Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Well There Goes My Morning
March 18, 2005 8:28 AM   Subscribe

How To Hypnotize a Man
(NSFW and may be offensive to some, nude female backside)
Friday Fun. I couldn't stop playing with this one.
I dare you to bounce it once and then stop. I double dog dare you.
posted by fenriq (94 comments total)

 
I laughed and laughed and laughed. And now I'm going back for more.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:32 AM on March 18, 2005


It really does work, doesn't it?
posted by fenriq at 8:34 AM on March 18, 2005


I only did it once but that's because I don't want to be fired. So, do I win the dare? What do I get?
posted by ajpresto at 8:34 AM on March 18, 2005


" It really does work, doesn't it?"

Yes. And in all seriousness, even though it's humorous, I was quite surprised at how mesmerized I truly was. Definitely hitting on some primal neurons there.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:37 AM on March 18, 2005


Oh, god, just imagine if the advertisers caught on to men's fascination with pretty ladies! We'd all be doomed!
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:39 AM on March 18, 2005


Oh man. Small initial displacements rock.

I need to go and get my other half to punish me, now.
posted by Decani at 8:44 AM on March 18, 2005


does this come with an offline version?
posted by mrplab at 8:50 AM on March 18, 2005


Small initial displacements rock.

Literally.
posted by soyjoy at 8:53 AM on March 18, 2005


My favorite part was the butt.
posted by dhoyt at 8:54 AM on March 18, 2005


yes, it was a superior posterior.
posted by jonmc at 8:57 AM on March 18, 2005


yaikes!
posted by tcp at 9:09 AM on March 18, 2005


HFS! I am ASHAMED at how amusing I found that.
posted by psmealey at 9:11 AM on March 18, 2005


I'm waiting for the male counterpart to this... which could be very scary...
posted by mania at 9:12 AM on March 18, 2005


no. female naked bodies beautiful. male naked bodies ridiculous.
posted by jonmc at 9:14 AM on March 18, 2005


What's funny is how quick we are to recognize the human form, even when it's distorted. If you look at the background -- the furniture and whatnot -- the distortion makes it almost unrecognizable. But the ass? Distort it all you want, we'll still say, "Yup, that's an ass."

No, okay, what's funny is that there's a jiggling ass on my screen right now. But the point about perception's kinda interesting too...
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:17 AM on March 18, 2005


I looked really hard but I couldn't make out the boat in the background ....
posted by devbrain at 9:19 AM on March 18, 2005


" But the ass? Distort it all you want, we'll still say, 'Yup, that's an ass.'"

Nice theory, but after reading your comment I had to, um, go back and check. The ass doesn't distort at all, really. And the distortion occurs in the model's lower back and the angle of her things, both of which are fairly close to being naturalistic from that viewpoint. From my, um, numerous observations in the wild.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:25 AM on March 18, 2005


Nice, but where's the Puerto Rican version? I'd pay good money to see that!
posted by Scoo at 9:58 AM on March 18, 2005


There exists a boobie version of this, but I am too lazy to find it now.
posted by jonson at 9:58 AM on March 18, 2005


How many of you missed the gorilla wandering through the frame in the middle of that?

Thought so.
posted by soyjoy at 10:02 AM on March 18, 2005


Dude, there could've been a whole lightsaber battle going on and I wouldn't have noticed.

Hey wait, I wonder what Lucas's plans are for EP3...
posted by DaShiv at 10:09 AM on March 18, 2005


So entrancing.... *makes Homer gurgling noise*
posted by Specklet at 10:17 AM on March 18, 2005


Hmmm. An hour-and-half movie of a wiggling butt. It'd clean up at the box office!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:20 AM on March 18, 2005


pretty funny.

What is moderatly scarry is we still react this way, AND we have nukes. No wonder people are so screwed up, such a bipolar existance
posted by edgeways at 10:28 AM on March 18, 2005


It would be very cool if someone could create an interface to upload whatever pic you wanted to make bounce. Or to make it downloadable.

