Comments 18

  1. Kind of cute … in a British-Euro sort of way. But why this photo — of an obviously censored image?

  2. 1960’s ??????? Looks like a new photo to me and would be much better in colour. Love the blondboys smooth skin and it leaves one imagination as to what is on show below ….

  3. 1960s? I’m surprised if he didn’t get dressed and go home to his parents who had a “I like Ike” poster in the window? This looks early to mid 1950’s. He’s got the same hairstyle as the wee boy from the 1952 movie with the Martian and his Silver Robot with the death ray, (can’t remember the film name). When I was in Primary School I went on a Scout Jamboree to the Shetland Islands in the North of Scotland, my Ancestral homeland. Just about every boy looked like this. My original surname is Anderson. (my paternal Aunt adopted me at 12, and I took her surname. . The reason being that the North of Scotland was a Norse Colony for centuries, the Orkney and Shetland Islands were under Norse Rule from 798AD until 1476AD. First as a Viking Colony then under the Kingdom of Norway until 1282AD when it along with Norway came under the Kingdom of Denmark’s rule until 1476AD when it became Scottish.

    1. The picture isn’t older than 10 years, it’s from a model agency and @Penboy the picture isn’t censored, there is no other version, this is how they shot it. He isn’t naked he probably just pulled his trousers kind of low.

      1. If it’s from a model agency, what’s the name of the agency/agents? What’s the URL of this agency — if it was 10 years ago, it would have been on the Internet — model agencies were of the first commercial outlets to use the Internet in all it’s glory — it was literally “made for them.”


        “the picture isn’t censored, there is no other version,”

        That’s total bullshit. It’s clear as day the cropping is directly over the top of the penis “line”. The [many] uncensored ones might not have been “meant for the Internet” but there sure as hell was another photo showing more. When you shoot 35mm photography of models, every photographer OVER SHOOTS the model by a factor of at least 5, if not 10+. And digital photography is even more so — that’s the very nature of it. I was a professional photographer — don’t try to bullshit me about photography.

        1. Not true, appologies :-P
          Look closer and you will identify a slight ingoing of his skin just around the waist – that’s a hint of wearing pants. The boy INDEED wears his pants very low.
          And all the blabla about agencies… come on ^^ Haven’t had a good laugh in ages… you made my day!!! :-*

          1. “Look closer and you will identify a slight ingoing of his skin just around the waist”

            What the fuck is an “ingoing”? Pure bullshit.

            “that’s a hint of wearing pants.”

            Yeah, most boys in societies wear pants throughout their lives.

        2. Good to see you are still a typical totally ignorant loud mouthed amerikunt !

          Very nice picture of modern boi, thanx Josh.

          1. seymour kuntz:

            Typical totally ignorant loud mouthed idiot — actually, that’s you with your ad hominen attacks and nothing to back up your claims — pretty much the definition of ignorance.

          2. ” ad hominen “, shome mishtake shurely ?

            If you are going to use Latin in a vain attempt to appear intelligent, at least get it right !

            Twat !!!

  4. The tummy is very nice indeed. I favor this image as very much like from the 1950s through the early 1970s — B&W were easily made from original prints or ‘slides’. Made for more practical/inexpensive printing.

    But if you’re going to tease us, then do it more like this one.

  5. What makes me think this is a relatively recent photo is the slight darkening below his navel, into his “V.” A very slight increase in groin pigmentation, a sign of puberty, occurs when pubic hair appears. His pubes are gone, gone, gone, a manscaping fashion only recently becoming popular.

Leave a Comment