While initiating another blog, I was given the option of a template. I took the default option: a tunnel. This reminded me first of a Freudian vaginal reference and then to the Vanessa Daou treatment of the Erica Jong poem, The Long Tunnel of Wanting You.
Tunnels and holes, cracks and crevaces, vulvæ and pudenda. Was Freud wrong about this? Surely he was wrong about many things, but about the relationship to tunnels and vaginas and conversely of phallic missiles. Was he wrong about these things, too? If missiles were shaped like vaginas instead of penises, would anybody wage war with them? O! If only missiles were shaped like vaginas.
Vaginas have typically been judged with a double standard. Most men, lesbians, and women like vaginas, but these are private things. We refer to them as private parts. They are parts of restricted access. Still, a double standard is employed. The term vulva is innocuous enough. It derives from the Latin meaning “a wrapper.” The term pudendum (plural: pudenda) is Latin and means “something to be ashamed of.” This is a puritanical term that predates the Puritans by several millenia. Vaginas get a bad (w)rap.
The Freudian view of women and psychotherapy, gives us such concepts as the vagina dentata, a vagina with teeth. In English, we sometimes use the perjorative term, cunt, which is a synecdoche in my estimation. A lesser form of this is pussy. Of course, these perjoratives are not limited to female genitalia, it is also common enough to be derided as a dick or a prick.
So, the long tunnel. What is the lure of this long tunnel, this tunnel hidden from view? Why is it presented with mixed messages? On one hand it is beautiful and enjoyed by many. On the other hand, many consider its representation to be pornographic, as it somehow objectifies women. So, the problem of objectification, I guess, is that the relationship is being made to the negative sense instead of the beautiful sense. This might be more of a subective issue reflecting the perspective of the commenter.