Is skin really evil, is flesh as on real human bodies just wicked, in-itself? Or is it the behavior and the impulse behind our actions, its spirit that may be evil. For instance Doctors, nurses, surgeons and anatomists, coroner, undertakers, models and life drawing artists see nude bodies every day. Is any of this bad, evil or foully sinful?

Statistics show that doctors and Pastors have around the same percentage (64%) more than any other group, in America, who have had affairs with their clients or vulnerable parishioners; this is a human and forgivable lapse, so are life drawing artist’s really really evil people? To the pure-a more robust state of mind or spirit than one easily imagines-all things are pure. Pure as pure. Not dirtily pure nor admired as pure. Yet actually as pure. Pure in status for their humanity in the eyes of God. O what beautiful women they are. God's handiwork.

Inside all are pink as we are. The gay monotheist. Just like men. The blood spilled on the battlefield of love.

Are artists then in some particular sense over and above others; somehow above, and ranking with, prostitutes, strippers and criminals? Yet consider the following from a biblical perspective.

Adam and Eve were nude. This is vastly healthier than feminisms poison.

All are nude when we are born and when we die; to the gaze of others.

We are nude to ourselves when bathing. Isaiah the prophet walked naked in Egypt for three whole years.

Jesus was naked on the cross (only art, traditions of men and established sentiments clothe him) -for shame, as the Romans displayed all their prisoners. He became nakedly sin for us; just as conventional doctrine teaches. Taking the shame off of it. This is the way he made us.

Prostitutes were in Christ’s genealogy, the Magdalene attended him, the woman caught in the act was nude; totally. Bathsheba was nude bathing on the rooftops. Yet Christ is 'the son of the David' who desired her. Rahab, the prostitute, is in Christ's genealogy. Prophets cohabited with prostitutes like Hosea was instructed by God to do with Gomer. I am a man of sinful body alongside a people who sin in body.

Consider closely that real prostitution is best plied nude and is legal in my country. Though much illicit 'sex' of that order is a matter of seductive clothing as of anything bodily 'done'.

Some have thought sex the original sin but scripture clearly states rebellion is. Is flesh evil, eating it, like in non-vegetarianism? Or just having skin makes us evil? That is weird, perverse and sick. Surely, 'spiritual adultery' -preaching mixed and wrong doctrine is worse; as is spiritual fornication mixing false doctrine with corruptions; and spiritual masturbation is the 'every-Sunday-sin' of preaching good news, to-those-who-have-already-heard-good-news, surely the most pointless activity on the planet, being paid a hefty hired-shepherds wages for so doing, SURELY that is far far worse than ANY of the above. By a long way. For such teachers having it easy away from the braying disbelieving mob can even afford from the pulpit to seditiously betray Christ and join the mob in spreading mob like thinking amoung sincere people. Who are they like some mongrel doggerel dog to lift their sacerdotal leg and urinate all over the upturned faces of believers? Could a lower, dirtier treachery be imagined? That is what I would call obscene. Sick. Pissing all over people who have paid you to gloat over them. Yuk! That is the kind of thing Adolf Hitler is said to have done to his mistresses. Is that all pure and holy?

Albeit fornication is a fault for New Zealand (the penalty we pay is; the earth shall disgorge its inhabitants), the very price we do continuously pay here in Godzone, as fully fourteen percent of our countrymen, born here, now live permanently overseas-and fornication has well known disease ridden health risks too. Yet the bible relates that only to an equivalence to 'eating meat offered to idols' within the church. Hardly a major problem. The Bible doctrines are far more realistic than our attitude to flesh, sin (of others) and skin. Isn't it true that to the pure ALL things are pure? The in-house sins of the church are bestial in comparison. The salt and light is often sugary sweet and dimmest darkness. Judgment begins at the church. Make sure your doctrines are pure. Bodily purity is a false corridor, spiritual purity within is what matters; please consider Samson a fleshly suicide yet a GODLY man if ever there was one. He'll welcome us to heaven, all the blood bought sinners who love God. Many are the lawyers and so called 'good' people will be firmly rejected at that point. As always the Bible is more earthy on all these matters than conventional 'Christians' know; one is almost tempted to the view that it is Christianity that is the anti-Christ, so poor a job they do in delving into the deep doctrines of the anointed one.'

