I’m sure that if 4 months of chemotherapy hadn’t melted my poetical lobe, I’d be able to lyrically compare this photograph to the post below with satisfactory results.
I enjoyed this comment at Pandagon (discussing the UNH/Fark imbeciles) so much I am ripping most of it off.
Quoth dr ngo:
1) â€œNormally adjustedâ€ women do not â€œsubmitâ€ to sex, but [presumably] welcome it with open arms. (Legs?)
2) â€œUptightâ€ (maladjusted/abnormal) women do not welcome sex. They can and should, therefore, be forced to â€œsubmitâ€ to â€œphallic power,â€ which they resist. [BECAUSE . . .]
3) [. . . TACIT] . . . Once exposed to this phallic power, they will no longer resist sex, and thus no longer be required to â€œsubmitâ€ to it, but instead will welcome it with open limbs, like â€œnormalâ€ women.
While we may deplore the philosophy, we must, I think, admire its internal logic. By it, any man may (should?) have sex with any woman whenever he feels like it, since either (a) she is normal, and thus will enjoy it, OR (b) she is uptight, and should be forced to submit, and thus learn to enjoy it. Itâ€™s Win-Win-Win!
It would appear that dr ngo has succinctified, in language even an unfunny woman feminist can understand, a popular rationalization for the notion that all women need the dick.