H said (December 9, 2022):

When ever I read the newspaper and there are articles concerning Gender-Gaga, I skip it.

I can’t stand it anymore. Most adults can’t even distinguish between sex and agape, that’s

why we have no families, thousands of divorces. Considering the fact that among „phallus“
and „labium“ billions of cash worldwide can easily be earned (prostitution, porno, child trafficking,

beauty operations etc.)

If I had more time, but it’s anything useless, I could write or mail my opinion to these insane, woke-culture

Idiots.

Two gays decided to marry. The marriage registrar asked them: „who of you has a vagina, and one

replied, well I have a Toyota and you?

What is the difference of a girl of the country and one of the city? Well, the country-girl has a tick

at labium and city-girl has a piercing.

I’ve only mockery left.

The mother of feminism was Alexandra Kollontei, foundress of the women’s movement. She was

a communist, marxist feminist. She was sitting at the table with Lenin and Trotzky. She was also
accomplice of the ouster of the tsar.

Behind all gender role is at the bottom of it the Jews. I mean a certain group of course not all.

Absolutely, abominable, disgusting is what Sanhedrin 55a says: with tree years and one day
can a female person through intercourse be lawfully wedded.

And in Kethboth 10b – 11a Talmud; if they have sex before she is three years and one day old
than the hymen will grow again. The outflowing tear is little as the tear sac will get full again.

Since half a year we have a new US-ambassador in Berne. He is a very proud man, bragging:

„I’m the 15th gay ambassador of America“. What wonderful news!

Welcome to the united colourful, green, baphomet gang, bigger than the old

Sodom and Gomorrha world.

James C said (December 9, 2022):

I once debated an atheist who asked me what the purpose of life is. I immediately answered: "Reproduction." IMO, the destiny of humanity is to develop godly character: The Gods are spiritually reproducing Themselves in those who will submit to Their will. Their ultimate goal is to populate the universe. This was going to take an enormous number of people. Therefore, the Gods had to come up with ways to insure the creation of a vast population. This is where the beauty of women, tits included, and male testosterone both come into play. A beautiful woman had no choice over being beautiful, and men with healthy testicles have no choice over the production of testosterone. IMO, sex would have been perfect if there had been a way to turn it off. But short of male castration, there isn't. From puberty onward, men are driven for the release of sexual tension caused by the testosterone their own bodies are constantly producing. And, IMO, this is exactly the way the Gods wanted it.

Are tits tyrannical? Not according to the bible: "Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times" (Proverbs 5:19). Is feminine beauty a sin? No, it's God ordained: "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose" (Genesis 6:2). In this case, feminine beauty created male lust, which IMO is what it was designed to do. It is more than interesting, therefore, that 1 John 2:16 seems to condemn both the lust of the eyes and of the flesh. For the more than obvious reason that without the lust of eyes and flesh none of us would be here. It seems like a contradiction to me.

1 John 2:16 seems to condemn "the lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh."

RH said (December 8, 2022):

Maybe this explains, as I approach my seventies in age, that I see the women dressed in Victorian clothing on BBC Public TV shows as attractive as contrasted to today’s “female” celebrities in their skimpy outfits leaving not a lot to the imagination.

Greg said (March 23, 2018):

The Buddha quote at the beginning of the article nailed it. The purpose of life is not reproduction; bacteria, bedbugs, and sharks do that. The purpose of life is self-realization, also known as enlightenment or liberation, which requires the abandonment of desire and the striving for material accomplishment. Sexual desire, sexual relationships, and even marriage and children draw us into obsessive materialistic cravings and neurosis. Actually, we do not need to perpetuate the human race; that is not what we are here for.

Doug M said (March 12, 2018):

Proverbs 5:18-20 King James Version (KJV)

18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

Warren said (March 19, 2012):

Taoist Secrets of Love: Cultivating Male Sexual Energy by Mantak Chia (Paperback - Jun 1984)

--

Thanks Warren

I would also recommend Elizabeth Haich - Sexual Energy & Yoga

Clifford Shack said (March 19, 2012):

There is a greater, more subtle deception here. The Illuminati focus is to prevent our minds from maturing, from asking and getting answers to the most important questions of life. They want us to function in the realm of the lowest sacral chakra region where any hope of spiritual enlightenment will be held at bay. Hence the media's emphasis on sex.