Condemning others for an outward fault while within are themselves presenting but half a true show. They desire, but do not, they lust secretly but nurture it within their politics. Others must pay for their good ideas: not lifting a finger otherwise, acting like thieves. Selling doctrines to please the ear, prostituting truth itself. Seducing false belief with plausible relevance: yet marry political liars to dumbed down miracles.

The right to look see gaze admire and stare, freedom of our eyes.

The Right of Men to initiate touch, approach, talk to, with, at women in all places times and situations. Not that initiated touch, once refused by act or deed, is to be followed up on other occasions; clumsiness excepted; too frequent an unwanted 'touching' should rightly be considered harassment. Let their peers, both men and women present, be referred to; any serious infringement by one person on another to be considered such harassment but not assault unless it leaves a bruise deeper than bruised emotions. Whimsical accusations also to be noted and infringement banished from gentleman’s society.

This free matter to be considered every man’s right as it encourages the building up of one’s own ethnic society eventually and thus a desirable balancing out of people group and ethnic sovereignty; the harassing of that aim being by far the greater crime against all humanity not just one individual. Individuals are to be protected to the degree they serve the whole.



What, then, does promiscuous sexual intercourse really mean? It means the absence of prohibitions and restrictions which are or have been in force. We have already seen the barrier of jealousy go down. If there is one thing certain, it is that the feeling of jealousy develops relatively late. The same is true of the conception of incest. Not only were brother and sister originally man and wife; sexual intercourse between parents and children is still permitted among many peoples today. Bancroft (The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America, 1875, Vol. I), testifies to it among the Kadiaks on the Behring Straits, the Kadiaks near Alaska, and the Tinneh in the interior of British North America; Letourneau compiled reports of it among the Chippewa Indians, the Cucus in Chile, the Caribs, the Karens in Burma; to say nothing of the stories told by the old Greeks and Romans about the Parthians, Persians, Scythians, Huns, and so on. Before incest was invented --for incest is an invention, and a very valuable one, too --sexual intercourse between parents and children did not arouse any more repulsion than sexual intercourse between other persons of different generations, and that occurs today even in the most philistine countries without exciting any great horror; even "old maids" of over sixty, if they are rich enough, sometimes marry young men in their thirties. But if we consider the most primitive known forms of family apart from their conceptions of incest --conceptions which are totally different from ours and frequently in direct contradiction to them-then the form of sexual intercourse can only be described as promiscuous --promiscuous in so far as the restrictions later established by custom did not yet exist. But in everyday practice that by no means necessarily implies general mixed mating. Temporary pairings of one man with one woman were not in any way excluded, just as in the cases of group marriages today the majority of relationships are of this character. And when Westermarck, the latest writer to deny the existence of such a primitive state, applies the term "marriage" to every relationship in which the two sexes remain mated until the birth of the offspring, we must point out that this kind of marriage can very well occur under the conditions of promiscuous intercourse without contradicting the principle of promiscuity --the absence of any restriction imposed by custom on sexual intercourse. Westermarck, however, takes the standpoint that promiscuity "involves a suppression of individual inclinations," and that therefore "the most genuine form of it is prostitution." In my opinion, any understanding of primitive society is impossible to people who only see it as a brothel.

Engels from notes by Marx: Origins of Family Private Property and State.

