On Yilmaz’s Penis

*** this is in reaction to the video of Levni Yilmaz, “What Would Penis Do?”. An assignment I had to do for my Intercultural Communication course. I hope this makes sense.

In a world where the left brain is weightier than the right, there is a study they call sociology that deals with the social rules and processes that bind (and perhaps separate) people not only as individuals but also as members of associations, groups, and institutions. Basically, if we were to define man, he would be someone who is the protector, the “impregnator”, or the provider. All of these tags, although sounding antiquated already, define man in the society. But what exactly makes a man a man? And where does our perception of man, or gender in general, come from?

In “What would penis do?” Levni Yilmaz defined an average man (with average wants and desires) as somebody who is not entirely a creature of free will. He says that man has three governing functions, namely, the heart, the mind, and the penis. But of course our perception of gender would not come from the heart, the mind, or the penis. Instead, the society would be the one dictating who is who. In fact, because of the things we learned from textbooks (or from our family) we allow ourselves to be fenced in the behavior that would satisfy the expectations of those in the society. Therefore, many consider gender as just an idea, a social construction. And our perception starts there.

When we were still young, we were not as selective of information as we are today. In turn, the things we learn about gender, i.e. pink is for girls and blue is for boys, can make us surrender a portion perhaps of our freedom and free will. Some books would say that the idea of gender would begin at birth wherein figuring if the baby has a penis or a vagina would tell the parents what to teach their child about attitudes, thoughts, and behavior patterns that have been established by society.

Our perception of gender comes from the society, perhaps due to tradition, and the media, which influence society a lot. And in relation to the video, some of it would be true in Philippine culture. Many do think that the heart is an image associated to emotions; the brain is for logic, and the private organ (penis in the video) is for something sexual, and not desperation.

The part where Yilmaz tells about a man meeting a woman where things were not going well and the opposite situation are true especially what the heart and mind tell one to do, but I am not too sure with the penis. But for some reason I do agree that a penis is egotistical! In addition to that, I agree with what the penis said that there is no harm in chatting with randomly beautiful girls even if you’re off the market.

Personally, half of what the video talks about would ring true for me. I believe in the mind-heart conflict, although the heart or emotion is still connected to the brain scientifically. But I can never agree that the penis is pathetically desperate, well, maybe if I were about to die and have not been laid. The video seemed to have portrayed the penis as a voracious animal. But perhaps the horny men would agree to this.

This is Western culture, and I have seen movies almost similar to what the video is tackling, i.e. American Pie and Ants in the Pants. I’m not sure if I am amenable to all the ideas concerning the penis, at this age. But basically, the video reflects how society had an effect on Yilmaz. This is how he sees a man, and I am in no position to tell him he is wrong.