I’d like to make a suggestion with regard to a fairly basic (well, very basic really) design fault in the human body. I know You were probably a bit rushed by the time You’d finished designing amoebae and worms and parasites and mammoths and things, and I realize that humans are very complex compared with amoebae, and I know You didn’t have time to test out lots of different variations to see which one worked best, and I certainly don’t want to be too critical because I think you did fantastically well with lots of bits and pieces like the brain and the eyes and the hands, but I do think that when it came to designing ‘Sex Organs, Procreation and Pleasure, for the use of” You made a bit of a, er, well a bit of a balls-up really, if not a cock-up, both of which phrases confirm my contention that the male bits, at least, are not universally admired as a model of functional efficiency.
The main problem with the male organ seems to be that it doesn’t work unless its fully erect, and yet its awfully inconvenient for all sorts of reason if its erect all the time, so I can see why you had to make it less conspicuous for the ordinary working day but as You probably know (You may have had prayers on the subject) the rather complex psycho-neuro-haemodynamic mechanism required for erection is not absolutely infallible, especially in the older chaps after a few beers. The converse problem, over-sensitivity of the trigger mechanism in the younger chaps, is of course not unknown either (especially when your female colleague bends forward to file things in the bottom drawer) and the results can be most discombobulating.
I can’t help thinking that You ought to have been able to develop a simpler device (possibly manually or even womanually operated), based on the principle of a strong spring and an umbrella fastener….whoosh and you’re ready for anything. Well I don’t mean You’re ready for anything because so far as I know deities make other arrangement like Showers of Coins or Swans or even Immaculate Conceptions, so it doesn’t arise. Well it doesn’t have to, does it? In fact I wonder whether that isn’t part of the problem really. Things never seem to work properly unless they’ve been designed by somebody who has used one regularly.
This isn’t the only problem with the male organs though. The position of the testes is awfully inconvenient for little boys who want to practice tight-rope walking on a slippery metal pole, and even big strong cricketers blanch a bit if the pitch is bumpy. The foreskin doesn’t seem all that wonderful either, with modern trouser zips.
I don’t think you’ll find there’s universal owner satisfaction with the female organs either. I understand that sand in the crevices can be very uncomfy and I know from the adverts that there’s a lot of concern over ‘feminine hygiene’. Why they need those apocrine glands (modified smelly sweat glands in the armpits and groins) at all beats me when You’ve given them perfectly good long eye-lashes and come-hither glances. As for periods, well I know all about the psychological importance of initiation into womanhood at puberty, but I’ve always thought breast development was a very satisfactory arrangement without gilding the lily.
That brings me to another point. Flowers are the sexual organs of plants and they’re lovely… they even smell nice. So why did You make our organs so aesthetically unattractive? No wonder Adam and Eve felt the need for fig-leaves.
That reminds me of the Freudian bit, and the psychological problems caused by the Sex Is Dirty concept. If only you’d provided a bit more anatomical separation between the excretory and the copulatory functions we could all feel suitably anguished about germs and hand - washing without bringing sex into it at all. There’s no real reason is there, why the procreative power house should always be at the lowest level?
My modest suggestion is that if the worst comes to the worst, and you allow one of your Natural Disasters to wipe us out altogether and You get the chance to start from square one again, You might consider putting the sexual organs in the mouth. No, I don’t mean like that! I know people have tried it, and some like it and some don’t, and yes, I know it spreads herpes, but I meant more as a permanent anatomical arrangement.
Supposing small testes were to be found beneath the male tongue, nicely protected by the lower jaw, and the ovaries were in a convenient position just above the female tonsils. The elongated male tongue could then double as a fertilizing organ with a tube down the centre so that the tip of the tongue could gently deposit the sperm into a small recess in the lady’s pharynx. It could be quite delicate, rather like bees or humming-birds and flowers, and even poets don’t think they’re crude. Anyway its only a variant of the French osculatory custom and they’re terribly civilized.
“Where will the foetus develop?” I hear You ask.
There’s no reason why it shouldn’t develop in the pelvis as usual. It would just need a long Fallopian tube running down alongside the back-bone to convey the fertilized ovum from the throat to the womb.
The actual sexual act would of course be different, but kissing has always been popular and there’s no reason to think it would become less so with the new arrangement. The red lips of the female are traditionally provocative organs, and would remain so. Many ladies might wish to wear a yashmak, but those hussies intent on providing titillation could have a tiny silk one with lacy edges. Lipstick would be very naughty.
Once oral sex became the biological norm, those wishing for the frisson of the taboo would have to substitute aural sex, and give each other herpes of the ear-drum. Other medical advantages would result from the new anatomy. Honeymoon cystitis would disappear altogether and low backache in the male would become less frequent.
Another major advantage is that rape would be unheard of. Nobody is going to put his unwelcome organ into an orifice surrounded by a row of strong teeth and muscles of mastication.
So that’s it God. I’m not trying to usurp your Creative Powers, I’m simply suggesting we move the hole system into a different ball-park.
Yours with tongue in cheek,