Climax; Ecstatic Orgasms

Here is an article I have/will further adapt on male orgasm versus female orgasm I totally object to. Clue is the assumption that a male orgasm is 'coming'-or just ejaculating; you can fertilize a woman, give her children and so on without having a male orgasm. A male orgasm is not just coming, ejaculating or being able to create children; it is something else. It is more than those timid things. I can do this but not always; it is not a guaranteed thing. It requires extreme comfort, security and reckless abandonment; you must be utterly confident or secure in your relationships. This is more than coming. Coming is pathetic once you can orgasm. This is why we have courtship, seduction and men being in control; it probably could not happen to a less than alpha male condition. There may be few questions of human sexuality more rancorous than those about the female orgasm. Scientists agree that women probably started having orgasms as a by-product of men having them, similar to how men have nipples because women have them. But you do not have to believe that view either; it is just a view, though one by someone who has thoughts about it any rate. As Elisabeth Lloyd, a philosopher of science and theoretical biologist at Indiana University put it in her 2005 book The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution: "Females have the erectile and nerve tissue necessary for orgasm in virtue of the strong, ongoing preselective pressure on males for a sperm delivery system of male orgasm and ejaculation." But why such ladies still have orgasms is hotly debated. This pressure is sufficient to minimally deliver seed to eggs yet may not count as a full body tremor of ecstatic orgasm; hence men too are insufficiently ‘serviced’ by their lovers. Having the egg penetrated alone does not consist of the full bodied ecstatic ‘orgasm’ for women either; and lesbian love fails to even do that. How many women swear they ‘knew’ the moment of conception as egg penetration triggered a fuller body arousal than mere sex-in preparation for the new life? This experience would by its nature be difficult of laboratory tabulations. The full bodied squirt orgasm of women is of course only visible in online pornography. There is at least one fairly clinical example, sweet, gentle and accurate where a young man fingers a young woman to the most ecstatic love look one would ever see; she is not remarkably ‘beautiful’ but becomes so in the moment it occurs and for some considerable minutes after; the best ‘stone’ of all-an image almost of pure love and sublime innocence. She blatantly falls in love before one’s eyes. If this is not one of the most beautiful living human experiences online I do not know what is.

Male orgasms exist, it's widely believed, as a minimum affect of the pleasure principle, to encourage men to spread their seed. On face value, it would be easy to say that women orgasm for the same reason: to encourage them to have sex and make babies. But in practice, compared to male orgasm, female orgasm is very difficult to achieve. That is why feminists suppress pornography, because of its demonstrable better educational value, thus granting best practice to the internalized knowledge of lesbians. Men are not so foolish as to fail to educate themselves on this most difficult of human relation accomplishments. But look at a very interesting theory with vast and extremely interesting somatic implications. There's a lot of variation even within individual women, and 10 percent of women never have them at all. And, unlike male 'relief' orgasm, female orgasm of any kind isn't a prerequisite for pregnancy. Yet equity theory requires male seed expression to equal female egg penetration. For both sexes therefore there is an orgasmic capacity beyond this. Full bodied shuddering is in both sexes right? Granting exclusive access to knowledge of this can be a homosexual device in order to keep the upper hand/finger/organ (internalized knowledge) in a kind of guild sex (‘guilded’ lily) or closed shop aristocracy forbidding public information every human subject otherwise has a right to experience. It can be taught, acquired and practiced. Now heterosexuals too can know experience and explore this elite sex gnosis. Not that the ancients or the ‘conservative’ traditionalist had no knowledge of this either. As it resurfaces in each age. Religious ecstasy is linked to it. As is ecstasy in the dance, poetry and music. Maybe somewhat attenuated in the Eureka experiences of scientists.

So why do women have ordinary orgasms at all? There are supposed two firmly opposed groups on this puzzle. The first group proposes that it has an adaptive function in one of three categories: pair bonding, mate selection and enhanced fertility. In other words there is a pleasure seeking desire, contra Freud, toward bonding with intensity and passion-to the male of the species; homo sapiens. I’ll break these down. The pair-bonding theory suggests that female orgasm bonds partners, ensuring two parents for the offspring, while mate selection offers that women use orgasm as a sort of litmus test for "quality" partners. So deep as to squirt these love bonding chemicals in order to enhance it even more. A kind of willing chemical addiction. For both, deeper human family security-yet a willingness to explore shock and surprise in the relationship is probably a necessary concomitant. It is fun to vary things with a person you basically feel very secure with. Yet for security to actually exist a robust act of projecting hope must occur, you must trust another. Nervous people should not breed. Orgasm is the root of ecstasy in sex and the life together of a couple; it needs must flow throughout their bonding, not just in the bedroom. The enhanced fertility theory, meanwhile, proposes that uterine contractions during female orgasm help to "suck up" sperm into the uterus. Of course sex is so mightily motivated; it makes utterly practical sense as nature always does. We see this in the latest version of the 'Beauty and the Beast' tale where in the opening scene the mares vulva lips quiver in deeply inviting breath sucking motions before the stallion mounts her. Females are absolutely as lustily driven as males. No more, nor less. Lust, thy name is female. Any myths to the contrary are merely cultural politeness. The myth promoted here is that of Potiphar’s wife; a lusty woman if ever there was one.

