The Prisoner of Sex

by Norman Mailer

Here, by America's foremost candidate for the Nobel Prize, is the book that some fifteen years ago created a firestorm among true believeers of the women's liberation movement, and which on rereading and contemplation emerges as one of the most sensible, sensitive and probing works on the ageless dialectic of man, woman, man-woman ever to be written.

Unlike some of those who have excoriated him for his views, Mailer writes with with wit and compassion, clearly a man who loves women, and who is dedicated to the proporsition of vive la difference. On one level, this work is a spirited defense of the differeences between the sexes, a vigorus condemnation of those forces in society which strike at the heart of individuality, but as Pete Hamill emphasizes in his introduction, it is also a fascinating glimpse at the "processes of Mailer's thinking." Hamill compares Mailer's rhetorical counterpunching to a bravura jazz performance: "Again and again, he enters his piece with a light-hearted prologue, then states the melody or theme. From there he races off on an improvisation whose brilliance and complexity are up to him on any given evening, free of the constraints of conventional form, able to call on as much of what he knows (about the world, the self) as he cares to reveal." And reveal he does, lighting up the sexual stage with verbal pyrotechnics, forcing us by clever twists and turns into a new understanding of ourselves.

Genres: Nonfiction, Essays, Feminism, 20th Century, Memoir, Sexuality, Criticism

240 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

Norman Kingsley Mailer was an American novelist, journalist, essayist, poet, playwright, screenwriter, and film director.

Along with Truman Capote, Joan Didion, and Tom Wolfe, Mailer is considered an innovator of creative nonfiction, a genre sometimes called New Journalism, but which covers the essay to the nonfiction novel. He was awarded the Pulitzer Prize twice and the National Book Award once. In 1955, Mailer, together with Ed Fancher and Dan Wolf, first published The Village Voice, which began as an arts- and politics-oriented weekly newspaper initially distributed in Greenwich Village. In 2005, he won the Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters from The National Book Foundation.

Reviews

[Alex Wexelman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reads like a legal document for a nasty divorce from Kate Millett in order to marry the male race

[Sue Dounim · Rating 2 out of 5]

Norman Mailer has done some great writing; this work has not aged at all well. In fact, it's downright embarrassing to the point of laughable at this point in history. It's mostly an interesting period piece from the days of "womens lib" and Hugh Hefner.

I don't believe that books are reviewed in a vacuum, so consider me an over-60 white American male [yes, I know this doesn't correspond with my profile, take it up with my lawyer] in 2020, not a professional writer, and have won 2 fewer Pulitzer Prizes than Mailer. This book is almost 50 years old at this point. In 1968-9, “Womens Liberation” was part of the cultural upheaval of the time, particularly in the US. All at the same time, America had the Vietnam war, the Watergate affair, Woodstock, the Apollo 11 moon landing; the Stonewall riots...these were not average or minor social changes.

If you are a young person you need to know that Mailer was what we would now call an unregenerate sexist. At the time he was at the top of his game, making the TV talk show rounds, on reporters’ short lists of intellectuals to call for reactions to cultural or world news. Without a doubt he was intelligent and a gifted writer. He also enjoyed the perquisites of fame and understood that being controversial was better than being good.

OK, to the book. First, the bad. I speak with diffidence as a literary nobody criticizing an supposed Titan, but these are my impressions. Mailer writes the entire book referring to himself in the third person, first as “the Prizewinner” but mainly as “the Prisoner” (clever--no?--how similar the two words sound?) But this clumsy conceit overlays the entire work with a precious, “oh-did-I-say-that?” disingenuousness that reliably rankles. ("Prizewinner", incidentally, comes from the cringeworthy beginning where he is waiting with fake nonchalance to hear whether he won the Nobel Prize for literature or not.)

But stylistically even worse than that, though, is when he is ascending to the heights of literary rapture, his sentences go on and on and on – 50 words, 60, 70, 80 – “my thoughts are so transcendent that a mere period cannot contain them”. Two sentences I picked at random were 120 and 170 words. This, I hope, would earn a reliable D in a freshman English composition course.

