THE MONSTER DICK
the Monster Dick,
which appeared in our March issue, Santiago Solis observed that,
"By attributing ownership of the monster dick exclusively
to nondisabled men, gay pornography trivializes the physically
disabled man and makes him a bystander." Here's
what readers have to say.
BENT's March issue was great,
as usual. I especially liked
"Unzipping the Monster Dick." My son struggles with the whole penis
issue on a regular basis (he's straight). He is convinced that it's
part of his whole image as a man. I wish he could see the tyranny
of that whole idea! I'm thinking that that silly attitude holds
straight guys hostage as much as gays. And women, too, for that
I enjoyed the article about disabled
people not being sexual and how our society prizes big dicks. As
a disabled man I find that I am very sexual and my partners prove
their excitement by busting a nut just from kissing my talented
lips. The size of my dick has nothing to do with the heat I generate.
Santiago Solis's article reminded
me of what we all know already: nine- and ten- inch dicks are far
from the norm. The sad fact is that guys just getting in tune with
being gay might lack the experience to find out the truth, especially
with so many magazines and websites offering up monster meat. And
men looking at their disabled mirror image and not seeing anything
resembling porno attributes might be dispirited to find that they
can't even offer up an oversized bone by way of "compensation."
The saddest thing of all is that
not everybody wants a monster dick. Being something of an expert
on male endowments, I will say until my dying breath that the fun
of discovery is what turns me on, whether the unzipped results are
truly tiny or incomprehensibly huge. I'm thinking in particular
of one unhung friend, a master of sexual power games, who can reduce
horse-hung submissives to jelly. I wish the readers of "Black Inches"
and "Latin Inches" could see him in action.
Of course, I might be preaching
to the choir. You BENT readers know how sexy you are. What seems
to be missing, though, is the "cockiness" needed to show off what
you've got. What we need are naked crip guy websites or contributions
from crips to existing amateur sites. And that's something that
only guys who feel they should be seen and enjoyed can remedy. So,
I say that the way to counter the oversized/perfect-specimen syndrome
is to plaster the world with undersized/average/less-than-perfect,
but still incredibly hot images. Now that would be true penis power
I don't care about "monster cocks."
The fact that I don't feel sexual concerns my fear of how I would
perform in a sexual situation. Yes it's true, I have all the desires
and feelings of a non-disabled man, but there are just some things
that are physically impossible for me to do, even though I know
that what I may lack in one area I can make up for in another.
I have also noticed that some
non-disabled men fear connecting with a disabled man. Is it because
the non-disabled guy thinks he might hurt a disabled partner in
a sexual encounter? Or perhaps he fears the ridicule of friends
for having sex with a disabled man. Either way, we need to let non-disabled
men know we feel all the feelings they do. Despite our differences,
we are men!
Among my male friends, straight,
gay, and bisexual, it's the gay guys who seem most hung up on size.
I'm not saying all gay men feel this way, but it certainly appears
to dominate gay culture.
I understand what Santiago Solis
is saying about only seeing non-disabled guys in porn magazines,
but I wonder how many disabled men would want to be photographed
or filmed in sexual situations. In other words, I don't think it's
just monster cocks causing a problemit's a lack of communication
between disabled and non-disabled men. -Ed
After reading "Unzipping the Monster
Dick" I pulled a few old issues of "Latin Inches" from under the
mattress and realized a funny thing: not once has looking at them
made me feel oppressed or excluded as an average-sized fag or a
crip. It's porn! And the most porny kind of porn at that. Meaning,
the kind that is porn at it's basest level (you won't catch anybody
trying to pass it off as "erotica"), porn that makes no attempt
to be socially, artistically or politically relevant in any way
whatsoever. Period. Projecting any kind of higher purpose or narrative
on it is an exercise in futility.
Here's one more way to look at
it. Saying that "Inches" denigrates disabled men is akin to saying
that "Cosmopolitan" denigrates bass fishermen, or BENT denigrates
straight guys; one makes no claim of representing the other, so
how can they be expected to be representative?
Besides, what does disabled look
like, anyway? Statistics make it improbable that none of the models
ever had a disability. Why does the author assume otherwise?
© 2006 by Individual Contributors
know what you think of this BENT feature.