...I thought of lots of ways to describe this, but they all put bad images in my head

[rachelmanija]

Which I will now share with you! Meet Ray Bradbury's talking penis.

Comments

Re: Taking it in context would require it to not have popped up suddenly from nowhere, I think

[flemmings.livejournal.com]

(shrug) It's OK to imagine dialogues with your computer or cat or car but ridiculous to imagine it with your penis? Fine. I don't have a penis but I wouldn't be surprised if men- who often personalize their penises- did indeed think of it as their best friend.

[octopedingenue]

Metaphorical phallus glorification is far from a new course in Western literature. And I have tried to name my breasts on occasion (didn't stick), but I give full permission for anyone male or female to snicker at me about it.

[flemmings.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I don't see why talking to a part of your body that's given you a lot of pleasure over the decades counts as glorification. In that passage at least- I haven't read the rest of the book and wouldn't be at all surprised if Bradbury thinks like Heinlein- it comes off as simple appreciation.

That there *is* a tradition of penis glorification is undeniable, but does that mean every positive reference to the penis is part of the tradition? Either disparage penises or be a phallocrat? How... limiting. Surely it's possible to simply like your penis (or your partner's) the way you like your legs or eyes. They're neat. They're useful. I'm grateful I have them: they make my life so much better. I don't think that constitutes glorification.

[octopedingenue]

I've realized I cannot sustain specific discussion about the talking penis scene without going into detail about the context of sexual politics throughout the rest of the book, which you've said you haven't read yet, so I thank you for an interesting discussion and I am bowing out now.