In the discussion of the new sexual politics taking place at that time, topics like masturbation, abortion, homosexuality, female orgasm, rape and all types of sexual assault were important. Gender equality is not just a matter of anatomy and physiology but is tied up in complex ways with history, culture and hominid power structures. Both those issues were mostly bothersome side details to him. To him women were beautiful, ethereal, delicate, powerful, mysterious creatures, and the highest and best purpose of their lives, he said in a notorious quote, was to find a man whose children they could bear that would improve the human race. At the end of his book, he returned to that statement and doubled down on it.

He said things to be interviewers to be either inflammatory or just simply an asshole, it’s impossible to tell. Another infamous quote was: “Women at their worst are low, sloppy beasts.” He feigns hurt that the interviewer did not follow up with the “obvious follow-up question” to which he presumably had the answer prepared that “at their best they are goddesses!” No, Norman, you can’t get away with that sort of rhetorical crap by blaming the interviewer not following your script. But he does claim in several places that this was just to get people talking. Well…I guess so.
But on the other hand, he also realized that a boring interviewee is one certainly to be removed from the abovementioned hot lists, and controversy, good or bad, still and always sells.

He did understand that an epochal changes was occurring, with medical advances that drastically lowered the mortality rate of childbirth, and allowed sexuality to be decoupled from procreation. In those days (1950s-60s), women who wanted careers outside the home were censured, mocked and attacked.

But on the other hand, he has mystical views of conception and sexual energy exchange that would be too wacky for even the most extreme parody of a new ager. In terms of conception, he all but says that a women won’t get pregnant no matter how many sexual partners she has until the Right One comes along. And that sex between men and women are only incidentally about conception, its most important function is an energy exchange between the partners through sexual fluids. I can't help but think this theory is a lot easier to support as long as contraception is 100% the woman’s job.

In my opinion, it’s not about women’s liberation, black liberation, illegal immigration, or gay liberation. Every one of these movements, though each one has had a completely different history, is about the categorization of human beings and access to power or at least opportunity.

I was talking to an old friend (literally – he turns 76 this month) and he remarked that it seems that the women’s liberation movement had the result of allowing women to be as foul-mouthed and selfish as men. This is part of the problem. It’s like a political refugee being criticized for too describing too explicitly the way the regime tortured hum.

Once white Christian men had consolidated all the power in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, Europe and Russia, they wanted to make sure that their power was secure. Interestingly, although many of them were the idea guys, without unpaid (or barely paid) labor from exploited groups (starting with New World natives, then African slaves, but also including women and Asian and Mexican immigrants) they could not have built and consolidated their empires.

Someone has no doubt wrote about this. Probably Karl Marx. “Womens Liberation” is important historically as one of the movements of oppressed societal groups against the entrenched power structure. The late 1960s was the time to do this. The way society controlled/oppressed women was much different from the way it treated racial minorities, the poor and homosexuals. These subgroups were all manageable in different ways, but that was changing.

So now this has ended up being a liberal social history screed. To try to get back to the entire point of this: I'm glad I read this book, I still love Ancient Evenings, Executioners Song, and Naked and the Dead, but this one isn't something I'd recommend to anyone except the aforesaid cultural historian.

[Michael · Rating 1 out of 5]

A vile little bit of vengeful geekery, basically Mailer's book-length rant name-calling at some of the easier targets in the women's movement. Utter crappe.

[Ted Burke · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is much to argue with in "The Prisoner of Sex", and though I'm in sympathy with the aims of the women's movement, I cheer Mailers' defense of the artists right to use their sexuality and sense of the sensual world as proper fodder for poetic expression.

There are times when Mailer- the- mystic clogs up an otherwise lacerating argument,where his romanticism veers dangerously towards a lunatics hallucinations, but his defense of Miller, Lawrence and Genet against the clumsier moments of Millet's original critique in "Sexual Politics" is literary criticism at its most emphatic. In college I had, in fact, used Mailer's extended remarks on Lawrence as a means of illustrating that author's particular genius at exploring the sensual and thorny attraction men and women have toward one another. The fundamental issue was that men and women change each other psychically in the course of making love , genuine love, and that it is those changes during the exchange that require courage of the rarest sort to face a world afterwards that now has new terms of use. I did well in the course, although the professor was, understandable, not a Mailer's ideas in general.

