Sign in | Register now | Like us on FacebookLike Us | Follow us on TwitterFollow Us

Milwaukee's Daily Magazine for Thursday, Dec. 18, 2014

Wed
Hi: 30
Lo: 21
Thu
Hi: 31
Lo: 22
Fri
Hi: 33
Lo: 25
Advertise on OnMilwaukee.com
Nope, don't want to see it.
Nope, don't want to see it.

Don't send me that in a text

And now, in stunning revelations …

I do read your "talkbacks" and your Facebook posts.

I was actually floored that it took so long – almost 36 hours to get a comment on my "Open letter to Brett Favre" that included a suggestion to use texting as a preferred mode of communication with the former Packers quarterback.

Now, we all know what that’s about, right?

In case you don’t, Mr. Favre’s intimate self-portrait of a smaller (this is of course, both subjective and relative) appendage he sent as a text (sext) to some lady made a little more Internet news than the guns he has on display in his current online photos. 

My husband (God love him for having any sense of humor about the smut I type) was actually the first to throw that clever texting zinger in my face upon my traditional pre-submit read aloud to him. My response to which, was an involuntary "ewwwww-ick" accompanied by a little vomit in my mouth.

Because I always feel the need to be precise and clarify, I’m strictly referring to the sending of sexy images via text here – specifically "dick pics." I am not talking about relationships or even real life physical interaction, just that very incriminating photo of male genitalia that seems to always be a bad idea for the owners of the offending attachment. 

Why is it a bad idea? Don’t all shout at once, but not only will that image inevitably come back to haunt you in some way personally or professionally, but in my very humble opinion, I just don’t think that most recipients of these gifts really assume the intended emotion or desired result of theses tell-all texts.

Ladies especially, I don’t know if you are with me on this one, but it’s not the isolated image of a penis I find hot or sexually titillating when I see a photograph of a scantily clad or nude male. If I’m going to be visually aroused – I need to see more than just that

I have an even more difficult time entertaining warm and fuzzy feelings when the body is decapitated by mode of cropping in an oddly angled "selfie" or the "member" in question is somehow floating, displayed in a violent grip or is the very centerpiece of the composition. It just takes a little more than that for me.

Perhaps it’s that old "men are more visually stimulated than women" thing, but I don’t think that excuse really hits the nail on any sort of head. For me, I believe it has more to do with wanting to see the whole package.

I am an admirer of the beauty of both the male and female physique. I find attractiveness in both curves and vascularity. I know the hard work and dedication that goes into displaying this sort of lean shredded physique; hence my applause for what Brett’s got going on right now.

Shirtless? Sexy. Full frontal? I’ll pass. 

Talkbacks

Post your comment/review now No Talkbacks for this article.
Post your comment/review now

Facebook comments

Disclaimer: Please note that Facebook comments are posted through Facebook and cannot be approved, edited or declined by OnMilwaukee.com. The opinions expressed in Facebook comments do not necessarily reflect those of OnMilwaukee.com or its staff.