phallocentric

An example of phallocentrism manifests in the legal definition of sodomy in most US states. Sodomy must necessarily involve a penis or phallic object, and "to sodomize" means to insert a penis or penis-like (phallic) object into some orifice of another person, when such orifice is not a human vagina, (or, if the object being inserted is not in fact a penis, then even if the receptive orifice is a human vagina, it is sodomy). Sodomy is so called regardless of whether it is performed with permission; hence, sexual assault may or may not be occurring at the same time as sodomy. "Rape" is defined by most states as the insertion of a penis into a vagina without consent, but all other forcible sex acts, no matter how heinous, would be called "sexual assault".

The above example illustrates that the concept of sodomy -- the constructed group of ideas of different sexual acts -- focuses on a phallic object (whether a genuine penis or not), in order to define sodomy. Sex acts between females (if they do not involve sex toys), could not be considered sodomy because no penis is involved. The phallocentrism of the definition of sodomy has the consequence of suggesting that the sexual power in a sex act is actually located in the penis somehow. So, for example, if a woman is performing oral sex on a man, it is, by the definition of sodomy, he that is performing sodomy, not she.

The verb "fuck" has for a long time also retained a phallocentric concept, although that is changing somewhat now as awareness of phallocentrism increases. In popular American (college) culture, a person might say that, "Jimmy fucked Mary after homecoming." But it might sound a bit more odd to say that "Mary fucked Jimmy after homecoming," or odder still, "Mary fucked Jane after homecoming." The second example, that of Mary fucking Jimmy, might sound odd if one's concept of "fucking" centers on the phallus -- i.e., if it is phallocentric. Mary couldn't possibly be fucking Jimmy (by the phallocentric definition of "fucking"), because Jimmy is (presumably) the one with the penis. The third example, of two females, is even odder because no penis is (again, presumably) even present.

In fact, it is difficult to think of a use of the word phallocentric which exalts the concept, so it may be safe to assume that the word imports inherent disapproval of phallocentrism.