oh sure, the many young men will claim:
pity to have been born a woman...
and all their thinking is bound to sex acts they
will never understand...
cohort! echo!
chant! i find taking a shit more of a pleasure
than igniting the passions
of greek pederasts!
cohort! en masse echo! hoo! aham! hoo!
but then i wonder... slyly...
beside the joke that nero pulled
concerning the hebrews surrounding
a "fire"... did the ancient roman nobles
figure something out?
fostering partenhood?
to be "uncle" instead of FATHER?
to surrogate the offspring,
to cling to an upbringing of a wolf?
i had to come to think of it...
what are the benefits?!
ah... ah... ah ha ha ha ha!
the monotheistic curse emsemble?
how the father is to be cursed
and the son be glorified...
whether or not he be crucified?!
i'd need plenty more of seeds of
turmoil to replica your suffering...
"my sweet marcus"...
you know how i figured:
the ancient romans were up to something?
oh sure...
raising some other Sperm-a-lot...
ah ha! ah ha! ah ha ha ha ha ha
"biology reality"... ha ha...
god-given-driven...
"biological reality"... in the age of
biological "realism"...
ha ha.... ah ha ha!
where's the hyena?!
i'm just about right
to slobber the sort of slobber into its gob
to glue the laughter together!
oh sure, sure... without the hyphen-tie-together...

i've heard of this implant...
the curse of the father figure...
regression i don't call it but what
psychiatrists call it...
mother is still:
pristine saint-madonna
and the infallible whore..

i do admire the ancient roman
revision... of the hebrew harvest...
they imagined it was better to have
fathers as surrogates...
to escape the curse of
the son feuding with the father...
since biological ties...
sooner or later became non-reality
for the ancient romans...
the ancient romans cared about
genes of the modern
atheists... as...
chimps cared about
straightening bananas...
they might have disguised the faux pas
of nero surrounding the hebrew
celebrating fire...
but... given the current phrase?
is it better to have one own children,
or is it better to raise not of one's own
belonging: notably biologically?
i guess... the latter...
i would rather raise children
of my own missing "investment"
thast raise children with a curse:
of the son having to make it a necessity
of overcoming me, the father...

the ancient romans understood
the plague of the father / son
rivalry - the upkept momentum -
whether motherfucker or not...
i can imagine the revised fetish for
banking on a fatherhood
with single mothers...
but we're not talking the concentrated
escapade with the outcome
of a caesar... i still think that...
wasn't the bible broker overcome...
when the romans invested their efforts
into a cesarean section...
wasn't the bible contradicted
so long ago?

no?! oh... well then!
at least ancient rome knew two things...
how to make the son not despise his father
by having a surrogate father...
a non-biological tie...
and by the intro of the cesarean section
whereby women did not have have
to give birth in pain...
i guess that improvement is no longer
necessary!

i have tired myself of celebrating man's
genius when the collective stupidity
washes it ashore of time
as nothing more than whale blubber!
then humanity has decreed what
it collectively foresaw...
the end akin to the end of the dinosaurs...
i won't be complaining...
i have nothing new to learn!
whatever frame of experienced or
suspecting time you give me...
if i'm to be merely... expecting...
and not learning...
what point,
of concise coordination am i supposed
to fulfill?!

like the hindu woman of wisdom once
said: if they don't learn the 2nd time,
and it appears that even with their 2nd chance
they are... far far from learning the 1st lesson?
3rd time?
there's no 3rd time to me a concise
effort of time conscribed to a "learning"...
after that it's just a cinema
of the inevitable!