I'm all for hidden phallic imagery but I have a really hard time (no pun intended) to see an ejaculating penis in that thing. It's a weird tube with stuff spreading out of it that looks more like dusty wind. The "phallus" then bends back on itself towards a nymph who puts her hand into the tube. She is standing in a empty sardines can.
![[Image: image.jpg?q=f77v-268-709-310-415]](https://voynich.ninja/extractor/image.jpg?q=f77v-268-709-310-415)
What really makes it problematic though, is that very similar pipes can be seen elsewhere in the manuscript, even on the same page - so why should this one be a phallus?
![[Image: image.jpg?q=f77v-1108-107-332-281]](https://voynich.ninja/extractor/image.jpg?q=f77v-1108-107-332-281)
It's pipes with a bulbous end emitting stuff, and at the other end there's a woman. So are these hidden sex acts?
Then I agree that there are one or two instances where sex seems to be intended between a male and a female figure, and a few solitary men with large (but mangled
) penises.
All in all the man-woman interaction in the manuscript is limited though. Out of 500 nymphs, how many men are there who interact with a woman (other than looking in her general direction)? If this manuscript was about reproduction, there would be way more. We know the VM is not shy about penises, they are there. And it's not shy to put a man and a woman in a position that might look like copulation. It just hardly does it.
Some women in the Zodiac circles may indeed refer to the menstrual cycle, yet as far as we know this may as well be a purely cultural-linguistic matter. The words for month and menses are related in many languages, obviously, and so would be the concepts of the female cycle and that of the moon. I see very little indication to interpret any of this in a medical or biological way.
On the contrary, I do see indications that much of it is highly symbolical or metaphorical. The usage of objects is limited to the extent that nymphs only get one object max, and are only allowed to hold it with one hand.
Anyway, bottom line is, any sexual references in the VM are as important for understanding the manuscript as, for example, crossbowmen are. They are of interest by themselves, but I just don't see how they can be considered a main theme in the manuscript.
What really makes it problematic though, is that very similar pipes can be seen elsewhere in the manuscript, even on the same page - so why should this one be a phallus?
It's pipes with a bulbous end emitting stuff, and at the other end there's a woman. So are these hidden sex acts?
Then I agree that there are one or two instances where sex seems to be intended between a male and a female figure, and a few solitary men with large (but mangled
) penises.All in all the man-woman interaction in the manuscript is limited though. Out of 500 nymphs, how many men are there who interact with a woman (other than looking in her general direction)? If this manuscript was about reproduction, there would be way more. We know the VM is not shy about penises, they are there. And it's not shy to put a man and a woman in a position that might look like copulation. It just hardly does it.
Some women in the Zodiac circles may indeed refer to the menstrual cycle, yet as far as we know this may as well be a purely cultural-linguistic matter. The words for month and menses are related in many languages, obviously, and so would be the concepts of the female cycle and that of the moon. I see very little indication to interpret any of this in a medical or biological way.
On the contrary, I do see indications that much of it is highly symbolical or metaphorical. The usage of objects is limited to the extent that nymphs only get one object max, and are only allowed to hold it with one hand.
Anyway, bottom line is, any sexual references in the VM are as important for understanding the manuscript as, for example, crossbowmen are. They are of interest by themselves, but I just don't see how they can be considered a main theme in the manuscript.