bigdck (4).jpeg

When people say that all men are born equal, it's rubbish. 

11 minutes ago, Happyman said:

When people say that all men are born equal, it's rubbish. 

More like some men are more equal than others, perhaps?

24 minutes ago, teddy0012 said:

More like some men are more equal than others, perhaps?

That sounds about right.  Mmmm.  Maybe I should do some more research 🤔 

42 minutes ago, Happyman said:

That sounds about right.  Mmmm.  Maybe I should do some more research 🤔 

Actually Teddy, my boyfriend is pretty big, and this visit I've had plenty of research.  I swear I've taken so much of his cum I'm surprised it isn't leaking out of my pores.  Looking forward to him coming (cumming) over to me for Easter 😋😍

26 minutes ago, Happyman said:

Actually Teddy, my boyfriend is pretty big, and this visit I've had plenty of research.  I swear I've taken so much of his cum I'm surprised it isn't leaking out of my pores.  Looking forward to him coming (cumming) over to me for Easter 😋😍

Why am I not surprised?  And I'm sure you can hardly wait until Easter (at least it's earlier this year 😉).

Just in case you thought about doing some research, here are some preliminary results which would tend to prove your thesis. Seems the inequality develops at a young age 😋

13 minutes ago, teddy0012 said:

Why am I not surprised?  And I'm sure you can hardly wait until Easter (at least it's earlier this year 😉).

Just in case you thought about doing some research, here are some preliminary results which would tend to prove your thesis. Seems the inequality develops at a young age 😋

My goodness Teddy, that's quite tasty 😋  Hmmm.  Perhaps I'm settling down too soon 😔 

12 minutes ago, teddy0012 said:

Why am I not surprised?  And I'm sure you can hardly wait until Easter (at least it's earlier this year 😉).

Just in case you thought about doing some research, here are some preliminary results which would tend to prove your thesis. Seems the inequality develops at a young age 😋

OMG! @teddy0012 Are those real! 

Just now, Happyman said:

My goodness Teddy, that's quite tasty 😋  Hmmm.  Perhaps I'm settling down too soon 😔 

Very tasty, but I seem to recall your describing the size of your boyfriend's equipment and I'd say he's equal to or better than these two twinkies 😆

1 minute ago, AK29 said:

OMG! @teddy0012 Are those real! 

As far as I can tell, yes, @AK29  I'm guessing we'd need the eagle eye of @JackFTwist to tell us if they have been modified or if they are AI generated.

10 hours ago, Happyman said:

When people say that all men are born equal, it's rubbish. 

That rather depends on your criteria for evaluating equality, doesn't it?  If it's facial beauty, musculature, and/or other male physical features, or if you have a strong preference for body hair vs. smooth or vice versa, then you're absolutely right!  Intelligence and character?  Right again.  But in the sense that the US's Founding Fathers intended by that phrase in the Declaration of Independence (women and slaves being unspoken exceptions), then I hold the meaning intended by Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Johnny Adams to be self-evident.  FWIW, I definitely enjoy a well-endowed stud,as my AM posts clearly demonstrate!  No argument there.  But I've met too many of them who had very little other social value.  They definitely weren't boyfriend material.  If your boyfriend is one of the good ones, then I warmly congratulate you on your good fortune and sincerely wish you a long and happy relationship. 

10 hours ago, teddy0012 said:

More like some men are more equal than others, perhaps?

