Penis as Art

[Justin_Thyme]

Guess it's hard, er difficult to generalize when commenting about genitalia be it male or female. I suppose I would agree with some that the male penis, be it erect or in repose, isn't much to look at. The same can be said for the female groin area much of the time. That said, I think tight labia without the excess bits of flesh one often sees are much more attractive than the flacid penis.
Then there's the female groin completly unadorned with bushy muff. But I suppose that's fodder for an entirely different thread.
But to the original question, yes I believe that if genitalia are to be used in artwork, there should be no reason for not showing the male as well as the female. What is it they say, What's good for the goose should be good for the gander as well? Whatever...
JT

 

[Svenskaflicka]

How is it that cheer goes?

"How loose is your goose?
Come shake your caboose!"


Or something. It was on the very first movie about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, before Sarah Michelle Gellar did the TV-series.

 

[trendyredhead]

Sensual, not lewd

Every part of the body can be beautiful when photographed well. If I were going to look at penii in art, however, my personal taste would lean more toward sensual rather than pornographic. I like good b/w photos of nudes -- and male genitalia photographs just as well as female. I'd just prefer it not be the ONLY thing in the picture.

TR

 

[Quesla]

I like the images of both micheal Angelo type nude forms and subjects and the images of the whole male body, preferably tanned and hairless bodied with an erection. Very sexually arousing!

 

[slyc_willie]

Okay . . . so why was THIS particular thread dredged up from four years ago?

Will this lead to more Lit-bashing on someone's blog?

Hmm . . . .

 

[tickledkitty]

Okay . . . so why was THIS particular thread dredged up from four years ago?

Will this lead to more Lit-bashing on someone's blog?

Hmm . . . .

That's what I was wondering.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Okay . . . so why was THIS particular thread dredged up from four years ago?

Will this lead to more Lit-bashing on someone's blog?

Hmm . . . .

That's what I was wondering.

Well if you want, I could start bashing Lit on my blog. It would all be lies, as I love this place, but I could do it just for the hell of it

 

[Guest]

This is at least the second thread that Quesla has dredged up.

So who is Quesla really?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

MIght it not be in answer to the "nipples" thread?

 

[tickledkitty]

MIght it not be in answer to the "nipples" thread?

Doubtful.

 

[slyc_willie]

This is at least the second thread that Quesla has dredged up.

So who is Quesla really?

Could be someone's alt, or a troublemaker. Or just a veeeeery curious person who spends a lot of time flipping back through Lit's pages.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I like the images of both micheal Angelo type nude forms and subjects and the images of the whole male body, preferably tanned and hairless bodied with an erection. Very sexually arousing!

You're making yourself look like a total fucking fool by continually dredging up 5 year old threads!

 

[impressive]

This is at least the second thread that Quesla has dredged up.

So who is Quesla really?

Not "who" ... What?

 

[TxRad]

Uh, from what I read, he's a blind guy feeling his way around.

No Joke, I mean that for real. He might know how old the threads are if he starts reading in the basement instead of up here with us.