I about lost it when I pulled straight down and she did the big circular gyration. Just lovely.
posted by fenriq at 10:30 AM on March 18, 2005


What is moderatly scarry is we still react this way,

It's moderately scary that people can enjoy looking at ass for extended periods?

You scare easily.
posted by jonmc at 10:31 AM on March 18, 2005


it worked for me
posted by chaz at 10:37 AM on March 18, 2005


The offline version is called going to:

http://mysite.verizon.net/philsackett/temp/hypnotize.swf

And hitting Save As.
posted by sindark at 10:38 AM on March 18, 2005


Nice work, sindark. Now I can bounce anywhere, with or without an internets connection. Beautiful. And I might even be able to load it up on my Sony Clie!
posted by fenriq at 10:55 AM on March 18, 2005


Asstacular. Truly.
posted by papercake at 11:39 AM on March 18, 2005


female naked bodies beautiful. male naked bodies ridiculous.

uh huh...

keep telling yourself that.
posted by pwedza at 11:57 AM on March 18, 2005


I think I'll install this SWF as a screensaver. Or maybe a desktop background! Woot!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:07 PM on March 18, 2005


Yay sindark!
posted by Scoo at 12:08 PM on March 18, 2005


I just wonder why they chose a white chick. Clearly the bottom of the ass totem pole.
posted by dame at 12:16 PM on March 18, 2005


devbrain: it's a schooner
posted by lazywhinerkid at 12:22 PM on March 18, 2005


keep telling yourself that.

I don't need to. I am the owner of a male body. I know how ridiculous they look.
posted by jonmc at 12:23 PM on March 18, 2005


pwedza, I'm with jonmc on this one. I wouldn't go so far to call the male body ridiculous, it does have some utilitarian beauty but a woman's body is far more compelling eye candy. For me, at least.

Dame, I think I'm going to have to disagree. I'm not a big fan of the rap star booty super-sized ass. But I grew up out in the country so maybe that explains it some?
posted by fenriq at 12:29 PM on March 18, 2005


I'm with jonmc on this one.

Fenriq is obviously genius.

I'm not a big fan of the rap star booty super-sized ass.

He's also a communist.
posted by jonmc at 12:39 PM on March 18, 2005


There's an ass totem pole?! I know there's an ass pyramid...but no one told me about other ancient ass cultures.
posted by graventy at 12:43 PM on March 18, 2005


Communist? No comrade, jonmc, I'm not a communist. Here, come and sit and have some wodka with me and let us discuss the appeal of the super-sized booty.

I like to think I'm still an athlete and I prefer a body that's in shape, including an ass that doesn't need its own zipcode.

I'm also not much of a fan of 44DD's or other heavy breastified ladies (and certainly not of a man with monster jabbas like that). I like proportionate body parts and features.
posted by fenriq at 12:47 PM on March 18, 2005


jonmc >>> no. female naked bodies beautiful. male naked bodies ridiculous.

no. female naked bodies beautiful. male naked bodies sexy.

;)


That said, that is one amazing ass. For a girl.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:55 PM on March 18, 2005


Now's as good a time as any to drag out My Unified Butt Theory:

Basically it goes like this: Only straight men and lesbians are interested in boobs. Only straight women and gay men care about penises. But everybody loves a nice well-shaped ass. Am I right?

I think this could be the unifying force that will lead us out of our conflicted world.

posted by jonmc at 1:07 PM on March 18, 2005


jonmc, with a unified butt, where's the crack?
posted by fenriq at 1:25 PM on March 18, 2005


crack?

just wait on the corner till everything's cool, yo...
posted by jonmc at 1:27 PM on March 18, 2005


Fenriq, you're just going to the other extreme. A good ass needs a little pop, and few white girls have it. Or to put it another way, it's about shape, and the slightly convex lens ass is not the ideal shape.

