|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Now why will no-one be surprised that I've been looking at porn?
I've always been a bit 'blind' because of what used to be the novelty of seeing real genitals on display in pixel-pure detail. But they are not universally attractive, not universally erotic. There are some pretty penises out there and some pretty unpleasant penises, too.
I like the infinite variation, though. I like the surprise that the face does not predict the penis, nor the penis the face. But I can quite see, when looking at some of them, why those who have 'been abducted by aliens' report that they have been anally probed by a weird instrument! Some of them look very much like an alien invader!
Now forbear from saying "yuck" at this point! I looked at lady parts, too! They have very similar characteristics. Some are neat, others frilly, some look like a well worn pair of carpet slippers and others look almost inviting, or at least appear to be unused!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Timmy,
I'm surprised that you think some penises are unpleasant. I think 'in the flesh' maybe (they might smell for example) but from just the pictures?
I have seen some pictures of piercings that are quite horrible and even some tattoos - but then I have a prejudice in favour of the unadorned human body. Piercings and tattoos turn me off, for the most part.
But we have a problem, Houston! Posting pictures of the nice and the nasty is probably not in the spirit of the site. Are links acceptable?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I think one must err on the side of good taste. We must not, not ever, be able to be accused of encouraging porn pics. And pictures linked to MUST be of legal age in all jurisdictions.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
> I'm surprised that you think some penises are unpleasant. I think 'in the flesh' maybe (they might smell for example) but from just the pictures?
I'm generally a bit "so what" about pictures of penises, but there are some exceptionally pretty ones out there, and one or two really ugly-looking ones. If anyone has the chance, it's worth seeing the 20-minute short film "Dick" by Jo Menell http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206685/ (a thousand flaccid dicks in 20 minutes, with voiceover of women talking about what they think men feel about their penises). It really drives home just what a variety there is, and has one or two beauties, as well as a couple that are "heavily-modified" and (for me) unattractive.
> I have seen some pictures of piercings that are quite horrible and even some tattoos - but then I have a prejudice in favour of the unadorned human body. Piercings and tattoos turn me off, for the most part.
As above, I don't go for the extreme look. But a discreet "Prince Albert" on the right guy can look sexy (at least, I hope so - I've had one for 20 years!).
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I find flaccid penises almost universally less attractive than their erect counterparts.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
I find this to be an interesting statement that I feel warrants some clarification. After several minutes of contemplation I believe I have answered one of the questions it left me with: the "we" in your statement refers to all posters on this forum. Am I correct? However there are other questions I am unable to find answers to.
Firstly, you say "We must not, not ever, be able to be accused of encouraging porn pics", why? And is "encouraging" limited to displaying them? Assuming that pornography is minimally defined as the display of genitalia, couldn't this entire thread be considered as encouraging porn pics?
Secondly, what is pornography? In some places and for some people the above definition applies while for others it is simply the nude human body. Take, for example, a picture of four nude 10 year-old boys running away from the camera towards the ocean. For some this would be pornographic, for others simply a cute picture of youth at play.
Thirdly, you say "And pictures linked to MUST be of legal age in all jurisdictions". I understand that you are referring to the age of the subject(s) in the picture, but what about the age of the viewer?
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Well, yes. A penis in its soggy state is an item for peeing through. It is an appendage of elimination.
An erect penis "has a purpose" to it, though some are really not nice to look at.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
JimB wrote:
> I find this to be an interesting statement that I feel warrants some clarification. After several minutes of contemplation I believe I have answered one of the questions it left me with: the "we" in your statement refers to all posters on this forum. Am I correct? However there are other questions I am unable to find answers to.
Exactly
>
> Firstly, you say "We must not, not ever, be able to be accused of encouraging porn pics", why? And is "encouraging" limited to displaying them? Assuming that pornography is minimally defined as the display of genitalia, couldn't this entire thread be considered as encouraging porn pics?
Perhaps I should have been more specific.n What I do not want to do is to turn this forum either into a display of what is comminly accepted as porn,nor do I wish it to become a link farm for porn.
>
> Secondly, what is pornography? In some places and for some people the above definition applies while for others it is simply the nude human body. Take, for example, a picture of four nude 10 year-old boys running away from the camera towards the ocean. For some this would be pornographic, for others simply a cute picture of youth at play.
The issue is legality. In almost all jurisdictions a picture of a naked person below the age of adulthood tends to be deemed to be pornographic nowadays.
>
> Thirdly, you say "And pictures linked to MUST be of legal age in all jurisdictions". I understand that you are referring to the age of the subject(s) in the picture, but what about the age of the viewer?
I really do not care about the age of the viewer. It is immaterial to me whether a 9 or a 99 year old looks at the site. The site and the forum are not now and will not ever be "PG". If little kids are allowed to surf the net unsupervised, so be it. If bigger kids are supervised when they wish not to be, so be it.
[Updated on: Mon, 10 November 2008 17:44]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I think penises *becoming* erect are the most attractive of all, quite possibly because they in some sense invite the viewer to become complicit in the act of arousal.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I agree with you. But how rare it is to be allowed by a porn director to watch the process.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB wrote:
>Secondly, what is pornography?<
1964/65 in an article in the 'Sunday Times' Kenneth Tynan defined pornography as sex published with the purpose of encouraging masturbation. This was pretty daring stuff at the time. Unfortunately I have not been able to track down the quotation.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Genitalia is by no means always attractive! 
