“Sandwich” is slang for “threesome.” That used to be common, but maybe it’s gone out of style in the West. Still used over here. Aey, the lady who runs the legendary Annie’s Massage Parlor – started in 1969 by Annie, her mother – is forever recommending the “club sandwich.”
This is a really weird case of my perception filling in gaps. Because of the post you quoted I swore you said “You have to be really careful ordering a roast beef sandwich in Thailand”. So I thought “roast beef” was important to the joke, hence confusion.
It turns out you wrote no such thing, and I would’ve gotten the joke if my brain wasn’t trying to be “helpful”. :smack:
Oh man, you have to be really, really careful when ordering “roast beef” over here, hehe.
Nah, just kidding. 
I bet you meant pubic hair, not “public” hair, eh? 
There’s no such thing as absolute ugliness or beauty - it’s entirely in the eye of the beholder - so if people sincerely say that they find genitals nice to look at (and it seems they do), they’re right.
Of course, the ones who say they find genitals ugly aren’t wrong either - but if those people are a fairly small minority, then the blanket statement " The genitals really are the ugliest parts of the human body" isn’t very true.
No, public hair. It’s a technical term.
Current lover has mentioned it, too. I dunno. It’s pink and healthy. Not too symmetrical. Guess I was blessed in that department?
Well there you go. It’s probably cute, as such parts go.
I’m straight, but I honestly find the male sexual organ to be more aesthetically pleasing, even though the female one is sexier*. It just has to do with the fact that it’s an opening to a mucous membrane–and I’ve always found those a bit gross looking. Breasts are much, much more aesthetically pleasing.
This has always astonished me. I realize that I have a fetish for them, which makes me unique. But I don’t find any other purely external part of a female anatomy to be “gross” or “yuck.” The closest is the butt, and that’s only when it’s not clean. Hands are attractive. Ears are attractive. Teeth can even be attractive.
If the feet are dirty, i can get finding them gross, as I kinda do too, even though I can also still find them attractive. But just plain, clean feet seem to gross out a not insignificant portion of people, and that just seems so odd to me.
*In person. I agree that just shots of genitals in porn does nothing for me. It would be like seeing decapitated body parts fondling each other. You need a person attached.
Well, you’re not supposed to actually fuck them.
Well, some are ugly and some not. A vagina looks most of time good if it is well looked after.
Well…
Far from unique, compadre!
(What is the next stage in the progression? There’s fetishism, partialism, then what? Emphasis? Emphasism? I always thought I was a foot partialist, but the definition on Wikipedia says “exclusive.” I like feet a lot, but not exclusively! What’s the proper term?)
It would be kind of fun to do one of those graphics where the parts of the body are enlarged or reduced to indicate emphasis. So, for instance, someone who is truly a foot fetishist would have a figure that consists of 99% feet and 1% everything else. And most typical guys would have a kind of Jessica Rabbit image figure…
(National Lampoon – back when it used to be funny – did that, with a male and a female body, with the parts scaled in proportion to the number of slang terms there are referring to them! As you might imagine, the breasts and the penis were absolutely overwhelming!)
I still maintain that the “skin” overall is the ugliest thing about human beings, because of its odd level of hairiness compared to many other mammals.
However, how about that uvula? Ain’t nothing attractive about that.
Indeed, it’s true that humans do not have attractive genitalia, neither male, female nor hermaphrodite. Those who believe otherwise are fooling themselves—they’ve merely succumbed to peer pressure and learned to suppress their gag reflex.
The main problem is that human genitalia of both sexes are just too…out there, and in your face. There’s simply no subtlety about them and there is no aesthetically pleasing backdrop to their gaudy starkness. They stick out from bare skin with nothing to frame them but a patch of ugly pubic hair, which accentuates the garish genitals crude physicality even more.
Luckily, the animal kingdom can show us a better way. In particular, a few of the furry mammals can teach us a thing or two about sexual aesthetics. And with advances in genetic engineering at hand, we humans may soon be able to have truly sublime genitalia…like the best of the beasts.
First and foremost, we don’t want naked “hey, look at me” genitals popping out from a clump of wiry, monochromatic hair. It’s much better to have soft fur not only surrounding the the genitals, but also ON them. And, there is a tangential advantage to having fur covered genitals: I do believe we can successfully lobby for relaxed indecent exposure laws if we had fur-covered genitals. They don’t ban kids from watching Donald Duck cartoons do they? No, because Donald’s penis is covered in fine, soft down feathers. When you go to the park, police don’t make you put pants on your dog, do they? (Well, dogs should be required to wear pants because they don’t have proper buttock cheeks to hide their anuses, which could be problematic if you follow too close and they stop short(caution, image is not suitable to view…anywhere), but that’s a topic for another day).
So, I propose that we allocate genetic engineering research funds away from finding cures for boring diseases put them into fixing our DNA to give us attractive, fur-covered groins and peri-anal regions. I further propose that we use the mandrill as the genetic model for this endeavor. Seriously, guys and gals, if you brought home a one-night-stand, and upon having them remove their pants or skirts, you saw this…would you not be sexually aroused? Of course you would. And ladies, in order to match your so-called drapes to your carpet cosmetically, use this as your make-up color guide. Your welcome.