And yes, jon, I think you're right about your butt theory. Though I have to admit it took to dating ass connoisseurs for me to get the fine points down. Apparently it's about rice and beans or pasta: these foods are they key. Or that's what I've been taught.
posted by dame at 1:37 PM on March 18, 2005


I just wish that damn chair behind her didn't undulate with her!
posted by sninky-chan at 1:39 PM on March 18, 2005


Apparently it's about rice and beans or pasta:

gimme a sista, can't resist her, red beans & rice didn't miss her...

surely, you saw that coming
posted by jonmc at 1:40 PM on March 18, 2005


jonmc, don't get me wrong.. I'm really not taking this too seriously, but the whole "women beautiful/ men ridiculous" thing is taking me back to the days of awkward, pimply-faced, built-like-a-chimp, middle school boy conversations.
--- "ewww, a yucky man thingy. so icky."

I too am of the male sort. Personally, I don't think my body is ridiculous, and I'm fairly confident that others don't think so either.

Why do people from all over the world go to Brunelleschi's Duomo to see Michealangelo's David? For a good chuckle?
--- admittedly bad example, David does look like a big dork. but you get my point.

Oh yeah, the unified butt theory sounds pretty solid to me.
posted by pwedza at 1:44 PM on March 18, 2005


--- "ewww, a yucky man thingy. so icky."

I'm half-joking around too, but I have to admit that most of us tripods do look a little, well...silly undressed. Myself included. Of course this may just be a symptom of my heterosexuality, but think about it: if naked guys were as nice to look at as naked women, Playgirl would sell as well as Playboy, and I don't think that'll happen anytime soon.
posted by jonmc at 1:51 PM on March 18, 2005


and I'm still awkward, pimply faced and built-like-a-chimp, so maybe that's part of the problem.

*eats bananas, swings from vine*
posted by jonmc at 1:52 PM on March 18, 2005


I'm not sure about the Unified Butt Theory. I think it may have a hole in it.
posted by Decani at 1:54 PM on March 18, 2005


most of us tripods do look a little, well...silly undressed.

It would seem that you have quite a bit of agreement there, jon.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:58 PM on March 18, 2005


Yes, that link represents what is normalized. For whatever reasons—probably biology, I think. However, I think a great many people would take exception to the idea that "beauty" is normalized by the majority. Even those who are the most relativistic are, quite often, those who spurn common, majoritarian ideas of "beauty". If we start from the assumption that beauty is intrinsic, then we can't be sure that majority preferences reflect that. If we don't start from the assumption that beauty is intrinsic, then we'd probably ought to avoid language such as "X is beautiful" and prefer language like "Most people find X more attractive than Y". The word "beauty" really implies an absolute, not relative, standard of judgment. And, since I like to repeat myself, if it's absolute then there's no reason at all to assume that majority preferences are a reliable indicator of that absolute quality.

My own view is a bit more complex. I have zero doubt that biology programs male sexual response and the idea of beauty in very specific, visual ways that don't exist (or are much diminished) in women. So if we're talking "sexual attractiveness", then I think it's just a matter of biology.

However, there is some real aesthetics involved here. To my eye, the female form is more "beautiful" because it's more graceful, more sinuous. The male form is more angular and, as jonmc alludes, the penis (particularly erect) just seems like something that doesn't belong. Breasts are a variation on the theme of "curves" (as are hips and buttocks). The male form is more angular but that still doesn't make the penis and scrotum seem to be harmonious with the whole form.

It should be mentioned that there are good reasons to suppose that women, though not sexually cued by female visual features, are nevertheless well able to evaluate those features for competitive reasons. If so, then one needn't suspect that the "sinuous" beauty aesthetic is a patriarchal imposition. It could, in this sense, be univeral to the species.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:25 PM on March 18, 2005


I am dying here!

"I'm not sure about the Unified Butt Theory. I think it may have a hole in it." Decani

Thanks for the best laugh of the day, Decani!

Wait till I show my boyfriend this little gem. No. Wait. I'd better not. At least not until after the NCAA tourney is over. Wouldn't want to overamp the poor guy!
posted by Corky at 2:28 PM on March 18, 2005


Jeebus, Bligh, I swear you're performance art.

