An image titled "Swiss Oddities" shows the arms/shield of the Canton of Bern in Switzerland. Dated March 6, 2026, it says, "The bear on the coat of arms of canon Bern will continue to display its red penis, the cantonal government has ruled."
The shield has a red field, with a broad gold stripe slanted from upper left to lower right. On it, oriented along the stripe, is a black bear that appears to be walking upward. Its tongue, claws, and penis are red. In this particular image, the penis is very small and hard to see.
The blazon here would be, "Gules, on a bend or, a bear passant sable, langued, armed and vilené of the field."
As another point of trivia, "vilené" is the French blazon word for penis, whereas, in English it would be "pizzle". (So this would be "...pizzled of the field"; or "pizzled gules" if the field wasn't already red.) I'm not sure if it's also proper to say "membered", but really, why would you use "membered" when "pizzled" is right there, and much more fun?
I looked it up to be sure, and hadn't encountered vilené before. I'm not sure what the etymology of that is, in French, as the searches I've done just keep saying it's a term specific to "blason".
Heraldic beasts (and many monsters) are almost always depicted as male by default, and in older art, a stylized penis is usually shown. If you DON'T want it, you have to specify in the blazon somehow that the creature is female. Usually the pizzle would be the same color as the rest of the creature, which is why you have to go out of your way to say it if it's a different color.
For having specified it, it's kind of interesting that it IS such a small detail, because IMO it's not very easy to see. (And the point of making it a different color would be to make it stand out more.). Details like the claws and the pizzle, though, are likely to be interpreted as "optional" by some artists*, despite its inclusion in the official blazon. Looking online, I can see a lot of examples, including 1600s at least, where there's no visible pizzle, and the claws aren't colored either. They aren't substantial enough details (nor is the tongue) that the presence or absence of color creates a completely different coat of arms.
*(if you read up on the term as used in heraldry, though, you will come upon anecdotes that show that the depiction of a pizzle can be taken very seriously by some. The presence or absence of the penis itself shouldn't be seen as changing the recognizability of a coat of arms; but apparently it CAN be taken as a grave insult to leave it out, if it's meant to be there. Go look at the Wikipedia page for it, there's some eyebrow-raising anecdotes there.)
