalia as a weapon and a threat, then that does become our reality, and it is no less real and harmful because it is driven by 'mere' beliefs of misogynistic and patriarchal creation.
Pointing out that its only a 'very sensitive dangly bit' on a man's body when flacid without discussing this point only serves to ignore/reduce the trauma of rape, as well as to ignore the fact that so much more is involved in the act of rape and sexual assault than the penis. The physical violence, the forced submission to a powerless state over one's own body, the disregard for consent and autonomy, the acute vaginal pain of being fucked violently without being prepared physically for it -- its not the symbolic flacid vulnerable penis that is responsible for rape, a rape involves much more. So I think the writer of this article needs to consider the ramifications of making this kind of suggestion- that we're all just accepting the brutal-penis, vulnerable-vagina theory- and work on avoiding over-simplification and reduction when speaking about sensitive and serious issues.
Perhaps the Gerai people are fortunate to have a different set of sociocultural norms and attitudes around gender, sex and shame, which enable women to feel less threatened by these encounters - perhaps because they feel empowered to stand up to this behaviour, knowing that maybe the men are not raised to desire enacting violence on women? And that the next day they won't be seen as 'dirty' or 'sluts' for what was possibly enacted on them, but will face a community who will laugh at the expense of the horny disrespectful idiot who thought he could get sex this way? I really don't know, I'm only speculating. What I'm saying though is, their society is not our society. if we're comparing/commenting on different societal beliefs around the male genitalia and sexual violence, we are responsible for acknowledging all the elements in the equation when doing so.
The Serious Dangers of Typecasting | ronnerio — October 20, 2013
[…] Wade’s post from Sociological Images adds another dimension to this discussion. As Jean Halley writes in Boundaries of Touch, “I […]
BonnieRipley — October 21, 2013
Okay. I'm a 62 yr. old woman, mother and grandmother. I was raped repeatedly, vaginally and analy, as a child and as a young teen. I'm amazed that nobody here addresses the physical PAIN when a penis is used as a weapon against a woman. Physical pain, and lasting damage. I love men, I love sex, and it took me a long time to just let the past go. I still have some lingering physical issues, however. There is good reason for women to look at a penis as a weapon. Women and girls- recently an 8 yr. old in Yemen, DIE from rape. This is a topic that needs consideration and conversation, but please remember it hurts.
You're Not Left Yet — December 3, 2013
Pretty sure penises can often be perceived as dangerous because of global pandemic sexual violence against women and girls, and trying to recast ATTEMPTED RAPE as humorous is the hallmark of this culture. If a failed rapist is most aptly-described as "stupid", what should we call a successful rapist? "Smart"?
Disgusting.
Is the Penis Dangerous? — December 23, 2013
[…] post originally appeared on Sociological Images, a Pacific Standard partner […]
Prenatal Cradle — January 7, 2014
Um... Has the author never seen a male ejaculation? For her and anyone else unfamiliar, ejaculation involves semen "shooting" out from the tip of the penis in a manner resembling a squirt gun. I'm guessing this may have something to do with the references... This and the fact that men are obsessed with finding loopholes and creating new ones to get around saying the NSFW words for penis.
Dale — February 5, 2014
Are you insane (author)? Rape has nothing to do with sex! It's the emotional damage that occurs, and believe you me, this is coming from a very dominant and sexually aggressive man. It's only about power and dominance. Control.
Almost universally, we all hold sexual contact as a private and vulnerable act. Being forced in any way to perform this exposure is quite literally invasive and scaring.
Whether I found a woman (or man) attractive or not has nothing to do with my willingness to engage in sex with that person. For example (sorry George), I find George Clooney very attractive, but in addition to my sexual preference, I would be emotional traumatized if he forced himself upon me. The same argument could be made for women I find attractive physically, but say perhaps I did not feel safe or that they had my best interest at heart.
Is the Penis Dangerous? - Pacific Standard: The Science of Society — March 25, 2014
[…] post originally appeared on Sociological Images, a Pacific Standard partner […]
Buzzfeed Wants To Remind You: The Male Body Is Disgusting | Badwolf/Blog — August 18, 2016
[…] to learn that this was collated by a woman (I’m not here to disparage women, just pointing to a general trend of women being encouraged to see male bodies, and especially penises as threats to their […]