What the Illuminati fear most is wisdom among the masses. The crucifixion of Christ is a perfect example. The Illuminati cannot rule those that possess wisdom of Absolute Reality. Though they can murder the occasional feisty sage, they would be defenseless if True Wisdom went viral.

Keeping the focus on sex insures Illuminati rule.

The Illuminati control the bodies of the population. They can only do this if people think themselves to BE bodies! In truth, we are not the bodies we take ourselves to be.

The Illuminati control the minds of the population. They can only do this if people think that they have a mind! In truth, there is no such thing as a mind.

No doubt, to most, my words appear to be completely insane. That is expected, after all, most have yet to break free from the tyranny of Titty as you call it.

In truth, there is no multitude, no masses at all. There is but one simple Self that is all-pervading. It can be referred to as "I am." It goes by many names. I call it "Cliff", you call it "Henry."

It is simply silent awareness. Consciousness. Because it pervades even between the ears. It thinks itself to be an individual body peering out from eyes. This gives rise to the root of misery itself, the notion, "I am the body." Though we are infinite spirit, not born, not susceptible to death, the Illuminati foster the illusion so that they can control.

This is what Christ came to teach. This is what the Buddha came to teach. Those that had ears to hear, we're freed.

This freedom is the Illuminati's worst nightmare.

Don said (March 19, 2012):

Henry, Thanks for writing these articles. They show truth and clarity in a world that has a landslide of lies and just downright stupid thinking. Seems like all that is broadcast these days is sex, sex, sex. When put where it is supposed to be, in marriage it is very good. thing. That however is the last place is is placed today by those in power. Most of the people go right along with it. It is so good to here truth in a world that has a landside of immorality.

Christina said (March 19, 2012):

Something you said struck me. "Ladies, show us something we haven't seen in some time, qualities that make a woman a good wife and mother, ones that differentiate you from other women?

These include an ability to love a man, and children. Qualities of personality, charm, modesty, humor, taste, style, character, intelligence, homemaking skills."

Let me assure you there are women to embody the qualities you mention! We are here! But we seem to be invisible when stacked up against the model society has put forth as the ideal female. I and many of my friends are intelligent, charming, outgoing, funny, talented, and pretty. We love God with all our hearts, souls, minds and strength. We honor our parents and are highly capable in the marketplace. We desire to be married and have families and fulfill the God's call on our lives both in and outside the home. And yet we're still single.

This leads me to my point. Nearly all of society's problems today are a result of poor fathering. Think about it. Where do virtuous women learn that they are pearls of great price worth waiting for? From their fathers. What drives a woman to offer herself sexually to a man who does not love, honor and cherish her? When her father is abusive, checked out, or non-existent.

Where do young men learn how to value women and build a healthy family? These are things that wise and loving fathers teach their children in the home, the nuclear family. Literally, there is no counterbalance to the trash being forced down our throats by the media. Poorly fathered boys make bad fathers--cyclical dysfunction. In the absence of good and healthy fathers (not perfect, but good), naturally the media is all to eager to fill that void and teach men that a woman's sole purpose is to gratify him sexually.

This is something I ponder occasionally, but I wonder when the widespread lack of fathering began. Was it when men were sent off to war and women were forced into factories to provide for their families?

I read somewhere that during the Civil War, it was common for the whole family to go to the battlefield with the men. Not ideal, but at least the family stayed together. I wonder how many men died in both World Wars and left children fatherless. Even if the men did come back, they may have been injured or traumatized, creating a void.

Eliezer said (March 19, 2012):

Indeed, billions of illicit dollars have been extracted by the porn industry from a commodification of mammary glands. The sexualization of human culture and the economic terrain, paradoxically, leads FROM emotional & spiritual liberation & psychic maturity, to ever more insidious and powerful forms of degradation, political control and bondage.

Pornography since its inception, has always been a discordant occultic meme or cultural weapon - a weapon merchandised and orchestrated as a voyeuristic opportunity for the meanderings & vicarious elements of the placebo experience.

Rather, all pornography correctly defined, is without exception a gross insult and violation of the human spirit, wielded specifically & expressed AGAINST men and the male population - in that a twisting, exploitation, sexualization and commodification of the female persona, specifically targets, exploits, emasculates & degrades all men regardless of station.

That men are nothing more than a sum total of their masculine appendage(s), is the deeply embedded and contemptuous currency of porn hucksters.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." [Proverbs. 29:18]

To be sure, to date no optometrist has ever been able to remedy or prescribe for a man's or a nation's loss of vision. Just ask Samson, who only in blindness did he regain his vision.

This is why sex occultists like the British "Beast" Aleister Crowley - homosexist mentor and idol to sex zoologist Alfred Kinsey, are so diminishing of human dignity and freedom in their own perversions.

As the Buddha suggests, an obsession with mammary glands as objects of sexual enticement, condemns those so predisposed to a lifetime of arrested emotional and spiritual development.

But of course, as our current economy of mutual predation & exploitation would have it, this is intended precisely as a part of the plan. Lucifer, it seems, also has a female persona, that of "Lucinda," whose urban powers rise amidst the blindness and spiritual infidelities of men.

David said (July 6, 2010):

Well you really set the cat among the pigeons with this one - well done. Your basic idea; viz, that a kind of degeneracy and superficial infantilism has superceded a more mature and well-balanced notion of love: agape, self-sacrificing as opposed to the mere romantic variety is undeniable to anyone with eyes and a sense of history. Interestingly enough, I was in a pub with a friend watching the World Cup recently and he commented on what were admittedly a fabulously formed pair of pert breasts to which I retorted: tits are taps; at least, predominantly, secondarily and here I may disagree with your position or maybe your position was not sufficiently clear, they are also God-given comforters as one of your contributors in citing the Song of Songs also makes clear. God created sex, lest we forget. I once had a prophetic dream in which I was shown a most bizarre-looking diner. It appeared to be covered in nothing but white fur shaped like paws at either side and the sign above it said: 'Paws for Thought'. I've never seen anything like it before or since. And then the kicker: "Jesus didn't look at tits" was the thought. After I woke up it stayed with me for a long time. Now if Jesus in fact didn't look at tits, that does not necessarily mean he wasn't fully human, fully man as some might wish to contest. It may just mean he had the lust thing nailed. When I was in Tokyo my colleagues thought I was gay, they said, because they never saw me staring at women. The concept of following a spiritual path and trying to control the eye and ear-gates lest they infect the spirit was of course an unknown concept to them.

Keep 'em coming.

Chantal said (July 5, 2010):

Yes breasts are for feeding babies although I don't believe this exclusively.

The obsession with female breasts began when women stopped breastfeeding. You can blame corporate America for selling the idea that formula was better than breast milk. At that point women were made to feel that breast feeding was not only undesirable but that any exposure of the breast in doing so was forbidden and disgusting. Once you make something off limits and forbidden,all bets are off as to where people will run with it.

The bonding that takes place between mother and child if not fulfilled becomes a distorted perverted and obsessive quest for fulfillment, hence you have males on a never ending quest to get this need fulfilled via indulging in real breasts and images of breasts and with the rest of the men and women it manifests as eating disorders and obesity. The emptiness that is never filled.

So corporate America wins out all the way around,profits from formula,profits from pornography,profits from increased illness from feeding formula instead of immune enhancing breast milk and profits from breast enhancements.They really hit the jack pot with this one.

The sad thing is that women buy into this male dominated corporate engineering, whether it's how to feed your child,how you are supposed to look,how far you are supposed to go to satisfy the now perverted male sexuality.

Matt said (July 5, 2010):

THE INFANT POEM

I want boobies for my breakfast
I want boobies for my lunch
I want boobies for my dinner
Munch, munch, munch

I want boobies in the morning
And all throughout the day
I want boobies in the middle of the night
It's my favorite way

I want boobies in the park
I want boobies on the bus
I want boobies in the library
But only if I hush

And if I don't get my boobies
You know just what I'll do
I'll scream my bloody head off
And make my face turn blue

Matthew Vezina, 2008

W.G. said (July 5, 2010):

We focus our attention on "appearance over substance", we focus on things which may seem important, yet are frivolous and flippant. I was fortunate enough to learn such a lesson many decades ago, and try to pass it on to the younger men I've met over the years. . Relationships require a bit of tending to, and as you so well stated, boredom is indeed a sign your relationship is working. In all honesty, the last four sentences of the article sum up my nearly three decade relationship with my wife.

It's hard to get the younger men to understand the true dynamics of personal relationships, when they don't understand that love changes over time. . It changes from the overheated passion that allows us to procreate, into the deep, binding force that helps hold two people together when our bodies change, when situations change and we finally realize the true importance we play in one another's lives. We have to learn to go beyond the physical, and understand our true purposes. . Not an easy task, but you've done it again.

