We live - theoretically - in an age of sexual equality but when it comes to sexuality itself there's one particular area where men are discriminated against - although they seem prepared to "go along" with this without complaint. Perhaps there's an element of fear about it.
Women are very breast-conscious. The majority of them select their wardrobe to display their mammaries to best advantage - either by straightforward revealing, or using fashion "devices" to draw the eye in that direction. Many thousands spend fortunes on having their breasts pumped up with silicone. I'm told that years ago they wore what were called "falsies" if they felt under-endowed to pack their bra's.
How VERY different it is with men. We go to great lengths (forgive the expression!) to secrete our cocks and balls - not emphasise them. It's as if we were ashamed about our masculine features.
At one time nearly all men wore briefs to pack their genitals tightly and avoid them swinging to and fro in their pants, particularly when trousers were really tight.
When briefs gave way substantially to boxers which would have allowed a certain degree of feedom to "swing" what happened? "Baggies" came in almost as if to offset the new advantage. So now we have jeans with the crotch down at the knees somewhere with plenty of loose material above serving to disguise the trim masculine shape. (If it's there!)
Watching performers in movies or on TV their pants very rarely give any hint of their masculine equiment. The fornt of the pants is always dead flat and straight with no clue as to what might be lurking away under there.
Is this the actors' self-imposed physique censorship, or are they instructed by the studios to make sure everything is strapped down firmly - presumably with jockstraps.
On the street, admittedly, there are those guys who actually dare to "freeball" without wearing anything under their outer clothing, proudly showing off their meat nd two veg in much the same way as their ancestors used to draw the eye to their crotch with the cod-piece.
Is the owning of a good length of cock and a pair of pigeon-egg balls an offence?
Why should we be ashamed of what we have?
Women are very breast-conscious. The majority of them select their wardrobe to display their mammaries to best advantage - either by straightforward revealing, or using fashion "devices" to draw the eye in that direction. Many thousands spend fortunes on having their breasts pumped up with silicone. I'm told that years ago they wore what were called "falsies" if they felt under-endowed to pack their bra's.
How VERY different it is with men. We go to great lengths (forgive the expression!) to secrete our cocks and balls - not emphasise them. It's as if we were ashamed about our masculine features.
At one time nearly all men wore briefs to pack their genitals tightly and avoid them swinging to and fro in their pants, particularly when trousers were really tight.
When briefs gave way substantially to boxers which would have allowed a certain degree of feedom to "swing" what happened? "Baggies" came in almost as if to offset the new advantage. So now we have jeans with the crotch down at the knees somewhere with plenty of loose material above serving to disguise the trim masculine shape. (If it's there!)
Watching performers in movies or on TV their pants very rarely give any hint of their masculine equiment. The fornt of the pants is always dead flat and straight with no clue as to what might be lurking away under there.
Is this the actors' self-imposed physique censorship, or are they instructed by the studios to make sure everything is strapped down firmly - presumably with jockstraps.
On the street, admittedly, there are those guys who actually dare to "freeball" without wearing anything under their outer clothing, proudly showing off their meat nd two veg in much the same way as their ancestors used to draw the eye to their crotch with the cod-piece.
Is the owning of a good length of cock and a pair of pigeon-egg balls an offence?
Why should we be ashamed of what we have?
