[lit-ideas] Re: A Question REALLY Answered
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:58:08 -0600
PS:
>> It's possible that women may not need men, but Men SURE AS HELL need woman,
>> for at least ONE thing anyway. <<
Reminds me of a joke and since McCreery likes my jokes so well : ), I'll tell
it (actually I may already have, if so, too bad because here it is again):
JOKE:
What's the best thing God ever did?
Created pussy.
What's the worst thing God ever did?
Put women in charge of it.
(guffaw, guffaw)
>> It's funny that that one thing is the exact same thing that women
>> [increasingly] don't need us for. <<
Having been raised Catholic, I used to believe that. The intervening years
have taught me differently. Women get just as randy, they're just not as
indiscriminant as men.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stone
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:43 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] A Question REALLY Answered
IA: This is what I was getting at when I asked if men really liked that
stuff or if they think they have to like it. If Quayle (if, repeat: if) Quayle
(or any guy) can only get excited by pictures or fantasies of what would be
under his Christmas tree, well then you draw the conclusion. It's strange how
humans have these big brains that are all but useless for reality but in
overdrive for fantasy and what if. Makes me want to revisit Anton Chekov.
I think it's precisely BECAUSE of our 'big brains' that we need something
left to the imagination. The reason that Maxim has taken over from Playboy and
Penthouse is because they DON'T "show it all". Apart from the fact that they
can then capture the pubescent male population [legally], they can also APPEAL
to the lechery that's swimming below the surface of even the most Brainy of
men.
They LEAVE something for guys to salivate over and make up their own
finishing picture. The ever-present "hands over breast shot" in Maxim lets men
IMAGINE their favourite type of 'tit'. The provocative thumb-in-the-underwear
(as if she's pulling them down) pose lets the guys IMAGINE what is underneath.
At the same time, the star/model/skank gets to remove herself from being
associated as a full-on skank, because she "left something to his imagination".
The world is so stripped down [pun intended] anymore that something that
let's both sides (reps and dems) play the game -- the libs get to get some
skin, the reps are still staring at a 'clothed' woman.
It's possible that women may not need men, but Men SURE AS HELL need woman,
for at least ONE thing anyway. It's funny that that one thing is the exact same
thing that women [increasingly] don't need us for. Porn/Erotica/Skin Mags are
men's answer to women's lack of sexual desire (in proportion and definitely,
when present, not explicitly stated -- by women), the sybian, vibrators,
lesbian-chic etc.
The bottom line is that men, through NO FAULT of marketing ARE [even if
subconsciously so] obsessed by getting off. The marketing has catered to this,
NOT vice-versa. Women, even those who think they can assume the identity of
men, will never understand our lot in life.
P
##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada
Other related posts:
