You know how sex scenes tend to make available most of a woman, but hardly ever reveal much of a man? I know it's not always, always, but you know what I'm saying. The female form is generally there, while the male form is somehow humping itself away behind the camera, hopefully against Michael Bay's leg while he records yet another unnecessary tender moment between a sensitive robot and a terrible, WD-40-stained actress. I'm not saying we more often see female genitalia than male genitalia in film -- I think we generally don't see a lot of genitalia in film -- but I do think we see more of Kate Winslet...I mean...of the woman. This argument certainly does not hold true in graffiti and within and on top of the Mead notebooks of males aged 4 and up; I've seen a whole lot of squiggly, smudgy spray-painted and chalk-drawn wieners on electrical boxes and sidewalks, and I've seen a whole lot more ballpoint pen cock etchings repeating in notebooks, as if another cursive character had been added to the alphabet and required practice, practice, practice. On the contrary, how many crudely-drawn vaginas have you seen. And if you have seen a crudely-drawn vagina, are you sure it wasn't a hotdog bun?
So it doesn't seem right, then, that Wikipedia's "Penis" entry first shows us a crude lineup of jarred whale dongs. Was it a happy mistake that the penises of the largest mammal were chosen for the first photo? Where's the photograph of a whale in a Hummer? Then, a bit later down the penis scroll, we get a glimpse of an engorged elephant dick. Which has got to be the second-biggest weiner on the planet. Then, okay, there's the tiny Cheeto of a tallywagger that the mallard apparently has. But still: first biggest penis, second biggest penis, and Cheeto penis averages out to a pretty damned big Jimmy Dean.
So it doesn't seem right, then, that Wikipedia's "Vagina" entry first shows us, straight up, a human vagina, which is not only just there, but also being pried apart by what I assume to be the fingers of the vagina's owner. But it's Wikipedia, after all. Those are probably the fingers of someone whose sources are totally skewed.
Where is the grizzly bear vagina? Or the kangaroo's TRIFECTA of vaginas [Don't try it -- I've just trademarked that name for a really terrible all-girl band I'm starting. There will be three flaming vaginas from whence we will spring and, on the stage, we will allow our flutes to express our personal fits of Wikipedia rage.]? I am demanding more animal vaginas on Wikipedia, and I am demanding them now! I think that's what I'm doing. Or am I demanding more human penises on Wikipedia? Let's say both and call this rant a desperate attempt for genitalial equality. Fat cock of a chance.
