Lens or dog? – no contest


I made a little mention in my previous post of the camera lens being used as a phallic symbol.  Curious about this, I did a Google search and found that Susan Sontag had been there before me, but I also came across the following exchange in a well-known photography forum:

“Just rented the 500 f4 and carrying it around some nature centers in Florida, I often notice a slew of admiring glances from comely women. Since I’m 72 and past whatever prime I had, I cannot help but think that the 500 is some sort of phallic symbol that is eliciting this ogling. So now I’m thinking of getting a glass-less 500 which would have the desired effect (although I’m not sure why I would want this effect or what at my age I’m supposed to do about it) and also would be cheaper and lighter. Since my photos with the glassed 500 are not so great anyhow (damn, it’s heavy), I wouldn’t be missing anything.”

He got this reply:
“A Golden Retriever is a lot cheaper and works even better. They’ll come over and pat your dog and start up a conversation. The 500 won’t soil your lawn, however.”
(The photo is of my lovely old Golden Retriever  – long passed away – as a puppy; taken way before I was into photography, so it’s a bad photo but I think you’ll agree he was a very cute puppy.)