Pics and feces

In 1917, Marcel Duchamp bought a urinal, signed it “R. Mutt’, named it Fountain and submitted it to an art exhibition. At first considered immoral, a replica of the urinal (the original was lost) now graces the Tate.

Fountain 1917, replica 1964 by Marcel Duchamp 1887-1968

In 1961, the Italian conceptual artist Piero Manzoni created 90 sealed 30-gram cans of Artist’s Shit. The price of each can was based on the current price of gold, $37$ per ounce. In 2008, while gold prices had gone up to on average of $870 per ounce, a can of Artist’s Shit sold for $97 250.


Urinals and cans perhaps filled with artist’s shit (we don’t know it is shit since opening a can would destroy its value) are art. The consensus is that who made the fountain is irrelevant. That it is, or is not shit, is also irrelevant. The importance lies in the fact that the artists ‘chose’ an object and by removing  its use, ‘created a new thought for that object’.

2015 and I have it on good authority that guys send each other pictures of their feces via Snapchat. Why they do so, other than to gross each other out is a mystery and how often they do it, well, one supposes that depends on the snapchatter’s scatological frequency, ‘artistic’ sensitivity and probably alcohol intake.

Snapchat is a free application, used to share photos, videos, text, and drawings known as ‘snaps’. While posts on Facebook or Twitter are (semi-) permanent, Snapchat, with snaps only viewable for 10 seconds or less, offers its users spontaneity without long-term consequences. So by the time the toilet has flushed, the picture has auto-destroyed.

For those looking for more permanent input, there exists an Instagram account dedicated to the refined art of poop photography, Inscatgram.

I discourage you to go and look.

I discourage you to go and look.

Apparently guys love Snapchat, for besides stool shots, they also use it to send dick pics. Pictures of their penises – hopefully erect.

It is a free world.

But a prejudiced one. For when the news headlines mention sexting scandals, they almost always center around the girl, showing what she is not supposed to show, doing what she is not supposed to do with the word ‘slut’ never far either from the main text or from our minds. And it will not come as a surprise that the victims of revenge porn are usually women.
Poo shots can, if one really wants to, be judged as a ‘boys will be boys’ thing. Sending dick pics however is a whole different scenario.
Scientific studies, using a plethysmograph, an instrument that measures changes in volume within an organ or a body, have shown that women react to all sexual stimuli, whether or not these stimuli fit within their predilection. Men on the other hand, do not.

The main question now is, “Is an unsolicited dick pic from a self-proclaimed potential lover a sexual stimulus?” In other words, does the dick pic achieve its goal and arouse its recipient?

Arousal? Doubtful.
Attention? Possible. Albeit short spanned.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, in the case of a dick pic, what would these thousand words be? A blog most probably.

Still, most of all, gentlemen, if your dick pic fits her mobile device screen, please, refrain.