Yeah, but I doubt that the MAGA criteria include dick size...except maybe for when they're on trips without their wives, like at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and host the escorts in their high-end hotel rooms.  Grindr posted the following ad on its site during one of the CPAC conferences around 2016 and posted hard copies around the conference hotel. 😂

9 minutes ago, JackFTwist said:

That rather depends on your criteria for evaluating equality, doesn't it?  If it's facial beauty, musculature, and/or other male physical features, or if you have a strong preference for body hair vs. smooth, then you're absolutely right!  Intelligence and character?  Right again.  But in the sense that the US's Founding Fathers intended by that phrase in the Declaration of Independence (women and slaves being unspoken exceptions), then I hold the meaning intended by Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Johnny Adams to be self-evident.  FWIW, I definitely enjoy a well-endowed stud,as my AM posts clearly demonstrate!  No argument there.  But I've met too many of them who had very little other social value.  They definitely weren't boyfriend material.  If your boyfriend is one of the good ones, then I warmly congratulate you on your good fortune and sincerely wish you a long and happy relationship. 

Yeah, but I doubt that the MAGA criteria include dick size...except maybe for when they're on trips without their wives, like at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and host the escorts in their high-end hotel rooms.  Grindr posted the following ad on its site during one of the CPAC conferences around 2016.

What the heck! @JackFTwist I read these posts, and to me this was just two friends having a laugh over some pics. There is no mention of politics of any kind. And I do not believe there was any derogatory intention at all. At no time did I read anything that implied that someone felt superior to anyone. And there is no political agenda evident anywhere. 

As I read it the reason you where tagged in this conversation was to ask for your expert opinion as to whether the photos were the product of AI enhancement, or some other digital manipulation. 

I don't think you should be reacting like this.

AK29

34 minutes ago, JackFTwist said:

That rather depends on your criteria for evaluating equality, doesn't it?  If it's facial beauty, musculature, and/or other male physical features, or if you have a strong preference for body hair vs. smooth or vice versa, then you're absolutely right!  Intelligence and character?  Right again.  But in the sense that the US's Founding Fathers intended by that phrase in the Declaration of Independence (women and slaves being unspoken exceptions), then I hold the meaning intended by Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Johnny Adams to be self-evident.  FWIW, I definitely enjoy a well-endowed stud,as my AM posts clearly demonstrate!  No argument there.  But I've met too many of them who had very little other social value.  They definitely weren't boyfriend material.  If your boyfriend is one of the good ones, then I warmly congratulate you on your good fortune and sincerely wish you a long and happy relationship. 

Yeah, but I doubt that the MAGA criteria include dick size...except maybe for when they're on trips without their wives, like at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and host the escorts in their high-end hotel rooms.  Grindr posted the following ad on its site during one of the CPAC conferences around 2016 and posted hard copies around the conference hotel. 😂

First of all, with respect @AK29, I have no problem with @JackFTwist's comments.  While Happyman and I were having what could be described as a personal but public back and forth, I'm in agreement with everything that Jack posted.  While we might not all have the same endowment (I'm definitely average at 6-7 inches), I too am a firm believer that everyone (man, woman, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or gender or transgender), we are all equal as the the founding fathers set out in the Declaration of Independence (and I'm not even American).  If you read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution, particularly Section 15 of the Charter, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

AK29, I've loved everything you've posted and I really appreciate all the likes to my posts, so I hope you can take this in the way I mean it - all of us are equal - you, me, Jack, Happyman, everyone on AM.

@JackFTwist, thank for your post.  I love the Grindr screen shot 😍.  It reminds me of the "Bible Study Group" that Speaker John Dennis Hassert, lead back in the day.  They were all holier than everyone else, but good ol' John had a little secret - he liked under age boys.  The hypocrisy of that "moral majority" still leaves me breathless.  

Since we're on a bit of a political bent here, I'm going to go way out on a limb - as a neighbour to the north, to every American AM member, please, I beg you, don't let the former guy back into the White Office - the rest of the world is freaking out at the possibility.

Now, enough of politics - back to what brings us together - a love of porn, hot guys and a wonderful community of kind kindred spirits.

To any I have offended with my comments - I'll apologize for my tone, but not the content 😆.  I love you all. 

23 hours ago, teddy0012 said:

23 hours ago, AK29 said:

OMG! @teddy0012 Are those real! 

