Advertisement
I'm really interested in feedback that others had after watching "Cock Tales".
I really feel that it was an important step for Humboldt County, though it felt like a tentative one.
The event was placed under the umbrella of V-Day and the Vagina Monologues and several times in the show the energy was very apologetic. While several of the men brought up the topic of violence, I never felt anyone's internal struggle with the issue. The obvious example was the speech "I Hate Violence." As written by good friend Shea Freedomhowler, it was funny, creative, and ultimately sweet. It was the closest to address the issue, but Shea remained only a witness to the violence in his story, watching as his "penis playmate" is caught between two dueling penises and then taking her home to comfort her afterwards.
The comic pieces tended to work well because they stayed personal (the presentation on pubescent hair, the story of being the only boy at camp who didn't know how to masturbate and having to pretended) and some of the serious pieces were excellent (notably was the piece about penis size, which I found very honest and moving) when they weren't apologizing for the association between cocks and violence.
As an uncircumcised male who does not believe in body modifications before the age of consent, I agreed with the basic message of the circumcision piece. I think it was one of the most successful in doing what it set out to do (ie, get people to consider that circumcision is optional, not mandatory). I can't fault the presenter for using the phrase "body mutilation" as it is arguably a valid term (though I would suggest that anyone who uses it remain consistent when referring to related practices such as tattooing and piercings). The piece never claimed to be anything but a one-sided viewpoint against circumcision, so it's tough to critique it for not giving equal weight to the opposing camp, except for one factor. The presenter made several comments that the health reasons for circumcision are moot in the face of regular body care. This is not just an oversimplification, it's flat out incorrect. It makes no mention of the higher risk of uncircumcised males to contract HIV, nor the fact that uncircumcised males have a great chance of developing symptoms of HPV. The significance of these studies are hotly debated, but to ignore them outright is negligent.
The issue of maleness and its intertwining relationships with masculinity and femininity are complex, and the presenters can be forgiven for not tackling every topic, but I was surprised that in a show about male sexuality, no one discussed their relationship with their ass. I'll leave it for others to say if they had trouble with the predominate heterosexual focus, but it was notable that there was so much talk about men's relationships with women. It often felt like women were the intended audience, being given the message that there were sensitive men out there who were fun, loving, and non-violent. But in distancing themselves from the masculine urge towards violence, it felt like the men distanced themselves from part of the male experience. Their resistance to violence did not feel like something that had been taken in and processed into something beneficial, but something they were unwilling to face. I'll assume this was not the performers' actual experience, but that was what felt delivered, and it pulled me from the experience.
Concerning the final presentation by Jesse Jonathan. It was eloquent, personal, and not necessarily appropriate for the show. It was unfortunate that in stripping off everything but his underpants with the explanation that he promised someone he wouldn't get fully naked, Jesse demonstrated a fundamental issue about the show: it's still a reaction, not yet a revolution. Had he owned the decision to stay dressed, that would be one thing, but seeing an unwillingness to get fully exposed because of an outside force felt uncomfortable. The piece was excellent, it just felt like it should have been its own show on another night. Though it should be mentioned that he brought up an urban legend: Mr. Rogers was never a Navy Seal. It may be amusing to imagine those sweaters hiding an arm covered in tattoos, it's sadly not the case....
I'm hoping that my comments are not taken as an attack. There were moments in "Cock Tales" of true enthusiasm, where the performers connected with something joyous and honest about their maleness and those made it great. The show was stimulating, so much so that I'm still thinking and debating two days later. I'm hoping that by putting this out it will further more discussion, which can only aid the next iteration of the show. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the process evolve and look forward to it finding its own legs.
I really feel that it was an important step for Humboldt County, though it felt like a tentative one.
The event was placed under the umbrella of V-Day and the Vagina Monologues and several times in the show the energy was very apologetic. While several of the men brought up the topic of violence, I never felt anyone's internal struggle with the issue. The obvious example was the speech "I Hate Violence." As written by good friend Shea Freedomhowler, it was funny, creative, and ultimately sweet. It was the closest to address the issue, but Shea remained only a witness to the violence in his story, watching as his "penis playmate" is caught between two dueling penises and then taking her home to comfort her afterwards.
The comic pieces tended to work well because they stayed personal (the presentation on pubescent hair, the story of being the only boy at camp who didn't know how to masturbate and having to pretended) and some of the serious pieces were excellent (notably was the piece about penis size, which I found very honest and moving) when they weren't apologizing for the association between cocks and violence.
