• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Kopi fra DBC Webarkiv Kopi af: Making love detumescently : some preliminary notes on the body language of the penis Dette materiale er lagret i henhold til aftale mellem DBC og udgiveren. www.dbc.dk e-mail: [email protected] 7/3/2017 www.kosmorama.org/Artikler/Making­Love­Detumescently.aspx DU ER HER: KOSMORAMA | TIDSSKRIFT FOR FILMFORSKNING OG FILMKULTUR / ARTIKLER / MAKING LOVE DETUMESCENTLY MAKING LOVE DETUMESCENTLY: SOME PRELIMINARY NOTES ON THE BODY LANGUAGE OF THE PENIS 02 DECEMBER 2014 / MARIAH LARSSON PEER REVIEWED Although body language in the moving image may to a large extent be transparent, some aspects of body language are regulated by generic conventions, rating systems, and, historically, by the law. This article discusses the limitations and possibilities of the body language of the penis, using examples from both non­pornographic films and pornographic films. Lena Nyman and Börje Ahlstedt in "I am Curious ­ Yellow" (Vilgot Sjöman, 1967). Photo: Kenneth Skogsberg / Sandrew Film & Teater AB. After trashing Vilgot Sjöman’s film I am Curious – Yellow (Jag är nyfiken – gul, 1967) upon its U.S. release in 1969, American film critic Roger Ebert concluded his review by stating: ”The one interesting aspect is that the hero succeeds in doing something no other man has ever been able to do. He makes love detumescently. I say the hell with the movie; let’s have his secret” (Ebert 1969). This statement testifies to what might be perceived as the film’s inauthenticity: although proclaiming to portray sexuality honestly and straightforwardly, it still does not offer that ostensibly ultimate proof of the man’s attraction to the woman and of their actual lovemaking in the film. Now, since the actors in the film were not, for instance, live show artists (commonly used as performers in early Swedish pornographic film), the intercourse scenes in I am Curious – Yellow were, for all their supposed candidness, simulated. The absence of the tumescent penis in the film is thus a result of this simulation, and, in its extension, an evidence of its inauthenticity. The body communicates sexual attraction and arousal with several complex nervous reactions in the body. This involves increased heart rate, swelling of the genital glands and erectile tissue in both men and women, contracted nipples, and, in women, lubrication (Lundberg 2010). These bodily expressions have been observed in experiments conducted by early sex researchers such as Alfred C. Kinsey and William H. Masters and Virginia Johnson (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin 1948; Kinsey 1953; Masters & Johnson 1966), but they are more or less reflex reactions – we cannot will them. We may be able to conjure these expressions through bringing forth in our minds sexual fantasies or memories but, unlike a smile or a scowl, a defensive pose or even a startled jump, we cannot act lubrication or erection. The main objective of this article is to discuss the body language of the penis, and to analyze the extent to which this language may or may not work as part of a matrix of meanings in the moving image. A matrix of meanings refers here to the different ways in which the penis could be seen to communicate beyond the common interpretation of yes or no to sexual intercourse, here in the context of reading moving images. Since we interpret body language within the social context of the real world, we understand it quite similarly when reading films and television series. Therefore, representations of body language in the moving image function in transparent and obvious ways to the viewer. However, the particular aspect of the (non­)erect penis as body language in focus in this article is, due to generic conventions and regulations, not allowed to be shown in full and is thus limited in its means to communicate diversity in sexual desires, emotions, and actions and the potential responses in others. Although the immediacy of bodily signs of sexual arousal would seem to make them convincing as authentic physical communication, these signs are, in most forms of popular culture, regarded obscene – either by law or by self­censorship – and thus avoided. With the exception of pornography and certain instances of art or independent cinema (such as Romance (Catherine Breillat, 1999); The Brown Bunny (Vincent Gallo, 2003); or Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)) we are hardly ever shown erect penises or close­ups of lubricated, glistening labia. The exclusion of the penis, in particular the tumescent one, from mainstream moving images has been understood in different ways. One of the most notable studies of representations of the penis is Peter Lehman’s classic Running Scared: Masculinity and the Representation of the Male Body from 1993 with a new edition in 2007. Lehman argues that a gap exists between the mythological phallus and the actual penis and consequently, in order to retain the ”awe and mystique” of the phallus, the penis must remain