Thinking it might make a good foie gras post—a good gratuitous one, maybe even a good final one—I dug into cannibal fetish websites this morning (over breakfast!) hoping to unearth an image of someone, somewhere making—or a story about someone, somewhere making—”boy gras.” You know, a pen with some attractive boys in it, their “wings clipped” (that’s “arms cut off,” for you cannibal fetish newbies), perhaps one attractively trussed up with a feeding tube down his throat, maybe a bulge on his side hinting at a deliciously swollen liver. I had hoped to stumble over an image that was more offensive than the one Charles posted at the end fo the day yesterday—an image that had me furiously blogging away this morning in a futile effort to push Charles’ post down the page. Couldn’t find one—couldn’t find anything about boy gras anywhere. Care to dig yourself? You can start here.
I wasn’t the only person annoyed by Charles’ post…
“So we have to keep with the goal of diversity?” asked Slog commenter whatevermind. “How about a picture of an attractive male in a humiliating position—you know, for those of us who like men? Gay and straight men aren’t the only ones with sex drives, you know.”
We aims to please:
Image via Male Submission Art. Three more after the jump.
More where those came from at MSA.
I didn’t find the picture he posted nearly as offensive as the veneer of intellectualism that accompanied it. Of course, nothing beats the racial epithets from the anti-Mudede crowd in terms of offensiveness. What a productive discourse.
I FIGURED IT OUT. According to the most adamant slog leadership, the only people allowed to leer are gay men, heterosexual females, and MAYBE lesbians (when they aren’t too busy defending their sexual identiy, or justifying why some/majority/whatever occaisionally want some penis).
Now it all makes sense to me!
No, no. Straight men are allowed to leer. No one objected to Charles’ earlier posts.
Don’t be such a sissy, FTS.
damn dan, those are some pics. I am a straight male, who is otherwise normal i like to think and number 2 is appealing.
I’m all over pic #2.
Well Irena sounds like you could use a drink while i have a lick
@3, Actually Dan I object to MOST of Charles’ posts, but it doesn’t seem to matter. They’ve gotten more and more offensive. Charles doesn’t care if we object, and neither, it seems, does the SLOG. I find it hard to keep reading a blog that doesn’t care about the opinions of its readers.
First non-duck picture: hot.
Thank you for trying. This sort of “makes up” for Mudede.
Except…this isn’t quite the same thing as milking a four-teated woman. BOTH the man and woman in this pic are turned on. We assume that bc this is a fetish scene. Yes this man is being “humiliated,” but he wants to be humiliated.
It is not the same as Muhdik’s post. The woman in that picture is in no way getting anything good out of her predicament, and it is quite obviously not voluntary.
But thanks anyway.
Thanks for appeasing us feminists by posting images of men being subjugated. 😀
@onion:
I can’t believe I’m defending Mudede’s posting of the quadruple-titted milk lady, but I don’t think he was posting it for wank material or otherwise endorsing it; he was simply commenting on how sexuality is used in marketing (which is rather self-referential, considering it’s Mudede).
The problem isn’t that it’s a lady with four breasts being milked. The problem is that “Hey! Sexuality is used to market things!” accompanied by a reference to Foucault (and does putting the title in French accomplish anything? Are those of us who read it in translation lame or something?) is just trite, pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
I think Charles’s posts are perhaps tasteless (or at least not to our tastes). But I think it’s a little harsh calling them offensive. The 4 teated woman, it’s just absurd. I think Charles was just trying to post things that are absurd in and of themselves. I don’t think we are supposed to try to read into it to much.
Having Dan Savage post this, kind of makes me want to believe there is a double standard here. Heterosexual male leering at women is frowned upon, not by Dan Savage, I read his column enough to know … that he kind of encourages it.
Charles, makes an attempt at speaking for the male heterosexual, black, socialists out there… or something like that. It would be truely selfish to be all mormon boys you know.
Dan, as a straight male (considering himself a feminist, too), I feel I’m missing something. It’s definitely a silly image (the lame attempts at political or intellectual content), but someone tell me how it’s offensive. I’m honestly curious, and am sure it IS, since it’s pissed so many people off — I just need a primer here. It does not look like an image that’s intended to arouse anyone, and yes, she’s not consenting to the humiliation, but I take it as an illustration of someone being exploited unjustly. It’s not a happy image — it’s a picture of a bad thing: the repression and exploitation of women. The extra teats make this pretty clear, drawing the parallel with farm animals. The perspective seems sympathetic to me.
One more thing. What kind of jeans are those on the guy in pic #2? Really, I am straight — really — but would sure like my ass to look like that.
The four-breasted woman is *supposed* to be offensive.
The country in which it was displayed is having a contraversial public discussion on Genetic Engineering. Hence the link to ‘the end.’ and the GE stamped on her thigh.
The picture is designed to highlight the moral dangers of Genetic Engineering.
I love straight men. I don’t care how they get off…they turn me on!
Sloggers choke with anger when they read posts whose meanings aren’t force fed to them.
I don’t know. Does anyone have it, on record, if the woman agreed to have the photoshopper put the milker and extra teats on her?
@ 16 – you’re right.
@17 Does anyone have it, on record, that the woman doesn’t have 4 tits?
That first image is lame – no way you could get decent access to the clit with the woman sitting that. She’d need to lean back much more for the clit to be exposed enough for the guy to give it a good tongue-lashing. Must have been a gay photographer who doesn’t know dick, so to speak, about twats.
Um, wow, you used my comment! Uh, should I be excited or embarrassed?
(I’m a shy person.)
Okay, I’ve decided I’m embarrassed. I wrote comment in that post when I was kinda tired and out of it.
The photo is actually a little funny.
I probably also could have googled for humiliating photos of men. I just didn’t think of it at that moment. I also generally don’t seek out nude photos, et al per se. They just come to me. Like on Slog :), and other media as well, like TV.