<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Michael Landon

December 6 2006 at 9:01 PM
  (Login bigjim2004)
from IP address 72.86.2.185

 
Here is a post from another forum:

On the Bonanza set,Michael Landon used to drive the prop men crazy. When a scene is shot, the next scene has to look like the previous one or it would lack continuity - often "bloopers" show up that way. Well, anyway, Landon would move his cock from right to left side, or visa versa just to freak out the guys who had to make sure it was in the same place for the next scene.

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

(Login Nafana)
Forum Owner
71.200.218.199

Re: Michael Landon

December 6 2006, 9:04 PM 

Now a days he wouldn't be allowed to show it at all.

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login bigjim2004)
72.86.2.185

Sad, but true

December 6 2006, 9:12 PM 

When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s most men showed a bulge down one leg or the other. It was common and accepted for men to show a crotch bulge. Things sure have changed. What happened?

 
 Respond to this message   
mark
(Login amstel2)
82.170.141.36

style

December 7 2006, 3:56 AM 

Well, one of the things which changed was the style of the underwear itself. Most modern briefs and boxer-briefs are quite tight so they may produce a bulge by lifting but they don't allow any hanging. And then there's the whole business of the new puritanism which has often been referred to elsewhere in this Forum.

 
 Respond to this message   
Alexsport
(no login)
65.87.105.8

Re: Sad, but true

December 7 2006, 2:43 PM 

that was the way men were supposed to look, it was accepted that men had something between theirlegs that would make a bulge. i remember my dad and his friends all sported noticeable bulges in their pants (my dad alwasy wore boxers).

 
 Respond to this message   
cdadbr
(Login cdadbr)
207.200.116.136

styles

December 10 2006, 11:16 AM 

In considering how things were back in the 1960s and 1970s, it was quite common to see guys with a little bulge in the crotch. Sometimes, it was a little to one side or the other and sometimes parallel with the zipper. Even a little "faded area" to that could accent it, sometimes.

As I recall, few young guys wore boxers. Briefs were the norm and then became to be associated with a more youthful and athletic orientation of that time. Then we started seeing some ads for Euro and French underwear and swimsuits. "Low Rise" briefs were introduced to go along with falling waistlines on fashion pants for men. Then can other underwear so the in-shape males would look good out of their pants, which was the start of the fashion underwear situation.

In those times, younger males were usually more height-weight proportionate than they became in the 1980s and later. A little more active and athletic, too, generally, than in more current times--this is a variable situation with respect to geographic situations, but "generally" and comparitively true.

By observation, some guys did wear boxers under their jeans, but they didn't show either. Older men who normally wore dress slacks as normal wear were the (observed) boxer wearers--with high waistlines too.

In college (circa 1970-74), there was a guy that lived down the hall from me in the dorm. He was the first guy that I knew that did not wear underwear. He was about 5'7" and was height-weight proportionate and was toward the "lean and muscular" side of "normal"--by genetics. The denim shorts he wore were "cut-offs" (as was fashionable for casual wear back then), which were mid-thigh length. He was also endowed more than average with a nice pair of "hangers", yet when he put on the denim shorts, nothing really showed as we would not expect it too. It was perfectly normal-looking, if that matters, for that time. He might have "dressed" to one side, but nothing was really obvious. Could be that his more leaner and muscular legs AND other things fit nicely in the size of the legs of the shorts? Back then, there was not typically the number of "cuts" of particular brands of jeans that there are now, so everything was generally sized toward the middle road of things--but that started changing with the bell bottom jeans from back then.

At that time, I never sought to emulate his non-underwear situation. He did wear briefs under his more dressy pants, though. However, when I got a private room in the dorm (i.e., no roommate), I did re-start sleeping nude and put both of the single beds together to make one big bed. That was the start of a continuing nude sleeping orientation that still exists today. I found, once again, that I slept much better when nude (whether under the sheets or not). College is a time for learning and expansion of horizons and orientations that can carry us into later life.

As we've evolved into the current generations of diabetic-prone early teens, clothing manufacturers have evolved to accomodate these "more endowed" body shapes. If the waist has to be large, the hips must be too, so that makes the crotch area larger than it was 40 years ago. One thing leads to another . . .

Enjoy!
cdadbr

 
 Respond to this message   
Alan
(no login)
64.57.160.220

Hang right or left?

December 8 2006, 9:39 PM 

I've heard the story that Prince Albert, for whom the piercing is named, had one so he hang the way he thought he should. Off topic, but his wife, Queen Victoria, was told, after she'd produced a number of children, that because of health problems she shouldn't become pregnant again, and she answered, "Oh, I shan't be able to have any fun!" Can't prove this, but have read it several places. Gives a whole new meanng to "Victorian Age", doesn't it?

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Michael Landon
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Find more forums on SocietyCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement