Dick Pics, Ancient and Modern

Nikolas Oktaba
EIDOLON
Published in
14 min readFeb 15, 2017

--

Priapus with Mercurian aspects, Roman fresco from the entrance of a bakery in Pompeii

Many things have been said about Valentine’s Day, but few have ever called it stress-free. Just think about the cascade of male tears invoked by Aristotle Georgeson’s open letter on BroBible — the holiday hurts men’s bank accounts, he makes clear, in addition to their self-esteem. By way of a solution, Benjamin Phelan of GQ suggests a free gift instead: Valentine’s Day is “a time for […] sending dick pics to special ladies.”

What is a dick pic? Generally, it is an unsolicited image of a penis sent to someone, usually a woman, to provoke an invitation to sex. Generally. Caveats will be provided below, but one from Phelan first: he remarks that penises are “punchlines to jokes” and “funny.” So penises and dick pics are not only erotic, but also comic.

But we must remember that there is a fundamental difference in how genitals are treated; the penis is versatile and appropriate for many situations while the vulva is typically associated with either sex or terror. Therefore, genital intrusions such as the dick pic are acceptable for both public and private showing, while most things vulvate are not. The problem is that this dynamic lacks concern for consensus (and I stress consensus over consent as it involves activity and negotiation from both parties) about which genitals are shown, how, when, and to whom.

This is toxic.

This toxic dynamic is also at play in the character of Priapus, an ancient fertility god known for sporting an anatomically preposterous penis whose main task was to protect gardens and orchards from would-be thieves using his cock. What can we glean from a model of genital display present in the Carmina Priapea, a collection of Latin poems about him? How and where has this particular model survived millennia to find traction in mass-market media and popular culture today?

Before I discuss this question, I will provide the caveats promised above. I will discuss mainly interactions between cisgender men and cisgender women, as they seem to be the main players in a toxic dick pic dynamic, although people who are not cisgender send and receive dick pics as well.

It is also true that not all dick pics are unsolicited. Indeed, many derive great jouissance from the transaction. But such arrangements between two or more people include an element of consensus: a picture is desired, requested, and received. Some unsolicited dick pics are received with approbation. Dick pics can even be purchased; Cyndi Lauper, for one, is thrilled with the ones in the magazine she has purchased in “She Bop.”

Since I plan to discuss the unsolicited dick pic below, I raise Priapus as an ancient interlocutor. He is not concerned with sexual consent, and has even been cited as a positive model by Bro Bible. But what sort of model is he?

Statue of Priapus from the Casa dei Vetii, Pompeii

At first glance, it seems that Priapus is nothing more than a “mascot of [Roman] machismo.” He has an anatomically improbable penis, which he uses against all who intrude upon the garden that he has been tasked with guarding. In other words, he is a randy scarecrow. He boasts incessantly about his very large and often erect scarecrow penis. And Priapus thinks that everybody desires it. After all:

Clearly even married ladies show good sense and like to
Look at a big dick.

A dick — and by extension a dick pic — is, in his mind, a pleasant sight. This “garrulous god whose favorite topic is himself” notes that even matronae, married women, have flocked to his prodigious penis. It brings to mind Martial 1.96, where a cinaedus salivates over another man’s penis, oculis devorantibus — as if he had just caught sight of a juicy steak.

Priapus revels in this narrative, broadcasting not only the existence of his ponderous part but also his ability to wield it. Poem 54 of the Carmina Priapea reads:

Impose the letters CD on a staff/To picture what would
Sunder you in half.

Now, if we were to follow the god’s instructions to the letter, we would find ourselves with a crude depiction of a penis. A dick pic of our very own, sent across millennia! (I am sure that Priapus would be absolutely delighted to know that we are still discussing his penis two thousand years after the CP were written.)

But what sort of penis was it really? If we take his posturing and his use of Rabelaisian language at face value, then he would be a model of hypermasculine vigor, a penetrator par excellence. He is, however, a deeply contradictory and even vulnerable god.

Yes, his penis is fabulously large, and yes, Priapus does seem to have an elevated libido. His penis is, however, still “dead matter.” Statues of the god were often fashioned from “cheap wood…[sporting] a large erect red phallus.” He himself alludes to this reality in CP 25.1–2:

This proud scepter which now severed
From its tree bears leaf no longer.

In other words, Priapus is infertile. Though the god attempts to frame it as a token of authority, the inexpensive construction of his lumbering penis fails to conceal the fact that it is really dead weight. It may as well be a bit of driftwood.

What’s more, his penis is a structural weakness. In CP 55, Priapus has one of his other weapons, a sickle, stolen as he sleeps. The god voices concern that his penis should be stolen as well — his most defining and to some, impressive, characteristic is also his greatest vulnerability. Perhaps that is why he is constantly bragging about its power in an act of distraction.

Fresco of Priapus, Casa dei Vettii, Pompeii.

Priapus suffers from fragile masculinity, the reification of the notion that masculinity faces constant existential threats and must be constantly buttressed by means of violence, sexual dominance, and items like these. Some degree of violence can be forgiven him — he is, after all, a watchman— but must he bring his penis into everything? And must he do it so boastfully?

Emasculation is not the only threat. Priapus’ physical location is also a cause of anxiety to him, as he is confined to the garden that he protects. Incidentally, the Latin word for garden is hortus, a term which is often found in Latin literature as a metaphor for the vagina. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary cites many instances of words such as “field, garden, [and] meadow” used to refer to the vulva.

Priapus is geographically situated, even trapped within the very thing that he professes to dominate (though he is also fond of anal and oral rape). He is also quite inadequate at it — in CP 77, Priapus addresses his owner, who has erected a fence around the garden. The god is unable to reach anyone for a fuck, and no one is able to enter the garden within reach of his penis. The archpenetrator can’t penetrate a simple wooden fence.

Fortunately for him, and less fortunately for others, he can still use his mouth. In CP 46, the god is visited by an unnamed woman who becomes the target of harsh invective about her genitals. Priapus describes them as a fossa, a ditch, before lambasting her for “the swarming worms of your cunt.” Priapus is angry, but above all threatened by this woman’s genital display: he is the one who is meant to show himself off. His anger betrays his panic, and his assurances that he is satis paratus — always ready for a fuck anyway — highlights the anxiety that he feels about his penis as well. Despite the undesirability of the woman before him, he can still perform.

This concern recurs in the CP. Take Poem 6:

Though I’m just a wood Priapus
With a wooden cock and sickle,
I’ll still get you in my clutches
And (no kidding) I’ll insert this —
Every single fiber tauter
Than a catapult or lyre —
Right up to your seventh rib bone.

Priapus is quite eager to explain away any perceived impotence before concluding in his usual, minatory manner. The message is clear: I am so powerful, and I will use my penis to prove it. In CP 9, he goes as far as to compare his penis to the weapons of other gods, such as the spear of Pallas or thunderbolt of Zeus. I draw attention to the final line:

Without my weapon [my penis], I’d be defenseless.

As they say on Twitter, #MasculinitySoFragile.

Fragile masculinity is often brought into the light by feelings of sexual inadequacy or failure, including the inability to find a willing sexual partner. Indeed, it seems that many dick pics are sent in a fit of satyric panic, a state of haste that strongly implies an unrenewable expiration date on sexual attraction. The poet Addaeus articulates the concept succinctly:

She’s pretty? Strike while the iron’s hot.
Just grab your balls and state your case.
But if you tell her, “I love you like a brother,”
She’ll slam the door right in your face.

Addaeus sounds a bit like a poster on a Red Pill website, doesn’t he? And so we move on to the Roosh V forum, run by self-proclaimed philosopher-cum-pickup artist Daryush Valizadeh.

According to one user who has since been banned for breaking forum rules (which include injunctions against posting jailbait, and also against being homosexual), it is best “to stir up some kind of emotion … with Da Dick Pic [sic] than send texts over and over for 2 weeks with no reply.” One of his compatriots agrees: “let the dick decide. she [sic] will either feel offended or horny. both seems [sic] adequate.” Negative attention is still attention.

The reasoning is clear. A dick pic is a simple means of provoking reaction, of forcing confrontation or conversation. It serves as a reminder of the sender’s existence. It is also proof of sexual potency and the ability of the penis to intrude into any space. The penis is not only a sex object, but also a blunt instrument used to barge into someone’s life!

It would be a shame not to include this response to the thread: “I don’t think my whole dick will fit on a screen.” The anxiety betrayed by that comment is important — it is fragile masculinity in action. It also foreshadows a potential response to a dick pic: mockery.

The space that is the dick pic, and the space which it invades, are deemed by their senders to be rightful places for penises to be shown. Even so, several responses are considered beforehand, and just as with Addaeus and his ball-grabbing, the one that is generally hoped for is sex. The second potential response is rejection. Under this umbrella, I include a great variety of reactions: revulsion, disgust, anger, a harassment suit, and a viral post about the interaction are just a few of the possibilities. So is mockery.

An easy way to stave off potential mockery is to pass off the entire affair as a joke. Furthermore, a penis under the guise of comedy is one that can be shown in the public sphere with impunity, a low-stakes gag. The still-taboo vulva, on the other hand, is treated with shame or revulsion. This double standard, coupled with the forces of toxic and fragile masculinity, is a noxious cocktail harmful to women. It creates a dynamic where the penis and its uses are lionized while the vulva, along with female sexuality and expression, are curtailed. The vagina can be funny, but in a very specific and disturbing way.

It is true that one can interpret the genital display of Baubo as a comic or positive act. Baubo, also known as Iambe, is reputed to have cheered up a grieving Demeter by lifting her skirts to show her genitals. Clement of Alexandria certainly wrote about it as a good thing; he notes that while Baubo pointed herself out from a sense of hurt, Demeter remained unflappable and was even delighted by the sight. Robert Graves is one of many who interprets the acts of Baubo and Iambe as jest accompanied by “comically lascivious verses.” The vagina is funny, but it’s funny because of its reference to sexuality. And so it remains a sex-object.

Why is that? Maude Lebowski puts it succinctly: the word itself makes some men uncomfortable. For that reason, I have been using the term as metonymy for “vulva” and will continue to do so interchangeably. (Vagina. Vulva. Vagina.)

And if the word has such an effect, then what can an image do? Let us look at mass-market media, and video games in particular. Recently, a major video game company called Ubisoft pledged to remove a moderately detailed vagina from its latest big-budget release, an open-world game about hacking and sticking it to the man, etc. Ubisoft called the character model, which sported a tuft of pubic hair, “particularly explicit.”

This, about a game with quite a few penises of varying states and sizes. (The gamer who discovered this vulva and shared his findings on the PlayStation network was temporarily banned by said group for sharing a vagina that was in a game that was on his PlayStation in the first place. What an utter mess.) This, in an industry where games such as Genital [or just Penile] Jousting are released to general approbation. In the game, up to eight penises of various sizes, shapes, and colors must penetrate one another to earn points and unlock jaunty accessories such as hats and monocles.

In this wildly lucrative industry, penises are a laugh while vulvas are still, in effect, banned.

Now, this isn’t to slag off an entire section of entertainment. Some video games have participated in social progress within the last five years (e.g. through representation of LGBT+ characters and stories), but the instances recorded above still do not bode well for the vulva.

One could argue that the decision to remove the vagina from the game is nothing more than savvy marketing or PR guff — after all, someone had to put it there in the first place. But the controversy and subsequent apology still highlight the discrepancy between how the vagina and the penis are viewed, if not by Ubisoft then by its fans. Priapus can hoist his schlong about as much as he pleases, but heaven forbid he see a vulva in return.

