Undertoad Monday Dec 13 12:25 PM
12/13/2004: FCC investigates Olympics?
If you look closely at the above image, it appears that these guys aren't showing their actual units, but wearing some sort of costume to simulate the real thing. Does that change the matter at all?
Ach, I know this entry doesn't have much factual information yet... I read the regular news sites, and end up in complete confusion as to what the wire writers intended to communicate. In this case the story collides with its own picture's caption. Hopefully someone will have more info on it... post away if you do.
beavis Monday Dec 13 02:21 PM
what a bunch of pricks...
busterb Monday Dec 13 02:59 PM
jinx Monday Dec 13 03:02 PM
sniglet Monday Dec 13 03:04 PM
Wormfood Monday Dec 13 03:41 PM
Must be the cold mud.
Leah Monday Dec 13 04:20 PM
No wonder they all look so depressed and glum, I would look depressed also having to walk around looking like that, how embarrassing they all must be with such a little old fella's.
Target Monday Dec 13 04:27 PM
I didn't think it was depression...I thought they were checking out the guy in front of them.
Bitman Monday Dec 13 04:30 PM
I'm afraid to post, cuz I'd hafta admit to studying the picture. But it to me it looks like a photoshop job more than anything. Clearly the tops and bottoms don't match, but the one in the middle shows some artifacts that are just weird.
capnhowdy Monday Dec 13 05:53 PM
It is odd that the costume flaunts such a provocative statement. Someone should have known a crybaby somewhere would freak out. The costumes would have been much more realistic had the designer used a little creativity and revealed what the shower room at the "Y" REALLY looks like.heehee......
xoxoxoBruce Monday Dec 13 07:53 PM
The uniform size and shape of the privates privates is supposed to represent a stone statue from the 6th century. Perhaps it does, don't forget that in the 17th century guys were about 5 ft tall, on average.
richlevy Monday Dec 13 08:54 PM
The Olympic committee should have known that to comply with American standards of decency, you are only allowed to show male frontal nudity when coupled with extreme acts of violence. If they had only let Quentin Tarantino do the choreography..
xoxoxoBruce Monday Dec 13 10:51 PM
Karenv Tuesday Dec 14 11:43 PM
Given that the average erect male member is 5.4" (NOT 5-7") according to researchers who measure such things, they aren't all that small.
Undertoad Wednesday Dec 15 01:02 AM
There is no possible reply to this that cannot be flagged TMI.
Cyber Wolf Wednesday Dec 15 07:41 AM
And are we talking just the Meat or the Meat and Potatoes together? If we're talking about the total package then body size doesn't mean much...look at a male rat. His boys are HUGE proportionately. Of course, rats are kinda geared towards making as many babies as they can so he needs a large gene factory. But way back when, having a lot of kids was a good idea too what with farms to manage, kingdoms to inherit and the need for a non-fatal way to prove one's virility and higher infant mortality rates. Wouldn't be surprised if the stuff of a man 17th century and before (especially way before) were a little bigger, or possible the word is 'robust', than the stuff of a man today. Guys today need to try harder; there's fertility clinics and dildos to compete with
Karenv Wednesday Dec 15 03:06 PM
Guys today need to contend with estrogens in the meat and dairy, xenoestrogens in plastics and pesticides. Even prenatally.
glatt Wednesday Dec 15 03:35 PM
Karenv Wednesday Dec 15 03:39 PM
Actually beef is pretty good for making testosterone. But it is much better if it is grass-fed beef without estrogens in the feed.
xoxoxoBruce Wednesday Dec 15 09:53 PM
How about beef that's been fed pine trees?