The by-product camp, on the other hand/finger/organ, claims that female orgasms are to this day an incidental by-product of male orgasm, not an evolutionary adaption. "There's no documented connection between women who have orgasm at all, or faster, having more or better offspring," Lloyd says. Though who ever claimed this? So the quality seeking indications of actually having orgasm fails as a reason for having them, women still have them. Pornography facilitates, beyond state control of sexuality-under feminist nanny state restrictions-the true knowledge of how many millions more real women, ‘from below’-out of the control of lesbian feminist exclusivity, elitism-and sexual aristocracy-can now actually work out toward having them also and the heterosexual liberation it brings toward hetero-normative family strengthening bonding. Though it ensures she has a modicum of desire to engage in copulation with necessary abandon and surprise. Though as we shall see later women are extremely coy-female roles again-in answering possible rape interviews on this question and appear to reveal 'that they had one' then, at the time unexpected, only in post-interview situations when relaxed with a bona fide personal therapist or other close counsellor. Statistical data hungry surveys just do not cut it for revealing the really important information about women’s sex lives. From such intimacies of communication a far greater lustiness, vigour and active orgasmic life can be gleaned. Women are far more hetero-sexually turned-on than feminist media 'roles' assign to them. It is a pity that subjective surveys are so much less scientific. It is a real question whether the jury on these matters may always be ‘out’. Hopefully not to lunch, but to a more humble and necessarily restricted and limited authority. One’s personal experience is best left to the person.

The sex split between the two sexual ideologies steepened this quarter with the publication of a new paper on twins and siblings in Animal Behavior that rules out the by-product idea of women’s orgasms. Scientists Brendan Zietsch at the University of Queensland in Australia and Pekka Santtila at Abo Akedemi University in Finland asked 10,000 Finnish female and male twins and siblings to report on their "orgasmability" (their expression, not mine). They examined similarities in orgasm function between male and female twins. If the by-product theory of feminine orgasm is right, they report, this similarity should be found. Due to the innate differences in the two levels of orgasm between women and men, both ecstatic and rudimentary, females were asked to report how often they had orgasms during sex and how difficult they were to achieve, while males were asked how long it took them to reach orgasm during the act and how often they felt they ejaculated too quickly or too slowly. But not how deeply or long lasting its affects were. The lack of similarity between the questions throw some suspicion on the results of levels of bias; do they know about the two levels of orgasm response? Both rudimentary but adequate for conception (though the moment of conception possibly has a smaller inner ‘shudder’ too small to report) yet satisfying in ways lesbian experience cannot match-giving now the edge to hetero normative behavior for the greater sexual experience. And the ecstatically experienced full body shudder orgasm which has been forgotten until now for a long time in western uptight history (mostly under the feminization of the entire culture and civilization) which strongly suggest a masculist future truly is one of sexual liberation, bonded family love at its fullest full bodied stretch, and freedom of soul to the uttermost of spiritual consciousness. A male vision of Utopia at long last.

Zietsch and Santtila found strong orgasmability correlations between same-sex identical twins, and significant similarities between same-sex non-identical twins and siblings. However, they found zero correlation in orgasm function between opposite-sex twins. "We show that while male and female orgasmic function are influenced by genes, there is no cross-sex correlation in orgasmic function --women’s orgasmability doesn't correlate with their brother's orgasmability," explains Zietsch. "As such, there is no path by which selection on male orgasm can be transferred to female orgasm, in which case the by-product theory cannot work." In other words orgasm does not select for some kind of super race. Orgasm in either of my types here is a standalone phenomenon. Pleasure is pleasure.