Anyway, the male form is glorious, especially the Adonis belt: mmmmm. (Go here, do a find.) Erections are beautiful. You may not think so, because you may be a hetero man, but as someone who thoroughly enjoys men, the erect penis brings together a body that can seem jerrybuilt--ties it together, like a nice belt.
posted by dame at 2:39 PM on March 18, 2005


omfg boyzone/misogynists/objectification/hatecrime/fascists/jeffgannon!1!1


/belated
posted by dhoyt at 2:42 PM on March 18, 2005


Dame, fuck off.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:45 PM on March 18, 2005


Ugh.
posted by BoringPostcards at 3:06 PM on March 18, 2005


Dame, not to offend or anything but I don't think you're really in much of a position to tell me what kind of an ass I like. Or should like.

Besides, I think EB makes some valid points. I can appreciate a man with a chiseled body but I like and prefer a woman's more organic curves. And I will have to say that a man with a boner is a nearly sure sign that evolution (or God, if you prefer) has some kind of a sense of humor.
posted by fenriq at 3:06 PM on March 18, 2005


My own view is a bit more complex.

I don't want to commit a character assassination here, or start a war, but complexity != verbosity.

Yes, that link represents what is normalized. For whatever reasons—probably biology, I think. However, I think a great many people would take exception to the idea that "beauty" is normalized by the majority. Even those who are the most relativistic are, quite often, those who spurn common, majoritarian ideas of "beauty". If we start from the assumption that beauty is intrinsic, then we can't be sure that majority preferences reflect that. If we don't start from the assumption that beauty is intrinsic, then we'd probably ought to avoid language such as "X is beautiful" and prefer language like "Most people find X more attractive than Y". The word "beauty" really implies an absolute, not relative, standard of judgment. And, since I like to repeat myself, if it's absolute then there's no reason at all to assume that majority preferences are a reliable indicator of that absolute quality.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" Or "Attractiveness is largely sociological?"

have zero doubt that biology programs male sexual response and the idea of beauty in very specific, visual ways that don't exist (or are much diminished) in women. So if we're talking "sexual attractiveness", then I think it's just a matter of biology.

"Men are stimulated visually, women less so?"

However, there is some real aesthetics involved here. To my eye, the female form is more "beautiful" because it's more graceful, more sinuous. The male form is more angular and, as jonmc alludes, the penis (particularly erect) just seems like something that doesn't belong. Breasts are a variation on the theme of "curves" (as are hips and buttocks). The male form is more angular but that still doesn't make the penis and scrotum seem to be harmonious with the whole form.

"Women are curvy all over, men are not except for the phallus and scrotum?"

It should be mentioned that there are good reasons to suppose that women, though not sexually cued by female visual features, are nevertheless well able to evaluate those features for competitive reasons. If so, then one needn't suspect that the "sinuous" beauty aesthetic is a patriarchal imposition. It could, in this sense, be univeral to the species.

"Women know when other women are beautiful because they compete?"

You used a lot of words to say it, but your post can be almost entirely summed up in four cliches.

That having been said, I agree completely except with the contention that the phallus is visually discordant. I can only speak for my penis, of course, but many women have conveyed their belief that my penis is an upthrusting, awe-inspiring centerpiece around which my angular male form revolves.
posted by Ryvar at 3:42 PM on March 18, 2005


Fenriq, I'm in the exact same position as you are to claim that an erection is humorous, or that anyone is in questions of taste--totally within my rights to dismiss your taste as poor and totally without any ability to do anything about it. I mean it isn't some question of ethics or personal worth; it's a stupid discussion about cocks and ass. Anyway, in the end, I suppose it's good: girls with bad asses need love too and straight men around the globe are pleased that women don't giggle or run every time they disrobe.
posted by dame at 3:51 PM on March 18, 2005


Probably not. In many places in West Africa (parts of Nigeria, in particular), such a skinny woman would be repulsive along the lines of why you might find naked young girls repulsive. Even in the West, for a long while, the plumper female form was heavily idealized.

The attraction of the female form vs the male form is interesting. I find both to be extremely attractive in different ways so I can't imagine, from a purely aesthetic view, why somebody would prefer one over the other. A big part of it, I'd think, is the omnipresent nature of the female form in Western culture.
posted by nixerman at 4:12 PM on March 18, 2005


I agree with jonmc: male bodies look silly in comparison with the sleek sexiness of well-shaped female bodies. Mens bodies can be sleek and sexy, too, until you get into that groinal area. Then it just looks goofy.