As an uncircumcised male who does not believe in body modifications before the age of consent, I agreed with the basic message of the circumcision piece. I think it was one of the most successful in doing what it set out to do (ie, get people to consider that circumcision is optional, not mandatory). I can't fault the presenter for using the phrase "body mutilation" as it is arguably a valid term (though I would suggest that anyone who uses it remain consistent when referring to related practices such as tattooing and piercings). The piece never claimed to be anything but a one-sided viewpoint against circumcision, so it's tough to critique it for not giving equal weight to the opposing camp, except for one factor. The presenter made several comments that the health reasons for circumcision are moot in the face of regular body care. This is not just an oversimplification, it's flat out incorrect. It makes no mention of the higher risk of uncircumcised males to contract HIV, nor the fact that uncircumcised males have a great chance of developing symptoms of HPV. The significance of these studies are hotly debated, but to ignore them outright is negligent.
The issue of maleness and its intertwining relationships with masculinity and femininity are complex, and the presenters can be forgiven for not tackling every topic, but I was surprised that in a show about male sexuality, no one discussed their relationship with their ass. I'll leave it for others to say if they had trouble with the predominate heterosexual focus, but it was notable that there was so much talk about men's relationships with women. It often felt like women were the intended audience, being given the message that there were sensitive men out there who were fun, loving, and non-violent. But in distancing themselves from the masculine urge towards violence, it felt like the men distanced themselves from part of the male experience. Their resistance to violence did not feel like something that had been taken in and processed into something beneficial, but something they were unwilling to face. I'll assume this was not the performers' actual experience, but that was what felt delivered, and it pulled me from the experience.
Concerning the final presentation by Jesse Jonathan. It was eloquent, personal, and not necessarily appropriate for the show. It was unfortunate that in stripping off everything but his underpants with the explanation that he promised someone he wouldn't get fully naked, Jesse demonstrated a fundamental issue about the show: it's still a reaction, not yet a revolution. Had he owned the decision to stay dressed, that would be one thing, but seeing an unwillingness to get fully exposed because of an outside force felt uncomfortable. The piece was excellent, it just felt like it should have been its own show on another night. Though it should be mentioned that he brought up an urban legend: Mr. Rogers was never a Navy Seal. It may be amusing to imagine those sweaters hiding an arm covered in tattoos, it's sadly not the case....
I'm hoping that my comments are not taken as an attack. There were moments in "Cock Tales" of true enthusiasm, where the performers connected with something joyous and honest about their maleness and those made it great. The show was stimulating, so much so that I'm still thinking and debating two days later. I'm hoping that by putting this out it will further more discussion, which can only aid the next iteration of the show. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the process evolve and look forward to it finding its own legs.
posted by:
|
California
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Thoughts on "Cock Tales"
Sat, March 3, 2007 - 9:18 AMSilas, you rock man! I (very unfortunately) missed the show, but I can imagine that having a demographic of males (correct me if I'm wrong) of similar age, sexual-identity, race, and socioeconomic backgrounds, will naturaly result in the raising of issues closely alligned with the priorities and experiences common to said demographic.
I so wanted to see the show. As a woman, I LOVE getting to be a fly on the wall of the men's 'room' (psychological space). I find it fascinating and enlightening. Personally, my trust level increases when humans openly express their explorations of themselves as a violent animal; which we all are.
My metaphor for my own relationship with the violent animal of myself is my teeth: I have one baby tooth still left in my mouth. It's a canine. When I smile, you can easily see the sharp flesh-tearing fang on one side, contrasting it's small/round/delicate conterpart. I love this contrast. I embrace it. It speaks of who (what) I am, of the complete animal:
On one side: A vegetarian. A plant eater. I have no need for these 3 flesh-tearing fangs, do I? I haven't torn a piece of actual flesh with them in more than 20 years! I'm a pacifist. I'm female (as if that's supposed to make me less a human animal).
-But look at the flip side of the smiling whole-
I've still got the fangs. They grew and erupted from my own body. They are me. Remember that elbow I sank deep into the nose of that girl who was hittin' on my man. Remember the dishes I threw against the wall when I was pissed and hurtin. Remember the almost sexual satisfaction of sinking a 15lb maul straight threw an oak log thicker than my torso in one smack.
We are, all of us, primal beasts. Primal beasts with brains floating inside us. Sometimes our brains forget that they grew together out of the same flesh as the hand, the genitals, the fang, the stomach. We are fang-and-baby-tooth the same animal. Wholistic in our primal appetites and in the mental processes with which we try to comprehend ourselves.