hidden. Furthermore, Lehman claims, the representation of the penis confronts men with two threats in their general identity constructions as masculine: one having to do with women’s ability to compare and pass judgement and the other with homophobia http://www.kosmorama.org/Artikler/Making­Love­Detumescently.aspx 1/7 7/3/2017 www.kosmorama.org/Artikler/Making­Love­Detumescently.aspx having to do with women’s ability to compare and pass judgement and the other with homophobia (Lehman 2007: 236). Lehman’s study relies to a large extent on psychoanalysis for its interpretation of various representations of the male body. Also, there is a recurring emphasis on size, whereas the focus in this article is the dichotomy of the erect and non­erect penis. Although it is reasonable to see some form of anxiety at work in representations of the penis, the fact that this anxiety has to do with a gap between penis and phallus remains to be demonstrated. The problem with representing the erect penis – in comparison with for instance full frontal female nudity – is its overt association with sexual activity. It cannot really be compared to nudity as such but rather with the beaver shot or close­up of female genitalia. The erect penis is unequivocally obscene. As pointed out by other scholars, the less visible signs of arousal in the female body compared with the male body signify a representational problem. Linda Williams has analyzed the money shot in pornography – that shows ejaculation – in terms of a visible evidence of pleasure having taken place. She also looked at pornographic film in terms of ”scientia sexualis” that is, a quest for knowledge about in particular female pleasure (Williams 1999). However, if in pornography the visibility of male arousal and sexual release is something that is cherished, in mainstream film, the same visibility is problematic. Consequently, although anxieties in relation to representations of the penis certainly exist, one of the reasons for it being censored and avoided is – in my opinion – practical. The erect penis is both difficult to control and signals sex in a very visceral manner. This latter feature is highly problematic since human societies usually place limits on the display of genitals and copulation (Grodal 2009: 67). The anxieties pertaining to representations of the (erect) penis could very well relate to size and homophobia, but much of this anxiety seems to connect to its visual outspokenness and an ambivalent relationship to sexuality in contemporary Western societies. The hero in I am Curious ­ Yellow making love detumescently. Photo: Kenneth Skogsberg / Sandrew Film & Teater AB. Additionally, the body language of the penis – when explicit – has a tendency to evoke an embodied response in the spectator, at least in hardcore imagery (see e.g. Janssen, Carpenter, Graham 2003). In the following, I shall through a discussion of both the physiological and cultural side of tumescence demonstrate the dichotomic representation of the penis and, by drawing on both mainstream and pornographic film discuss the penis’ ability to speak, how the penis may – and may be allowed to – speak. This approach will help demonstrate the possible multiple meanings through which the (non­)erect penis could actually be read, as well as suggest what the penis communicates in those instances where it is allowed to speak. Tumescence and detumescence as body language Body language in the moving image can be regarded as a set of bodily expressions originally defined in ”real life,” outside of the media. Various emotions are thus expressed not only facially, but through posture, gestures, and movement. In real life, some of these physical expressions are, although hard to control, more or less voluntary: we mean to raise a fist when we are angry, or to lean forward when making a point. Others are involuntary, like trembling with abstinence or startling when we are surprised. In either case, body language is a useful tool in acting, not least to represent ambiguous feelings or ambivalence (the words say one thing, the body says another), but also to reinforce the sense or atmosphere of various situations or to communicate emotions without dialogue. As one of the most obvious examples of body language in real life, the erect or non­erect penis seems to speak of willingness or unwillingness, that is arousal or non­arousal, and even opposite feelings such as disgust or indifference versus need, want, desire, or attraction. In a sexual situation, it can say yes or it can say no. As a sign, then, the penis might be reduced to being regarded as either “on” or “off.” This, however, is a very simplified way of looking at the body language of the penis. Physiologically, erections do not necessarily have to do with willingness to engage in sexual activity. Since they are initiated by the parasympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system (Lundberg 2010), erections are not the outcome of muscles flexed at will or by a conscious decision of the mind.

Load more

  8

Copy Link