Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 21:32:11 +0000 (UTC) From: D One Subject: "JUNK" ISN'T REALLY JUNK Some years ago, the term "junk" began to be used describing a male's genitals. Both penis and testicles were included I presume. Why? A male wasn't considered "junkyard" nor were his trousers. So why "junk"? Ever since Michael Jackson and other male performers started grabbing their "junk" in a fashion that used be called "cupping", the term seemed to become acceptable. When men and women did pelvic thrusts, that too seemed to be acceptable because it was part of their performance; I mean musical performance. So I guess the next thing was grabbing their crotches and calling it "junk" instead of what it is. Testicles used to be referred to them as jewels, grapes, fruit, pomegranate or just plain balls. Suddenly those terms weren't considered manly enough. And what do men like? Apparently "junk". The musical performers that cupped their "junk" reminded me of the legal revelation of a male's naked body. It was ok as long as your penis and balls were hidden by a cupped hand; usually one's own but sometimes another buddy's. Why hide part of nature's most inventive and marvelous creation? A penis was created to insert to fertilize a woman's eggs. Testicles were apparently created to house the creation of fluids that create gametes or sperm which house hormones aka testosterone. Since healthy testosterone can only be created in a special temperature range, the testicles automatically rise close to the body when the outside temperatures are too cold and alternatively stretch low when the body's temperature is too warm. Now THAT'S amazing! Let alone the actual creation of the valuable hormone, the body's self-adjusting is buried somewhere in our DNA and brain cells for this activity. This isn't worth of the term "junk" at all. But I guess nobody would accept a guy calling his "stuff" AMAZING. Although depending on its size and appearance and the person appreciating it, "amazing" might be a worthy exclamation. But now, let's go back to the issue or legality. When did the public sight of a male or female's crotch become outlawed? In my view, long long ago when humans wore little, rags were probably tied in that region to prevent leakage be it for female's normal cycle or male's penal activity. And as they grew older, leakage might have been an issue worthy of an animal skin or later cloth being fastened into place. Centuries later, when women wore long skirts, men would be sexually aroused when they saw any skin even a bare ankle. As time passed, a woman's skirt got higher offering a bare leg or knee, or even a thigh which elicited the same, and I presume, desired reaction. Basically what a man or even a woman couldn't see, they got interested in exploring and that was enhanced by the natural sexual attraction behavior. Availability for females and maybe even size for the males became key measurements of desirability and thus "hiding" replaced necessity. As humans began to cover other parts of their bodies, what was underneath the clothing too became objectives of exploration. And in some societies practices became rules and rules became morals and morals became laws. Decades later when men were allowed to swim without shirts and trouser legs and women progressed, some would say, to wearing two thin strips of material on beaches, sometimes only one, there remained laws about keeping crotches covered. There are some places where total nudity is allowed on public beaches. And special communities, motels and even islands allow the option of existing without any clothing. Besides the abundance of photos, movies, videos and privately exchanged nude visuals, there remains the fascination of seeing all there is in person as well. So why would such a coveted part of humans' bodies be considered "junk"? Whether a male is circumcised aka "cut" or "uncut", long or short, fat or thin; whether his testicles are long hanging or sized like grapefruits, it's all amazing and frankly quite unlike any trash aka junk. In fact humanity treasures such natural gifts and both men and women worship, desire, compare and long for it. I laughed at a recent movie when one man chides another for comparing his "junk's" size to that of the famous Statue of David. True, the statue depicts either naturally small or weather shrunken size genitals. But it's not that, which deserves and gets many generations of admiration for Michelangelo's famous statue housed in Florence Italy (and replications everywhere else around the globe). Man is not judged by his dick alone nor the swing of his testicle sac. Yet in another movie a much derided nerdy character becomes quite popular when it's discovered that his penis size is quite impressive. So hardly "junk". Then again the junk of one man is another male's or female's treasure. I don't hear any positive term for a woman's crotch area. There are medical terms and nasty curses, but no use of a term like "junk" to describe that treasure of humanity. I guess males somehow wanted to be both proud and rude, thus retaining their manly perception while harkening to the hidden days of self-exploration and satisfaction. So "junk" isn't really junk after all. I wish there as another term that properly described the value of a male's genitals, one that was manly yet positive. Cause there isn't any junk, just natural treasure.