Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarchett1 I don't know if this has been asked before but I was just wondering about what everyone thinks about the bulge or lack of bulge in most underwear models in catalogues... |
When I was a teenager, I got a subscription to the Undergear catalogue. For many years, it basically served as jerk-off material for me. One day I was in a new shop that sold adult magazines on the top rack, and they had the Undergear catologue in the gay porn section.
There were a few pics of guys wearing sheer swimsuits that you could practically see through. You couldn't really see much, but the fact that you could see anything at all was a huge turn-on for me.
With regards to bulges, a few of the models impressed me with how stuffed their underwear looked, but those were the exceptions. As a general rule, I always wondered how they could stuff themselves into something so tiny. I'd think, "Where are their balls? I'd be hanging out the sides of that thing, or I'd have to shove my balls up my asshole to get it on, and I'm not that well endowed.
So my guess is that most underwear models are, at best, of average endowment.
What I didn't notice then but I do notice now is how often underwear models have their penis positioned upright or up and to the side. I guess that answers my question about how they have room for their balls (sort of), but I've never liked wearing underwear with my penis pointing up, and even when I'm flaccid the head would peek up over the waist band.
Attached are some of my favorite pics from the Undergear catalogues of the late 80s/early 90s. The first pic is of Spencer Garbett, one of my favorite models. I was saddened to learn that he committed suicide about a decade ago, at the age of 27.