"Prisoner of Sex" is, I'm afraid, incoherent at times, but there are long passages of rich knock-out prose that demonstrate why Mailer is thought by many to be one of the premiere stylists of the times, and if nothing else, his lyrical defense of D.H.Lawrence is worth the purchase by itself.

[Debbie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I decided to read this book because last year I read The Executioner's Song and it was fantastic. Well, this self indulgent mini-thesis on "love" by Mailer somewhat less than fantastic. In its defense, it was written in 1971 and Mailer was in one of many fights of his life with the feminist movement. And yes, some of the leaders of the movement in the 60's and early 70's were a bit humourless and strident but they had to be to shake things up. This book is Mailer's retort to feminists who called him on his macho and condescending rhetoric. It is quite dry and long winded and dated. However, there were a few good points he made, usually followed by a several degrading points but they were there nonetheless. I like looking back and seeing how far women have come in a mere 40 years, we still have a way to go for sure, but as the cigarette ad in the 70's said "You've come a long way, baby"!

[carl · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short autobiographical essay. It really has not aged well.

There's a real window here into the sexual and gender viewpoints at that time.

While writing this he was a stay at home dad, washing clothes, cooking meals while his partner at the time worked outside the home. He also references his political activities. Gertrude Stein considered Mailer a political ally.

Mailer's life at that point still shows how change is often in fits and starts. And that applies to any of us today. No matter how progressive we might view ourselves.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

A distillation of Mailer's metaphysical ideas about sex, procreation, and the cosmological order of human relations, all in response to women's lib. Weak only when Mailer exclusively sets his cross-hairs on Kate Millet's idiotic-sounding Sexual Politics, employing flowery prose when precision would have worked better toward making a point.

[Ben Loory · Rating 4 out of 5]

well, after that Gospel According to the Son debacle, i decided to channel my norman mailer thing into his non-fiction for a while... and i'm very glad i did, because this book was a lot of fun. when mailer makes sense, he makes a lot of sense, and when he doesn't, he's at least thrilling to read... never a dull moment along the way, though lots of semi-admirational head-scratching... the general vibe mailer gives off is of a man who above all believes in progress... in working towards personal, interpersonal, and societal improvement ALL THE TIME; who believes we'd all be better if we worked together... and by worked, i mostly mean fought... life is a battle, but not a zero-sum game in norman mailer's view; he really seems to think there's no limit to what can be achieved if we all interact fully and honestly ALL THE TIME... it's almost like he believes that if we all stood on each others' shoulders, we could somehow all individually reach the stars... it must've been tiring being norman mailer... believing so forcefully in so many things, while being surrounded by the constant disappointments of reality... he really does strike me as a heroic figure... though we all know what happens to heroes...

the section on the evils of masturbation was especially interesting.

[Benjamin Kerstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

Contains a passage dealing with rape that is frankly embarrassing and morally indefensible. That being said, it also contains a substantial early critique of 1960s and '70s feminism and its tendency toward demonizing masculinity. Worth reading, but with a skeptical eye.

[Dan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This could be the worst book I have ever read.

[Carolineg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another blind buy. The reviews and controversy around this book (and Mailer generally) tapered my expectations and I was worried The Prisoner of Sex might be overly hackneyed or derivative. Mailer was obviously contending with his own ego and public reputation, so at times it can appear a bit self-serving as he takes up his own personal squabbles. Culturally, a whole lot has changed since Mailer wrote this in 1971, during the heyday of second wave feminism. Minding those societal differences and the gap between "acceptable" rhetoric now and then, Mailer is incredibly persuasive about the dangers of the depersonalization and technologizing of sex and gender. His heavy quotations from the work of Henry Miller and D.H. Lawrence are wonderful, and put the militant/rigid/one-dimensional arguments of the day into high relief. Mailer's appreciation of the nuance, the beauty, and the subtleties of love, sex, lust is apparent, and extremely refreshing.

[Jim Beatty · Rating 4 out of 5]

For he captured something in the sexuality of men as it had never been seen before, precisely that it was man's sense of awe before woman, his dread of her position one step closer to eternity...

[Steven H · Rating 3 out of 5]

MAILER’S ONCE-BLISTERING CRITIQUE OF KATE MILLETT AND FEMINISM

Norman Kingsley Mailer (1923-2007) was an American novelist, journalist, essayist, playwright, film-maker, actor, and socialist activist.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1971 book, “Near the end of the Year of the Polymorphous Perverse (which is to say in the fall of ’69) there were rumors he would win the Nobel… ‘It’s impossible,’ he said. After twenty-one years of public life he had the equivalent of a Geiger counter in his brain to measure the radiation of advancements and awards in the various salient, wedges, and vectors of that aesthetic battlefield known as the literary pie.” (Pg. 9) He continues, “By evening arrived the true report. Samuel Beckett had been given the prize over André Malraux… Somebody in news service… had never heard Malraux’s name before and so decided it was a Swedish misspelling of his own.” (Pg. 10-11)

He continues, “he had never been able to live without a woman… his battered not-so-firm ego was obliged to be installed in Provincetown through a long winter to go through the double haul of writing a book about the first landing on the moon while remaking himself out of the loss of a fourth wife… in the late spring of ’70… his long work was done. He went up to Maine with … [his] children… determined to get some idea of what it might be like to raise a family, for it was on this point that his last marriage had … sunk; his fourth wife, an actress, had seen her career drown in the rigors of managing so large a home… Yes, he could a housewife for six weeks… but he … could not know whether he would have found it unendurable to be born a woman or if it would have driven him our onto the drear avenues of the insane.” (Pg. 12-14)

He continues, “While the Prizewinner was packing lunches this picnicking summer… his very reputation… had not only been ambushed, but was apparently being chewed half to death by a squadron of enraged Amazons, an honor guard of revolutionary … vaginas.” (Pg. 15)

He says of Mary Ellman’s book ‘Thinking About Women,’ “it was well written, even if its analysis of his work was reminiscent of the calisthenics an FBI agent might assign a Weatherman… But this was no longer a metaphorical FBI agent… this was a lady kicking him in the nuts. All that sexual disgust attributed to him, all that imputation that he was crying for fresh sheets… were actually a set of connections which existed only in her mind… So he closed the book… with the firm prejudice that is she could not be fair to him, she could not be fair to her theme.” (Pg. 22-23)

He observes, “The only decent way to approach the liberation of women was by the writing of participants. Recognize his surprise when some of the writing was agreeable. No matter that the voices were almost familiar and the ring of more than a few pieces remained close to the ladies’ magazines… women still emerged with an authority he had not encountered in such casual writing before.” (Pg. 29) He continues, “Impossible to avoid the conclusion. A few of the women were writing in no way women had ever written before.” (Pg. 31) Later, he adds, “now women were writing about men and themselves as Henry Miller had once written about women… the Prizewinner recognized all over again that he had much to learn on many a familiar topic.” (Pg. 34)

He states, “One attitude in Women’s Lib remained… repellent: precisely the dull assumption that the sexual force of a man was the luck of his birth, rather than his finest moral product…” (Pg. 36) Later, he observes, “It was here that feminism had always come to a halt, and all discussion of women as a class would terminate before the mysterious advantage and burden of her womb. Now she ceased to be a class and became a privileged element of nature, closer to the mysteries than men.” (Pg. 48)

He says of Kate Millett, “By any major literary perspective, the land of Millett is a barren and mediocre terrain, its flora reminiscent of a Ph.D. tract, its roads a narrow argument, and its horizon low. Still, there is a story they tell of Kate Millett… how Kate went up to discuss the thesis at her college and a learned professor took issue with her declaration that the wife of the hero Rojack in ‘An American Dream’ had practiced sodomy with husband and lovers. ‘No, no,’ cried the professor. ‘I know the author… I have discussed the scene with him more than once and it is not sodomy she practices, but analingus. It is for that she is killed, since it is a vastly more deranging offense in the mind’s eye!’ It is said that Kate turned pale and showed cold sweat upon her skin. But she was not a future leader of millions for nothing, her argument depended on sodomy, and the art of argument was to ignore forever what did not fit.” (Pg. 71)

He says of her book ‘Sexual Politics,’ “it could be said for Kate that she was nothing if not a pug-nosed wit, and that was good, since in literary matters she had not much else. Her lack of fidelity to the material she read was going to be equaled only by her authority in characterizing it… and the yaws of her distortion were nicely hidden by the smudge pots of her indignation… the bloody ground steamed with the limbs of every amputated quote. Everywhere were signs that men were guilty and women must win.” (Pg. 72)

Of Millett’s comments on Henry Miller, he points out, “Except that it is not Miller she is quoting---even if she gives him words and puts them in quotation marks. Did an editor discover a discrepancy? There is a footnote: ‘This is the sense of the passage.’ But it is not the sense.” (Pg. 73) After a series of Millett quotes on Miller, he comments, “Conceive of these items as abuse, alive as nerves. They twitch in every paragraph for twenty pages. What an apostle for nonviolence is the lady.” (Pg. 85)

Of Millett’s comments on D.H. Lawrence’s ‘Lady Chatterly’s Lover,’ he notes, “the prosecutor will have cause enough to be further enraged… the tone of Lawrence’s prose is poisoned by the acids of inappropriate comment. ‘Mellors concedes one kiss and then gets to business.’ Indeed! Take off your business suit, Comrade Millett.” (Pg. 104-105)

He summarizes, “If she had not risen any higher on the literary scale than the Upper Mediocre, she was all the more central to the age. She believed in the liberal use of technology for any solution to human pain. So she loathed the forging of the soul in the rigors of paradox, and would never ask an intelligent women to raise her own child… she was the point of advance for those intellectual forces … which might look to the liberation of women as the first weapon in the ongoing incarceration of the romantic idea of men… for she saw the differences between men and women as nonessential---excesses of emotion to be conditioned out… She was a way of life for young singles… she was the enemy of sex which might look for beauty at the edge of dread, she would never agree that was where love might go deepest. So she would survive as a force if not a writer, she would be a force to mop up dread---her ideas had been designed to leave spiritual pockets of vacuum which only technology could fill.” (Pg. 160-161)

This book has not ‘aged’ particularly well; but Mailer’s criticisms of some of Millett’s excesses remain of some interest.

[RYD · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of this book goes off into metaphysical inquiries that don't do all that much for me. At times, it also comes off as dated, since the feminist theorist Norman Mailer is most responding to (Kate Millett) is hardly a household name today. But I'd say that this and Armies of the Night are among Mailer's funniest works that I've read.

I liked this musing on journalism:

"How much easier, he could not help but think, to have gone forth, notebook in hand, to give a running account of further adventures of the Prisoner of Wedlock on a journalistic beat. But his instinct did not approach the subject this way. To embark on a round of interviews with the leading ladies of Women's Liberation was likely to produce a piece not reminiscent of an article in the New Yorker. You had to hang the subject of the interview when the subject was in the position of selling ideas. It was always necessary to remind oneself that a series of such interviews with Lenin, Martov, Plekhanov, and Trotsky in the days of Iskra would have been likely to produce a set of stories about short stocky men who seemed to talk with a great deal of certainty in words which were hard to follow. Obviously, no journalist could have done the job -- it was work which called for a novelist, or a critical approach, and the last was certain to return the burden to the reader."

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Superb! Even when he's wrong he's right.

[Waco · Rating 2 out of 5]

struggled through, possibly cause its dated, but it was on my shelf...

[RK Byers · Rating 3 out of 5]

leave it to Mailer to prove the equality of the sexes by turning catty.

[Jessica]

I had to read this in small portions because otherwise I'd get too pissed off and steam would start coming out of my feminist killjoy ears.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worth it for the Mailer Theory of Conception.

[Zoonanism · Rating 4 out of 5]

Setting aside how self obsessed and insecure Mailer was, and desperate to impress with metaphoric flights, this essay or retort has a strange charm. It's perhaps because the opponent in this instance is a phenomenon far more vile and deluded than Mailer at his worst. The dim Libbers unfortunately did win the culture war and gifted their progeny a degenerate world which they in turn made even more foul, so down that line we'd all have to endure the queer spectacle of DQSH .