The best bums are slightly pear-shaped. Mmmmmm. Gotta have that curve.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:28 PM on March 18, 2005


You know what's great to remember?

I mean, truly, amazingly, thoroughly awesomely great?

Women have been bred for millenia to be sexually attracted to men, despite the fact that we look so silly.

I just love that.
posted by blacklite at 5:16 PM on March 18, 2005


Playgirl doesn't sell to women because a) we're embarrassed to be seen buying it, and b) they pose all the men like girls. Men are more sexy in motion--see: rock stars. They look silly just standing still and looking vacuous.

I don't think any hetero guy should make assumptions about what a straight girl finds attractive. That little area at the bottom edge of a muscled belly--right above the jean line--with little downy hairs--oh my. That hypnotizes me, every time. Though I don't like him much as an actor, Brad Pitt has that look to perfection in his walk-on in Thelma and Louise.

And of course, the nice squeeze to a well-fleshed butt, is something we can all enjoy.

Penises can be silly. So can breasts, seen from certain angles, floppy and pointing in all different directions, occasionally lopsided. Both have their charms. I think of penises kind of like dogs--affectionate and eager to play, and a little bit goofy about it, but lovable.
posted by emjaybee at 6:40 PM on March 18, 2005


Penises can be silly. So can breasts, seen from certain angles,

Silly girl. To a hetero male breasts ae never silly, whatever size and shape they might be. Simply because we dont have them.
posted by jonmc at 6:44 PM on March 18, 2005


jonmc, I have been to tech conventions and seen many, many men with rather pendulous breasts. But you did touch on an important aspect. I am personally fascinated by the vagina precisely because I don't have one.

And dame, a bad ass is in the eye (and hand) of the beholder. You may prefer them big, round and wide but that's cool, there's plenty big'uns for you. I'll stick to the toned, tight and sporty ones and we'll both be happy.

five fresh fish, the problem groin area is why they make bodybuilders wear those little speedo outfits. They still look silly but alot less so with the package under wraps.
posted by fenriq at 7:56 PM on March 18, 2005


I think of penises kind of like dogs--affectionate and eager to play, and a little bit goofy about it, but lovable.

Hey, that's how I think about my penis. I figure it's about the best thing on earth. jonmc and fenriq probably disagree with that statement: they each think their own is the best, I can almost assure you of that.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:00 PM on March 18, 2005


[koff]they are, of course, dead wrong.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:00 PM on March 18, 2005


I found the shaking ass boring. This is beautiful.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:37 PM on March 18, 2005


weretable, but that picture doesn't do anything. And I have no idea where I would insert my far-more-glorious-than-five-fresh-fish's penis.

You know what? A penis gets alot goofier if you draw faces on it.
posted by fenriq at 9:32 PM on March 18, 2005


I love this website. Can someone love a website the way I love this one? I didn't think so until today.
posted by Doohickie at 9:45 PM on March 18, 2005


The penis is a strange beast, but it's got nothing on the scrotum. The line where it's stitched together in the middle makes it look like Frankenstein was hasty with his needlework. Really.
posted by beth at 9:55 PM on March 18, 2005


That's a good point. I think the male form really could compete with female for overall sexy sleekness, including the requisite hard-on, if only it weren't for the scrotum, that ridiculous puckered bag. Yeah, the stitches are wacky - like God was looking for somewhere to pull the whole form together and said, "Fuck it, they'll never be lookin' clear down here."
posted by soyjoy at 10:31 PM on March 18, 2005


Honestly I gotta give you that - the scrotum is just fucking weird. Fortunately the penis serves adequately (in most men) to draw attention away from it.
posted by Ryvar at 11:20 PM on March 18, 2005


I just wear clothes when I'm naked, problem solved!
posted by TwelveTwo at 12:02 AM on March 19, 2005


jonmc and fenriq probably disagree with that statement: they each think their own is the best, I can almost assure you of that.