Gaze upon my work, and despair

This is phallic hegemony in action, and not even Satan himself is exempt from its effects. Consider this English print from c. 1800, entitled “The hairy prospect or the devil in a fright.” In it, a woman named Chloe displays herself to a fleeing devil. The caption reads:

Once on a time the Sire of evil
In plainer English call’d the devil
Some new experiment to try
At Chloe cast a roguish eye
But she who all his arts defied
Pull’d up and show’d her sexes pride
A thing all shagg’d about with hair
So much it made old Satan stare
Who frighten’d at the grim display
Takes to his heels and runs away.

Chloe’s salvation rests with the mortal terror engendered by her unshaven genitals (though a closer inspection of the print proves that they indeed are trimmed, albeit not enough for Satan’s tastes). This is both a Priapic and a Baubo-ist mise-en-scene with a twist.

Satan, with penis at the ready, seeks to molest young Chloe. He wears no clothing, his penis on full display. But Chloe turns the tables on him by flashing her own genitals instead. Satan is shocked by both her audacity and her pubic hair. Look closely: even his penis is shrinking back and attempting to flee the scene. The lively poem, and Chloe’s grin, turn impending rape into a joke.

Yes, it is a joke that includes a vagina, but the joke is still one that is inextricable from sex and rape. The punchline is rape thwarted by sexual undesirability and the apotropaic function of pubic hair. As a character, Chloe is nothing more than the harbinger of tufted terror. Perhaps she can be read as a figure of defiance, but she is still framed as part of the joke.

There is yet a glimmer of hope for us today in the form of Madeleine Holden, the woman behind Critique My Dick Pic. For a nominal fee, anyone with a penis can submit a picture of it for scrutiny and feedback. For a slightly larger fee, the dick pic and its final grade will be posted on the CMDP webpage. Some even treat the site as a how-to guide which holds the instructions to take a more alluring dick pic than might be taken otherwise.

If dick pics are to be sent — and sent they most certainly shall be — then at least they ought to be of a certain caliber, no? At least a woman has found a way to make money off of them, too.

Holden’s site is an act of bold restorative justice. She subverts the traditional dynamic of the dick pic in order to reap considerable acclaim and financial benefit. Most importantly, consensus has been established between Holden and her clients. These dick pics are solicited so long as they are accompanied by payment. No one has to see these photos unless they choose to browse her website.

Through creating this platform for dick pics, Holden has also imposed a measure of quality control. While her website may not have made a dent in the deluge of dick pics that others experience, CMDP is a positive model of genital feedback, even though its very existence is cause for reflection concerning the preponderance of dick pics in the digital world.

Now, perhaps the philosophy that underpins dick pics is not at the forefront of anyone’s mind as they send or receive one. I will not offer clinical analysis of the issue, or propose sweeping solutions. However, we need still recognize the implications of sending or receiving a dick pic.

Of course, representative examples from the manosphere are not necessarily representative examples of men’s thoughts in general. The subject is divisive even among Red Pill communities. But underpinning many of these commentaries is a model of swaggering, toxic masculinity that one sees in the character of Priapus. While not every man who sends a dick pic maintains Priapus as a positive role model, he still reifies the Priapic model of genital intrusion once he sends an unsolicited dick pic. If he feels insecure about his penis, then he can take a Priapus Shot to make it “rejuvenated and enlarged.”

I have discussed modern dick pics and ancient poetry together not in a bid to show the relevance of Classics, but as a warning about the staying power of fragile masculinity. What we see in these poems and posts is nothing new, and these ideals continue to gain traction, especially in online communities. We should push back against them to ensure that they do not last another two thousand years.

A chat about low-cost but thoughtful Valentine’s Day gifts might be beneficial as well.

Nikolas Oktaba graduated with an MPhil in Classics from the University of Cambridge as a Gates Cambridge Scholar. He is the “anonymous murderous friend” who recommend that Yung In Chae add a kopis to her “Classicist Gift Guide.”

Eidolon is a publication of Palimpsest Media LLC. Facebook | Twitter | Tumblr | Patreon | Store

--

--