Zietsch says he doesn't have a favorite theory on the evolutionary function of female orgasm, but if forced to guess he'd say that it provides women extra reward for engaging in sex, thus increasing frequency of intercourse and, in turn, fertility. (There's no proof of this yet, though, as Lloyd points out.) Zietsch continues: "I've shown in another paper, though, that there is only a very weak association between women’s orgasm rate and their libido, so the selection pressure on female orgasm is probably weak --this might explain why many women rarely or never have orgasms during sex." Of course telling a woman she is ‘sleeping with the enemy’ does not exactly help either. How can she relax? Thus feminism ruins the sex lives of vulnerable women. The very women feminism is supposed to help. But it does act as advanced publicity toward the lesbian lifestyle.

Yet neither do men experience a fuller orgasm in a matriarchal society. As we shall see; for coming is relief, not orgasm. Orgasm in men too is a full bodied top of head to toes shudder that is like a spastic fit yet is not mentally impairing, it is like an epileptic seizure without the foaming at the mouth or the fear of biting or swallowing your own tongue, it is temporarily out of control but in a trusted environment but is entirely pleasurable. It is like those more 'clinical' -on a massage table-squirting orgasms you sometimes see on YouTube-with young women; though I am sure the athleticism of the woman is not required, for it happened to me-and, though I should, and I have bought some gym equipment-I still do not currently 'work out'-it is more an attitude, a life stance toward physical grace, dancing, singing and other material human phenomena than it is about physique as such. It is also a mental ability, mental agility, to think out of the box, to think creatively, to think from the genius within, the mental light already present in our minds waiting to be stretched and woken up. It is also a spiritual phenomenon being open to the open sky above our heads, to still be enthralled by the stars and startling insights, to receive pure abstractions from somewhere else as of right; wisdom, power, strength (spiritual manhood; growing up, maturity; knowledge). So that holiness is wholeness, which is what it means; mind body and spirit all working together. The maximum pleasure a man can have upon this earth-sexually. For my theory of ecstasy-no, not the drug called that-involves the true nature of love, mysticism – or religious ecstasy, ecstasy of genius or insight or visions, running or sport ecstasy, dancing or worship ecstasy, some higher pleasure principle is involved, some entirely developed desire for others good pleasure-only then can mental, physical and spiritual ecstasy be obtained; strangely enough the true response drive in ecstatic union also. Nature designed us for maximum pleasure. Like the berserk in battle we have to be truly outside of ourselves to do it, have it and be it. Men seldom have this-the dildo never. Femoral rubbings will not conjure it. Relief is not ecstasy. Orgasm is ecstasy but we have applied its great name to a far lesser thing. Subsistence sex sufficient to recreate biological life but not sufficient to create ecstatic pleasure or love. Love is ecstasy. Ecstasy is love.

Lloyd and other proponents of the by-product theory agree that weak selection pressure could be acting on female orgasm, but not enough to maintain it over the eons of human evolution. Rather, if female orgasm bestows any reproductive benefits onto the human race, it would be by happy accident. Unsurprisingly, Lloyd has a lot of bones to pick with the recent study. Comparing different orgasm traits in women and men is a textbook case of apples and oranges, she says.

Kim Wallen, a behavior neuroendocrinologist at Emory University is a frequent collaborator with Lloyd, expounds it thus: "Imagine that I wanted to compare height in men and women. In women I used a measurement from the top of the head to the bottom of the foot. In men I used how rapidly they could stand up. Would I be surprised that each measure was correlated in identical twins within sexes, but uncorrelated in mixed-sex twins? Such a result would be what was predicted and completely unsurprising. Zietsch and Santtila have done the equivalent of this experiment using orgasm instead of height." Except that they have not. I wonder who funds this? For men standing up is a measurable physical thing; this survey is emotional and subjective. You just cannot compare physically measurable material and visible activity with un-measurable, invisible, immaterial phenomenon-recorded in a subjective opinion survey. It cannot be done. It is not science to even have hoped to do it, but politics.

Wallen also points out that previous research has shown that traits under strong selective pressure show little variability, while those under weak pressure tend to show more variability. With human orgasm this bears out in that men report almost always achieving what they call orgasm during sex, with the 'relief' idea being for more the actual experience, while the ability to orgasm during intercourse varies widely among women. (Penis and vagina size – both necessary for reproduction -show little variability, suggesting they are under strong selective pressure, Lloyd says, while clitoral length is highly variable.) Wallen asserts that Zietsch and Santtila, "chose to compare apples to oranges because the evidence is so strong that men's and women’s orgasms are under different degrees of selective pressure, the very point they were trying to disprove." However if we question men's perception of what constitutes 'orgasm' to differentiate between relief and a full bodied shuddering response we may receive differing interpretations on their answers.

To their credit, Zietsch and Santilla acknowledged the extremely high levels of limitation in their study.

More work obviously needs to be done. "Figuring out the function of female orgasm, if any, will probably require very large genetically informative samples, fertility data, and detailed information on sexual behaviour, orgasm rate, and the conditions and partners involved," Zietsch says. "I do have plans, but the debate probably won't be settled quite some time to come." Some neurologically valid internal measurement devices might help to I suggest. Valid cross survey questions would assist also; otherwise how sure are we that culturally sensitive survey questions truly relate toward any physically measurable reality, and give universally valid gender fair reports of scientific value?

If, at this point, you're as frustrated as me, you might be wondering what we do know about female orgasm. Well, we're closer to knowing why they're so few and far between during sex. No other historical age thought sex or orgasm was ‘difficult’ so maybe has been unproblematic and much better today. Could it be there was no anti-male bias in the past? People were more relaxed and fully enjoyed themselves. In a paper published (2015) in Hormones and Behavior, Lloyd and Wallen found that the farther away the clitoris is from the urinary opening, the less likely it is that the woman will regularly achieve orgasm with intercourse. If this holds up in future experiments, Lloyd says, it would establish that a woman's ability to have an orgasm during sex rests on an anatomical trait that likely varies with exposure to male sex hormones in the womb. "Such a trait could possibly be under selection," she says, "but this would have to be investigated. So far, no selective (other) force seems to appear." In other words the male presence during sex, not just his sperm-as in IV inseminations, would be needed for the future full pleasure of your daughters.

Olfactory Sexuality Factors

About 2 million people in the United States can't smell anything. That's got to be great if, say, you're walking past a dumpster, but not-so-great if you're looking for love. Research suggests that men who can't smell have fewer sex partners than men with fully functioning nostrils. About five times fewer.

A team of researchers had already found a correlation between not having a sense of smell and having feelings of insecurity.

(There are a few possibilities about why: either we can't check ourselves for odor or we take comfort from certain smells.) Remember how Napoleon requested his mistress 'not to bathe' before coming to him; he wished to enjoy the living smells along her body-not the cosmetised reality of feminist cautions and prudery. A more recent study from the same researchers compared 32 people who couldn't smell--22 women and 10 men--with a control group, asking both groups about the number of sexual partners they'd had. The question was, if people are insecure because they can't smell, will that insecurity affect their sex lives, too?

Well, something's affecting their sex lives. The men, on average, had way fewer partners than the men in the control group. Curiously, the women without a sense of smell had about the same number of partners as the control group women. But compared with the control group (and the men), the women ranked themselves as more insecure in their current romantic relationship.