I will indeed make a point of directing some men to this article. . They surely need it.

--

Thanks W.G.

All my "exciting" marriages ended in divorce.

Henry

Ben said (July 5, 2010):

I think the best solution is to strengthen the Marriage (or marriage
contract) laws. Let the "Good guys" see men destroyed by faithless wives
who abuse the system and insist on a contract. As you said, men remain
fertile and good looking much longer than women. Good guys can wait for
desperation or take from the several years younger batch or protected by a
strong contract get a cute foreign lady. The ladies who refuse to be part
of it get their choice of ugly, unemployable even in good times and/or
criminal thugs. Guys they cheat on good men with to help suck his life
away, but not for a second would they be "He'll support me" material!

Bill said (July 5, 2010):

My ex had beautiful ones but would not let me kiss them because they were too sensitive? She had other issues about sex also, but as a Christian woman it never dawned on me until much later that she might have been getting attention elsewhere. From that situation I met a woman after my divorce who thought anything goes and wanted to be tied to the bedposts, which I wasn't into. I couldn't believe the stuff many church women were into, citing abuse by an ex-husband. Often, she has just gained weight after two kids and no longer turns him on. Most married women want a guy who is a good provider and faithful ,while she is allowed to dress any way she likes, flaunt herself and be forgiven for several liaisons before she was married or even afterward. I personally do not respond to married women who are looking for a fling. She can literally take everything he has in a divorce and keep him paying her for the rest of his career. The laws are totally in favor of the woman here in the US, so men are very careful of what they have to lose. I have never recovered financially from my divorce.

Bill said (July 5, 2010):

When I read some of the more venomous replies to your piece "Breasts Are For Babies, Not Men", I knew that you must have hit home.

Generally when benighted individuals lash out by accusing any author of homosexuality or misogyny simply for daring to point out obvious facts to anyone with a working mind, the author is spot-on. And vilified for it....

Clearly those folk have either not read or ignored your point that in cultures not obsessed with infantilizing men (such as Mali), women's breasts are not considered as sexual organs to attract the attention of men.

Your article clearly annoyed individuals with their own agendas. What greater confirmation of the accuracy of your arguments could you possibly ask for?

Keep up the great work.

Sandra said (July 5, 2010):

Henry, that was very, very good. Don't let anyone discourage you away from your opinions - you are right on the money.

A long time ago I was visiting a friend and I noticed a tiny little piece of paper pinned on his wall that said, "Love isn't two people looking at each other; it's two people looking together in the same direction." I never forgot it.

Dan said (July 5, 2010):

Remember this conversation from Last Tango in Paris?

Girl - You know, you're old! You're getting fat.

Brando - Fat, is it? How unkind. In ten years, you'll be playing soccer with your tits.

John said (July 4, 2010):

You are correct in exposing the perversions our society has towards the adult female breast. But your efforts to eliminate their attraction are futile. Because man was designed to be attracted to the adult female breast, while the adult female was designed to use her breasts to attract the adult male. My first exposure to the so-called role of the female breast in our society was while I was in college as a young biology major in 1970. I read Desmond Morris's book, "The Naked Ape: A Zoologist Study of the Human Animal." His treatise was that man was no different than the ape. To understand man, you simply have to understand the ape. If I recall correctly, Morris stated that the breasts look similar to the gluteals. And with the development of the human female breasts, the human males approach to the female was able to switch from the posterior to the anterior. Even as a young, naïve, agnostic male at that time, I wasn't buying this evolutionary religion. If his treatise was correct, then why aren't the adult female breasts originating in the lap area?

Later, in medical school, our instructors affirmed that the infant obtained antibodies from the mother's breast milk, and particularly the colostrum. They quickly mentioned that, "the breast was best," for the infant, but then spent most of the time discussing the various commercial formulas for feeding. It seemed as if the "experts" at medical school, had little interest in the breasts connection to immunology.

My appreciation for the female breast occurred while reading Dr. William Campbell Douglass II, M.D., "The Milk Book: The Milk of Human Kindness Is Not Pasteurized." Over 270 pages just on milk. He reported multiple studies where they would place a specific organism on a cow's teat, and within four hours that cow's milk would contain the specific antibodies against that organism. Reportedly, some people would isolate an organism from a sick patient, apply it to a cow's teat, and then feed the milk to the patient. And this would result in the patient's rapid recovery. It made me wonder if the "smallpox immune" milkmaids that Dr. Edward Jenner was observing in the late 1700s, might have been unknowingly immunizing themselves by drinking the milk that they were collecting. Of course "modern science" would never investigate that question, because the answer might be contrary to the religion of vaccination.

While reading Dr. Douglass' Milk Book, I had a number of revelations. I now understood why an infant puts everything in their mouth. It is not for taste, hunger, or for texture. The baby is transferring every organism it comes in contact with, to its mouth. And then every few hours the baby attaches his/her mouth to the mother's nipple. Within four hours, when the baby returns, he/she is immunized for the specific organisms which are in his/her environment. That milk will also contain antibodies to everything that Mom has come in contact.

And then the final revelation. Dad is designed to be naturally attracted to his wife's breasts, so that he can contribute his organisms for his offspring's immunization. The stimulation of his wife's breasts result in pleasure for her along with uterine contractions. Contracting the uterus, like a bulb syringe, expedites the passage of sperm to the ovum. (And theoretically, may contribute to endometriosis if occurring during a certain time within the menstrual cycle.). Therefore, women are designed to intentionally attract there husband to their breasts during their child producing years. And men are designed to be attracted. This is all for the well-being, health and development of the family. The female breast is the central "immune organ" of the family. And being such, it may be more vulnerable to the collection of harmful organisms, that may develop into things such as cancers. The breast also plays a role in the cascade of hormones for procreation.

It may not be wise to try to eliminate the "natural roles" designed to strengthen the family unit. But it is wise to expose the perversions, for what they are, in "modern" society.

Paul said (July 4, 2010):

As a friend once commented - Men seek women with large breasts and tight vaginas because they (men) have big mouths and small dicks.

Malcolm said (July 4, 2010):

Excellent timing Henry,

You chose Gay Pride Week to come out of the closet.

The big gay lion in winter roars "I hate breasts!!!"

Rush down to Church Street. Fozdyke and the other boys are waiting for you.

---
Reply:

Malcolm starts to cry when Henry disturbs his nookie.

H

Stephen said (July 4, 2010):

Henry Makow Ph.D - what does the PHD stand for? No doubt that means "Positively (a) Homosexual Dude". It is obvious by your "hate women" articles, that you certainly are not a heterosexual. It is QUITE obvious you have never "Made Love" to a woman, nor helped one achieve orgasm.

For if you did, you would have known that the "Nipple" part of the breast is an Erogenous zone that can intensify for the woman not only the love making itself, but the sensation of the climax as well.

BTW: I am HAPPILY Married for the last 24 years to the most awesome, wonderful, beautiful Woman (partner, best friend) a man has ever had! We have 2 sons (23 + 19) and 2 grandchildren. And I wouldn't trade her for ALL the money in the world! Oh, and she's only a "B" cup, and who gives a shit? I know I don't. That is NOT what makes her beautiful!

Jerry said (July 4, 2010):

"May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another mans wife?" Proverbs 5:18-20

Joey said (July 4, 2010):

If breast are for babies, why don't any of the great apes have them?

Breast are to reproduce the look of a wanting ass since the human ape went bipedal.

Nice try.

PS. I'm gay. No real interest. Other than factuality.

Bon jour, gentil homme.

Ben said (July 4, 2010):

Tits are very sexually attractive. I get the feeling that we develop a taste and attraction for breasts when we are babies. We sucked on them then as we do now.

Perhaps a nice pair of tits wouldn't be such a turn on if they were viewed all the time as in the native societies you speak of, or if we were not breastfed as babies.

I think pornography has diluted their appeal on screen, but they will never lose their beauty in the flesh. Women definitely use their breasts as a power-grab, and men often do act like babies when confronted with even a decent pair.

Amount of cleavage shown is often a good way to separate the sluts from the decent women, the latter reserving their puppies for their man, not every man. I'm not sure that I really agree with you on this one Henry, but interesting article.

Michael-Jay said (July 4, 2010):

This is a good article about the obsession complexes that have reduced men's inner sense of identity and distracted them away from the realities of manhood in the necessity of expressing the image of God in Christ. A man should love his wife as Christ loves the church, laying down his life for her but always focusing on the will of the Father. "I only do those things I see my Father doing." Being seduced by women is an evidence of goddess worship, as in Maryolatry and it idolizes women so that we can worship them instead of the One who created us for His own, eternal, purposes. It is a symptom of our sinfulness and reprobation and points out our need for the Savior.

