From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: penis size
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 15:11:22 GMT


In article <C07wvL.M31@agora.rain.com> bburns@agora.rain.com
(Barry Burns) writes:

>Jess, I too think that soc.motss is safe and supportive, at
>least more so than the gay community at large, but then
>again that is not saying much.

Much is revealed in small remarks, I think.  I know
personally many (many, not few) people here who would say it
*is* "saying much."  What it seems to me you're not allowing
enough room for, in your entire posting, is individual point
of view.

For example, there are certainly people who have found
soc.motss to be the most supportive space they have ever
encountered in their lives; it has made an *enormous*
difference to their qualitative experience of themselves.
While your take on that is clearly different, you seem to be
discounting what it can be for others because it was not
what you expected for your friend or yourself.

>As I view this thread (and I admit that my perspective is a
>special one), what is lacking is maybe not so much support
>as it is misunderstanding the points Brent was trying to
>make.

In my book, anyone who tries to help another with a problem
(this may involve knowing when not to try) is doing an OK
thing.  Such efforts are *bound* to involve misunderstandings
and other human frailties; it's part of the turf.

In the given instance, I think I understand what concerns
you.  I thought I understood what concerned Brent, too.  But
in either case, if I've missed it in one or more ways, it
may be undesirable or unfortunate, but it can't be helped,
either.  It seems to me one just goes from there.

As a result of your posting, I reviewed what I said to and
about Brent, and, your diverging opinion notwithstanding ...

>I think "serious delusions" is kinda dramatic, but subtlety
>has never been your strong suit.  And actually how "safe" is
>it to throw a flame-o-rama (tm) when someone is expressing
>true feelings, even if those feelings are ancient history.

... I think my posting was reasonably caring and
supportive.  Wrt subtlety, I think it was arguably more
subtle than you grant, while explicitly avoiding being too
indirect about some things.

It was emphatically not a flame.  Indeed, your perception of
flame must be very different from mine; that would be not
too surprising.  I explicitly acknowledged Brent's feelings,
and there wasn't (your differing perceptions noted) the
slightest edge of hostility toward him; quite the contrary,
actually.

I didn't think Steve Dyer's comments amounted to a flame,
either.  As for "ancient history," Brent's response to
Steve makes it clear, to my mind, that there's nothing
ancient about it.  On the contrary, the feelings are live,
present-tense, and strong.  Indeed, Brent seemed to me
to be lashing out at Steve *primarily* because he'd
gotten email he (and, I guess, you) thought was sleazy.

I may have been mistaken (I'd be sorry about that), but I
was hardly being unkind.  I didn't think Steve was, either.

>My version of Roget's does not list confrontational
>e-psychoanalysis as a synonym for safe.

What are you looking under?  And was that a confrontational
remark (yours or mine)?  It's you who took it to be
confrontational.  It's you who took it to be
psychotherapeutic in thrust.  I think the latter element was
indeed present, but it's hardly possible to tender any sort
of comment at all, especially on such an emotionally laden
topic, without running that sort of risk.

>"In the Beginning" (tm) of this lengthy postulation on penis
>size, Brent wrote:

>>It took years of patience by my husband to get me to see
>>that it didn't have to be a bad thing and that I could allow
>>myself to have a little fun with it.  So I'm not going to
>>hide it so much any more.  But I don't attach any meaning to
>>it either.  If other people do that's their problem.  I know
>>it doesn't mean a goddam thing.

>As everyone who has felt free to comment on my husbands
>state of mind seems to have missed this portion on Brent's
>post, I felt it relevant to quote it directly.

Do you really think people missed that?  I don't.  We come
again to expectations, I think.  He said what he said in a
very public forum.  That is an invitation to comment
publicly.  Doing so does not indict a person as "feeling free
to comment." I can see why you're taking all this up, but
it's also true that comments, of whatever sort (evidently
not what you hoped for) would be forthcoming.  Wouldn't it
be rather a folly to expect otherwise?

>Brent clearly states here that he feels that the feelings of
>self-consciousness he carted about for years have begun to
>fade.  He implies that this is an ongoing growth process.  As
>a man who can best be described as a "grower not a shower",
>I helped Brent realize that many people in the gay community
>are concerned in a very adolescent way with their dick size,
>including me.

Nurture is a very good thing.  Evidently you've helped in
your way.  Others do what they can in their ways.  Why do
you impeach that, which it seems to me you do?

I've asked about a half dozen times, but I think an answer
would be nice: what did *you* expect?

>However, as we both matured as individuals and in our
>relationship, we began to appreciate and even celebrate
>ourselves and our bodies in new (and ever more creative :))
>ways.  Brent's bear code was a very small part of that
>celebration.  When he showed me the original post, he
>described it as like another coming out.  He clearly says
>that he doesn't attach any meaning to his penis size, but
>that he is no longer going to hide it.

All to the good, though it's clear he does attach quite a
bit of meaning to the issues, despite the claim.  I think
almost any man would, given the prevailing cultural values.

>Then, the fun began.  The e-mail started immediately.  Much
>of it was supportive, some of it was sleazy, but generally
>in good humor.

Isn't that what you (both) expected?

>The really serious flames were saved for the net.  It seems
>that every one with a little therapy in their past and a few
>minutes to kill decided to analyze the hell out of Brent's
>post.

As I've read it, everyone was two, neither of whom flamed
even a little.  The heat behind what you say is showing
(speaking of flames), which may or may not be
understandable.  It's another instance of either/or reasoning
in a context more appropriate to both/and reasoning.  I
dunno about Steve, but my answer was written carefully over
some little time.  I believe I took some pains to respect
and validate the basis for his feelings in the matter.

>Then came the analysis of the analysis.  I think that
>everyone started taking this a little too seriously.

You are including yourself, I trust?

>What Brent was trying to convey in his original post was
>that not everyone has a positive self image, even if they
>are endowed (pun entirely intended) with attributes that
>their peers deem desirable, that there are closets for small
>penises/breasts/whatever as well as large
>penises/breasts/whatever, and that his bear code was opening
>that closet door.

I didn't see any want of understanding or empathy for that,
myself.

>Sure, I think Brent still has some self-image issues, as do
>all people who are striving to grow as distinct individuals,
>however I don't think that having Steve Dyer and yourself
>advising him of your perceptions of his psyche as determined
>by one post as being very productive (or safe - or
>supportive).

You're allowed.  As I say, not everything succeeds.  The sun
will rise every day for some little time yet.  Nothing is
forever, however, so one does the best he or she can, and
(if they're wise) lets it go at that.

-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]