So what's going on here? Why didn't men and women react to their own inability to smell the same way? Good question! And it's hard to say, as Research Digest points out. Yet Brownmiller maintained that women did not smell their own estrous making all lesbian sex rape, and denying the bodily yes answered correctly by so called 'rapists' in at least 50% of the time. Proven by full orgasm-sometimes for the first time in their lives. Patriarchy may be more risky for women. Yet it is also more sexy. Thus zionista control of sexuality guarantees less ecstasy, fewer orgasms and more false rapes and more rape accusations – from disappointed women! The Lesbianarchy cannot compete on a level playing field. There is a very pronounced low birthrate amoungst the zionista sista-now we can see why-orgasm, less matrilineal sex,equals controlled powerless Jewish men (Woody Allen types): as in, cuming dribbles, instead of full bodied ecstatic orgasmic lovemaking. And probable Jewish mother syndrome suppression, repression or lesbian sexuality or religious celibacy. After all this is an evolutionary tactic concentrating wealth, but not love, into the hands of notoriously uptight people.

Here are a few theories on why the results came out the way they did.

While women without a sense of smell seemed to lack confidence in relationships, according to the study, the men apparently lacked social confidence. That might make them more timid in social situations, and explain the below-typical number of sex partners. (Although that's discounting the opposite: that these men are more secure in their relationships. In fact, men in the study rated their relationship security slightly higher than the male control group did.)

There's evidence that a specific smell may be more heavily associated with a relationship for women than it is for men. That would explain why lacking a sense of smell would correlate more with women feeling insecure in a relationship than men. It's important to remember, and even the researchers admit, that this was a study with a very small sample size. It's entirely possible that a larger group would show different results.

But the results here are a little sad. Don't be self-conscious, non-smellers of either gender. There could be a silver lining.


The Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England bought one of the most celebrated pieces of Italian Renaissance pottery in 2003 for nearly £250,000 and added it to the museum’s collection.

According to the museum description, this piece is an image of a male head made up of about fifty penises, and was presumably made with an individual in mind. You could call this phallocentricism by the individual depicted; yet this is just one very vain man. There is an equivalent similarly 'morally dirty' piece in Judy Chicago’s “Dinner Party” consisting of vaginal; imagery of hundreds of quim plates ready to be 'eaten from' and 'licked clean'.

The priapic work is glazed onto a ceramic plate, the work is thought to have been created by Francisco Urbini in 1536. This goes to show that in those days they knew the phallus had a mind of its own, and the image of a foolish man having his head made from fifty Cockus Erecti probably was meant to show how smart he was. The number of cunts on Judies diner show how many historical sisters she and her party have dined out on.

Author and neuro-psychiatrist dr. Louann Brizendine writes in her book, The Female Brain, that men think about sex every fifty-two seconds, (citations are definitely needed here) while women usually only think of it once a day. (Oh how pure! Feminist essentialism working overtime here) depends about what one thinks about thinking. How certain can we know things written like that. Women seem to be able to have sex biologically with hundreds’ of partners a day. See the sexual marathons indulged in by fame seeking females on YouTube. While men appear less able than that on a daily basis. De Sade in the Bastielle manages just eight and counts it a great day. Perhaps it is predatory women who should keep their hormones in check. Just because they lust after us does not mean we have to comply. If men think about sex so often, how do they ever get any work done? And most of the Productive work done by men is everywhere around us; doors, windows, roofs, walls, pipes, fences, bridges, airports, harbours, roads, tables, beds, walls, paths, parks, forests all constructed by proactive men’s concentrated and focused effort. Men work harder than women. They work longer. The world is filled by the industriousness of men; without which the world would not be livable.. Women co-optively rape our work every day. By spending a mans 'wherewithal' 'increase' and 'multiplication' the fruit of his body and innermost being. The labour of his arms and mind and muscle. Who then is the invader, the intruder, the person who inhabits the innermost interior of a built environment constructed literally as the body politic as home, property, and possession? Who then co-inhabits his interior? His interior invaded and ‘raped by women; especially feminist women. How proven is it then men think about it all the time and women less often? What

then the internalized cultural implication that sex between women is superior or better? You cannot have it both ways; thinking makes perfection. This old harridan 'see' saw spins on dizzy nothings. Are they so casual in their rapacious interior invasiveness? Are men so raped less often too than women when every female does this?

What do you think?

Send us feedback!