Only when men love their wives with Christ's love are they set free from the obsessions of lust. Only God, the Savior can cleanse a man from this powerful sin of lustful urgency and teach Him a sacrificial love for a wife and children. When Christ is in a marriage they are equally yoked, together with Him. They are given a vision and a faith that works by the love God pours into their hearts. They become fruitful in their giving themselves to those God sends them to.

The cleavage seduction is extremely offensive to God because it is an aspect of whoring, that is selling yourself by using fleshly appetites to a debasing advantage. As Satan and his children are manifest in murder, theft, and destruction they are the analog of a garbage collection system. Only the Savior can prevent men and women from becoming refuse in their continuing in the constant debasement of their souls and bodies. Jesus Christ came to save sinners. The seducers in this culture are manifest to destroy the moral substance of mankind. So the whoring spirit in this generation exploits the advertising that cleavage and bare skin aims at men whose eyes have not ceased from sin.

Daniel said (July 4, 2010):

I once knew an extraordinary lady of Polish descent. Well educated and also well-read, she was a medical doctor with great organizational skills, fine and decent manners, had a very peculiar type of wit and humour, a talented amateur photographer and potter, she was good with cooking - and at the same time endowed with what men over centuries have hymnically praised as the magic of Polish femininity (to say it frankly, every 19th-century painter would have been immediately intoxicated both by her subtle charm and her delicate physical appearance).

Now, what was the self-evaluation of this most cultivated woman? Her greatest capital, she used to say, were her breasts! What fatal priorities! And what a low opinion of herself and of the men possibly to be interested in her! (She later ended up, after many years of senseless promiscuity, with someone exactly fitting that sort of degenerate lifestyle. End of story.)

MK said (July 4, 2010):

MIST ER MAKOW! UNTIL NOW I THOUGHT YOU WERE A REEASONABLE MAN BUT SOMEONE WHO WRITES THE ABOVE HAS PROVED THAT HE IS

- A RANCID MYSOGYNOUS FRUSTRATED NOBODY BECAUSE ONLY THOSE WOULD WRITE SICK STUFF LIKE YOU DID ABOVE

- APPARENTLY SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY HAS A SEXUAL PROBLEM THATS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIETY BUT ONLY WITH YOURSELF

- THE MOST INSULTING EVER COMMENT AGAINST WOMEN I HAVE READ: YOU HAVE, YOUR AGE ( 60?) UNDERSTOOD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT LIFE, SEX, EROTIC, THE ART OF SEDUCTION, THE JOY OF LIVING: THE BREASTS ARE SWEET SYMBOLS OF FEMININITY AND ALSO AN ORGAN.

just like the penis is BOTH an organ AND a symbol..

but a flat anglo saxon with grotesque sexual minority complexes is positively UNCAPABLE of seeing all this. you should REALLY BE BANNED from poisoning youth with your nonsense website from now on.

i KNOW that those BREASTS are invading facebook etc but its a female COMPETITION, like ALWAYS AND EVER IT WILL BE: to find more attention with men than the girl next door.

this is a natural law of the jungle and we men profit enormously from it an no makow will EVER change that.

i think it insulting that someone like YOU ( HOW many women have you slept with actually? i more and more get the impression that you are a dangerously immature person who doesnt know what he is talking about !) calls ME a baby just because i LIKE BREASTS. they are POETIC! they represent the FEMALE.

Len said (July 4, 2010):

Yeah. It's stupid and juvenile. The whole "over-sexed thing" is preposterous and another tool of the elitists and social-engineers who want everyone easily manipulated and obsessed with pleasure, sex, drugs, sports, food, and making time payments on just about everything. Only the wise ever wise-up and get off the treadmill.

And, of course, in the end: women are as much used and abused in all these hyper-sexuality and breast & body-fetishes as are the men. It's pathetic, really.

Tony said (July 4, 2010):

Henry, very good.

Now you're going to be accused of being a homo.

In my old age I sometimes think it would be nice to have a help meet but then reality sets in and I realize it's just not worth the trouble. Odds are dead set in the U.S. against finding a woman who is not in love with herself, not habituated to a lazy, meaningless, shallow, materialistic lifestyle and not looking out strictly for her own interests. They obviously brag to one another of their misuses of men.

Dogs are more faithful, more aware of your moods, more apt to try to accommodate them, and just all-around better companions. Sad but true these days.