Mailer at one point likens Millet's critique to a landscape and writes that it's 'a dreary place to cross, a stingy country whose treacherous inhabitants (were they the very verbs and phrases of her book?) jeered at difficulties which were often the heart of the matter, the food served at every inn was a can of ideological lard, a grit and granite of thesis-factories turned out aggregates of concept-jargon on every ridge, stacks of such clauses fed the sky with smoke, and musical instruments full of spirit of non violence emitted the sound of flaws and blats. Bile and and bubbles of intellectual flatulence coursed in the river, and the bloody ground steamed with the limbs of every amputated quote. Everywhere were signs that men were guilty and women must win'

Alas that landscape is now not just confined to the pages of Kate Millet's work but it has expanded way beyond to overtake so many spheres of everyday life.

[Blake Von Tilzer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this in conjunction with watching the famed documentary - Town Bloody Hall - in which Norman Mailer defends this work in debate with leading activists of the women’s liberation movement. At times, I thought Mailer was a bit terse in this text. His style of parading exceedingly long sentences seems to drown out the argument the book is making (in relation to citing brilliance in An American Dream). Yes, on the one hand, this book can be read as sexual. And no doubt, Mailer is one of the leading misogynist intellectuals of his era. Still, by citing female authors from various (both popular and obscure) texts on women’s liberation, I can’t help but believe that Mailer is using his pulpit to give these arguments broader social standing. So, perhaps, Mailer’s arguments can be read as sexism, but they can also be read as legitimatized debate seeing the opposition is fairly representative. Furthermore, I found Mailer’s assertion of the male representing a walking abortion, an ejection from the female uterus as being similar to the function of the male orgasm fascinating.

[Clemence D · Rating 3 out of 5]

Avis mitigé.

Roman intéressant dans le sens où le fait que l’auteur se défende des accusations portées contre lui, nous permet d’entrevoir un peu sa logique.

Certes ses arguments ne sont pas tous très “lisibles” et soutenables quand on y réfléchie bien mais ils ont le mérite d’apporter quelques sujets de réflexions.

La plume est assez fluide au début mais devient vite maladroite et presque brouillonne quand il s’agit d’exposer ses griefs contre le féminisme

En bref, j’ai trouvé ce livre plutôt intéressant mais assez lourd et parfois difficile à suivre.

[Emilio Amaro · Rating 2 out of 5]

In an attempt to prove he could get anything published, Mailer spends 240 pages rambling about feminists critiquing his work in a manner reminiscent of Lenny Bruce reading courtroom transcriptions on stage until every member of the audience submitted to tedious boredom and left. Mailer’s a great writer, but there’s only so much you can read of him psychoanalyzing this niche political difference between himself and counterculture feminists while occasionally taking time to masturbate to his own wit.

[Sebastián Blanco · Rating 2 out of 5]

Me costó engancharme en esta obra de más de 60 años de publicación, me sorprende como algunos temas eran tan relevantes en la época y hoy son tan simples en su mayoría sexuales, debio ser una época difícil. Me confirma una vez más que la iglesia influyentemente es la responsable del retraso de la sociedad. Muchas otras cosas no han cambiando en cuanto a la segregación femenina injustamente aplicada por el hombre, me asusta que el humano "razonable" puede ser un monstruo.

[Terry Cornell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mailer's response to the women's liberation Movement. Large portions seem a rebuttal to Kate Millett's book 'Sexual Politics'. Parts are interesting and make good points. Other chapters remind me of a writer that has to reach a specific word limit assigned by his editor. A quick read, and worth a visit/re-visit in the current #meto0 movement times.

[Julio The Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

Norman "Malest", as Gore Vidal called him, takes on Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem, Kate Millet et all in this free-for-all of machismo. He's particularly angry at Ms. Milley for defaming him in "Sexual Politics.": Her prose is as dry as anything coming from Ph.D. land."

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

The guy can write. But he doth protest too much. Then again, it was 1971, & protest was the order of the day.
It's more fun to watch Town Bloody Hall.
I wondr what he'd have to say about today's gender debates....

[Tonya A. Simons · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read parts of this but I did not care for it. Mailer is arrogant.

[Chaz Wyman · Rating 1 out of 5]

All you need to know about this misdirected wood-pulp, has already been written by Gore Vidal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb1w_...

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wonderful defense of Henry Miller and D.H. Lawrence from bizarre attacks by Kate Millett while also being a hiccuping journey through the uncle fart of Someone's postulation.