Eh. A cock's a cock. Every women I've ever known says it's all about who it's attached to. Quite frankly, I'm amazed women can look at them without laughing.
posted by jonmc at 4:31 AM on March 19, 2005


What a fantastic thread. Thank you for the great ass, the cock talk, the stitchy scrotum theory, today's (sweet)boy zone, the whole thing's made my morning , and spring is in the air in NYC. I love man bodies. Honestly, I do.
posted by thinkpiece at 7:49 AM on March 19, 2005


welcome to the internet.
posted by adampsyche at 8:29 AM on March 19, 2005


You ever taken note of your cremaster reflex, by which a light stroke along the top inside thigh causes one's scrotum to shrink up on one side?

That's pretty damn silly.

I'm quite surprised women don't make fun of it.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:40 AM on March 19, 2005


We're busy entertaining ourselves eslewhere.
posted by dame at 9:48 AM on March 19, 2005


This might piss people off, but I have to say that I think that insisting on the strictly utilitarian purposes of the male body are a way, intentional or not, of reproducing gender-based power imbalances.

To start with, we can assume that people mean what they say: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Now, while this can be read as a "different strokes for different folks" statement, it can also be seen as an insight into the social nature of beauty. In this case, beauty becomes a property of an object - a painting, a car, or an objectified person - based on the observations of a subject. In other words, beauty is constituted by a subject external to the object; beauty - especially physical beauty - is something to be determined by someone else, which is a loss of agency for the person whose beauty is so constituted.

Now, to say that the male form cannot be considered beautiful is to step outside of this objectification, and to say that the only proper role of men is as subjects, never as objects. The language here I think is important: the male body is "ridiculous" and "silly." That's how some men feel when their bodies are being judged by others, and that's exactly the emotion we try to avoid when we say that men cannot be beautiful, but women can. Being objectified naturally makes us uncomfortable, because it means placing some part of ourselves into the hands of another - it's a loss of agency.

That's a reasonable reaction, I think. No one likes to be judged. The part I take exception to is the idea that the male form is utilitarian while the female form is beautiful. That statement constructs gender roles in terms of subject and object: women are for looking at and men are for doing things (to them), which is the reproduction of a gendered power imbalance (the lack of a "female gaze").

This isn't a criticism of anyone, mind you - this is just the culture we're in, and this is something I've been thinking about for years. I see it as the gender equivalent of the invisiblity of White ethnicity.

Though I'd be lying if I said I didn't eagerly await jonmc's hard-hitting, practical, just-the-facts-ma'm, plain-speaking, no-nonsense, proletarian way of calling me a college boy.
posted by Coda at 12:48 PM on March 19, 2005


Though I'd be lying if I said I didn't eagerly await jonmc's hard-hitting, practical, just-the-facts-ma'm, plain-speaking, no-nonsense, proletarian way of calling me a college boy.

For me to impeach your intellectual credentials would be a most egregious faux pas. ;)

Now, to say that the male form cannot be considered beautiful is to step outside of this objectification, and to say that the only proper role of men is as subjects, never as objects. The language here I think is important: the male body is "ridiculous" and "silly." That's how some men feel when their bodies are being judged by others, and that's exactly the emotion we try to avoid when we say that men cannot be beautiful, but women can.

There's probably something to that.

I was using "ridiculous," based on imagining myself or any other man sitting on a chair butt naked with an erection pointing at their heads. It's just a funny image. And like I said, Playboy still outsells Playgirl by quite a wide margin. BUt again that could very well be a reflection of culture rather than nature. Perhaps women feel that way about their own bodies as well. I dunno.

Being objectified naturally makes us uncomfortable, because it means placing some part of ourselves into the hands of another - it's a loss of agency.

This is where it sort of breaks down. On the rare occasions it happens, I like being admired, and I imagine most men do, and there certainly seems to a market for male sex symbols. But somehow, acting "sexy" or "glamorous," just winds up seeming hilarious when done by a man. Strange and a double standard, I realize, but there you go.
posted by jonmc at 2:14 PM on March 19, 2005


I agree with Coda.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:17 PM on March 19, 2005


I think the beauty of the human body comes in its curves. There are certain lines of the body that are, IMO, fundamentally beautiful. There are curves of breast and buttock that fit that category. There are curves of abs and arms, too, that are gorgeous.

Picasso has a drawing of part of a body that is beautiful: just three simple curves suggesting spine and buttock. That's the essence of it all: that these parts can be shown in such simplicity yet retain their beauty.

Mapplethorpe's flowers do the same: simple curves define beauty. Some of his portraits are much like that. Other of his photographs, no so much. At all.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:44 PM on March 19, 2005


MetaFilter: I figure it's about the best thing on earth.
posted by squirrel at 6:51 PM on March 19, 2005


Funny* that the male body should be labelled "utilitarian" when it's the female body that's loaded up with all kinds of reproductive junk, including giant modified sweat glands hanging right down the front. I mean, really, the female form is a specialized machine built for a function, and you barely need to look to see it. Let's not even get into the size and displacement of the internal sexual organs, nor the gross distension visited upon the female form whilst performing its "function" as child-bearer. Even the seemingly-esthetically-founded love of the big booty is only a regard for wide. child-bearing hips in disguise. It's the male form that's free, self-contained, inviolable, and not just a big wetware contraption for pumping out babies. You want esthetic beauty unencumbered by utilitarian demands? Gaze upon the male musculature, also a finely-tuned machine, but for so many more functions than just one.

*I think all these comparisons are ridiculous, I'm merely pouring fuel on the fire to make that more obvious. Men and women are all beautiful - except jonmc. ;)

I don't know whether to be glad or sad to see dame partaking in a boyzone laugh for once. I'm glad this hasn't become another pee-pee whack, but I'm sad that her comfort with the boyzone humor seems to require a jacket of racism to keep it afloat. Weird.
posted by scarabic at 10:28 AM on March 20, 2005


It's the male form that's free, self-contained, inviolable, and not just a big wetware contraption for pumping out babies. You want esthetic beauty unencumbered by utilitarian demands? Gaze upon the male musculature, also a finely-tuned machine, but for so many more functions than just one.

Except that the penis (fun as it can be sometimes) looks like something that belongs inside a body, not outside. Wouldn't it be neat if we could retract it inside when we're not using it?
posted by jonmc at 11:07 AM on March 20, 2005


Certainly. But isn't that pretty much the way it works? I mean, 75%, anyway. Can you imagine being erect all the time? Here we have an organ which can rise to the task of penetrating another's body (within seconds) and which, when not in use, wilts to a mere smidgen of flesh, dangling in the breeze, but more or less out of the way. A good stiff erection is irresistible, but a soft penis you can all but bang on with a hammer before you hurt it.

Remarkable organ. Not to mention its switchable dual-discharge role. That there is just ostentatiously featureful!
posted by scarabic at 11:42 AM on March 20, 2005


MetaFilter: Banging your soft penis with the hammer of truth.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:48 PM on March 20, 2005


Aww I was kinda hoping someone would bite on:

MetaFilter: ostentatiously featureful!
posted by scarabic at 8:47 PM on March 20, 2005


Nah. The correct wording should have been

MeatusFilter: Banging your soft penis with the hammer of stupidity.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:10 PM on March 20, 2005


I'd just like to say that, after much self examination, the people talking about a line of stitching up their scrotum might wish to go see a doctor or a lawyer. My sac's intact. What have people been putting in or taking out of yours?

That said, the scrotum is a strange apparatus.

jonmc, I may reaching here but isn't the fundamental difference in how our sex parts work that girls are innies and boys are outties? Reproductive parts aside, we have the same parts just men's are turned out where women's are turned in? Maybe that's insanity or my 8th cup of coffee talking though.
posted by fenriq at 10:34 AM on March 21, 2005


Here we have an organ which can rise to the task of penetrating another's body (within seconds)

Seconds? *begins to sweat profusely*
posted by squirrel at 1:54 AM on March 24, 2005


« Older Flashback to the 60's and 70's....  |  To the Lost City.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments