Courtesy of Upworthy, the premiere prog-link pusher, today’s lesson is all about sex differences in the human animal.

In the comedy video “HBO Should Show Dongs,” a number of putative college women make the case for a ramp-up in sexual explicitness. They demand to “even the score.” The point seems to be, we see a whole lot of skin on premium TV these days, but no “dong.”

These young women want to see male members on screen. Their excuse is that they have to wade through a lot of female mammaries onscreen. They want parity!

How droll. But notice: At no point do the young women mention what is still unmentionable in some contexts: vaginas. They go on about penis, dong, “magic wand.” But nowhere do they recognize that female genitalia is the exact parity of male genitalia, and that the male “equivalent” of female breasts is . . . male pectoral muscles, complete with nipples and ripples and . . . well, you get the idea.

Screenshot 2013-09-16 14.34.55

Yes, men have breasts too — they were even commonly called that in the old days, and, in some contexts (“breast cancer”) still are. The thing is, we have become inured to their possible sexual allure. Heterosexual women tend not to find male chests as sexually arousing as heterosexual men find female chests. To demand some sort of sexual parity here is not possible. We are unequal. Nature, it could be argued, has made us so. Women’s chests are more sexually attractive than men’s.

Now, I’m not saying that women do not have opinions on male chests. But they tend not to get worked up into the lather of desire that many, many men do when seeing female breasts.

So the argument that, because women see (or “have to” see) female breasts all over the place on premium TV, they should also “get to” see (or be shown) male genitals, may be funny, but is witless, or at best half-witted.

Further, ramped-up demands for parity can have unintended consequences. Once the cock is out of the bag, so to speak, then, too, will follow the female counter-genitals: soon there would be no beating around the bush, but every fold and flavor of femalia valiantly exposed. Not long after the HBO showtime for the erection would follow the Showtime honing in on the clitoris. Discussions of genital size might become not merely common for one sex, but the other as well. Progress? Equality? Nincompoopery?

The only reason to take this little comedy sketch seriously, however, is that one often comes across self-defined “feminists” making similarly boobish demands. I just saw one last month, but I’m not going to link to it — to protect the feminist from shaming (not slut-shaming, but intellectual shaming, which has to be worse, because more definitive).

Sexual realism is, apparently, still an elusive feature of today’s sex chat. And where realism isn’t in evidence, sexism is likely to follow.square-tao-icon