Note: The enclosed erotic male image is considered perfectly "safe for work" since it only shows body parts that straight men don't realize are sexy. All links, however, lead to other NSFW posts.
Note to Rep. Weiner and... pretty much every other man who thinks it's the height of creativity to snap a pixie of their peepee and call it erotic, here's how you do it.
Oh wow, mr Isinpi,
this pic deserves to be reblogged the shit out of. Well played sir, well played…
Beautiful picture, no wonder I keep seeing reblogs with you getting tumblr ladies weak at the knees.
I can’t decide which one, so fuck it I’ll post two. Hands, clavicle, lips, and scruff in one photo.
It's not that women don't think penises are sexy. Or that penis bulges veiled behind athlete-gray underpants are sexy. A surprising number do. But what seems to be an even more surprising number of women prefer a bit more context -- as, in fact, would most men if they too were regularly innundated with random unsolicited closeups of solicitous women's vulvas. Once context is established (and believe it or not, intentionally visiting a porn site establishes some kind of context) then one has a great deal more latitude.
But for out of the blue imagery? Even when you want to preserve your anonymity? Well. If you follow the link to his Tumblr post and check out who's already followed and/or liked the photo you'll find that as of this morning (the photo was posted this morning) fifteen women (and no men) have indicated their approval and several, like GV and MAM have reposted it to their own erotic-photography blogs.
Hint, maybe? Clue perhaps?
The funniest thing? I could be mistaken but I'm guessing that Rep. Weiner could post and tweet photos like this all day long and the likes of Andrew Brietbart would never register it. Or if they did they wouldn't register it as anything but some kind of artsy-fartsy east-coast liberal noodlings. Because, you see, it wouldn't be porn for men.
Now I don't happen to think there's anything wrong with porn for men per se. And of course there are plenty of women who are downright cheerful about consuming it (and of course men who aren't.) But that's not the point.
The point is, it seems to me, that if you're interested in women, and if you're going to go around sending random, unsolicited photos of yourself to women, then maybe you should take, oh, five or ten minutes to find out what women find most eye-catching about men. And try sending that instead.
Especially if you're going to send them via Twitter. Because, you see, while in the ancient history that was the world before Twitter (i.e. July, 2006) and before Tumblr (i.e. 2007) it was quite a bit harder to find out what sort of erotic images of heterosexual men women preferred. But nowadays? If you were interested you could find out pretty quickly. But you would have to be interested.
Update: While watering the planter boxes just now it occurred to me that I might sound like I'm claiming I know this photo but not that one will work as "porn for women." I'm just saying that if you want to know what works, look at what women are saying works! Same's true, obviously, about all manner of other kinds of decisions, sex-related or not, about what works for all kinds of people. Even when you think you know what should work for other people.
Also, this post obviously isn't supposed to be an enlightening tract on how people, in Congress, in power, or otherwise, should and should not impose themselves sexually on those who have not indicated it would be appreciated.