23 hours ago, teddy0012 said:

As far as I can tell, yes, @AK29  I'm guessing we'd need the eagle eye of @JackFTwist to tell us if they have been modified or if they are AI generated.

LOL, @teddy0012, you put too much faith in me and my aging eyesight!  But no, these two images almost definitely aren't AI-generated.  The two strongest clues are:

• The hands look completely natural.  For some reason, the AI system engineers haven't yet figured out how to reproduce human hands or feet accurately.  The worst cases may have missing fingers or toes, or too many of them.  Or the hands may just look unnaturally mangled, the fingers may have unusual lengths (the little finger is sometimes nearly as long as the middle finger!), or the finger joints may be in the wrong place or simply look unnatural (just compare them to your own hands or any legitimate image).  Another telltale sign is that the fingernails and fingertips look unnaturally pointed, like dangerous weapons.  Producers of AI images have learned to get around these problems simply by not showing the fake figures' hands!  But as AI gradually improves, the engineers will eventually solve this problem.
  • In the AI image below, note the weird appearance of the hands.  Also, his left upper leg appears longer than the right one, and the spandex has an unnatural-looking crease between his quadriceps and hamstring muscles.
• Inexplicably, AI can't yet accurately reproduce simple text.  So the dead giveaways in image #2 are the clear "Spotify" text and the "FCB" in the crest above that.  In general, look at any logo or text in an image, like the brand name on the waistband of briefs, or even a sign in the background.  If the lettering looks jumbled and indistinct, then the image is suspect.
  • Both of those lads are amazingly well-hung, though, aren't they?  The second one's cock reaches almost to his knees, and he's presumably not even fully erect.  Why are so many of these hung guys the skinny ones?

Besides those two hints that an image is AI-generated, I'd also add that, IMO, models in AI images typically have unnaturally smooth, plastic-looking complexions with few, if any, skin blemishes.  They remind me of sexualized Ken Dolls.  But sometimes this can be a matter of the viewer's perception, so it's not a reliable criterion.  Some viewers might find it useful, while others won't.

It's hard to tell whether either one of these images has been morphed to make their cocks look bigger.  Neither one has any of the telltale signs of such manipulation:  discolored skin around an area where a body part (a face or cock) has been Photoshopped onto the original image, or a general blurriness to a morphed image.  Both of these images are crisp and clear.

Having said all that, two caveats are worth noting:

• Actual original images can also be enhanced by AI technology -- basically, extensive Photoshopping that would otherwise take hours can be accomplished in only a few seconds after entering the relevant instructions, like "enlarge the bulge in his groin."
• The latest top-of-the-line iPhones have this technology built into their camera apps.  Combining different features from several different shots of a subject can be done with a few touches of the relevant buttons on the phone.  So those seemingly perfect smiles and poses in a family photo on this year's Christmas card or letter may actually be an AI-produced combination of the best features of several different photos taken within a few seconds of each other.

The number of AI fakes on AM hasn't become an epidemic yet, but it's growing fast.  Have fun deciding whether an image is real, AI-generated, or AI-enhanced!

2 minutes ago, JackFTwist said:

LOL, @teddy0012, you put too much faith in me and my aging eyesight!  But no, these two images almost definitely aren't AI-generated.  The two strongest clues are:

• The hands look completely natural.  For some reason, the AI system engineers haven't yet figured out how to reproduce human hands or feet accurately.  The worst cases may have missing fingers or toes, or too many of them.  Or the hands may just look unnaturally mangled, the fingers may have unusual lengths (the little finger is sometimes nearly as long as the middle finger!), or the finger joints may be in the wrong place or simply look unnatural (just compare them to your own hands or any legitimate image).  Another telltale sign is that the fingernails and fingertips look unnaturally pointed, like dangerous weapons.  Producers of AI images have learned to get around these problems simply by not showing the fake figures' hands!  But as AI gradually improves, the engineers will eventually solve this problem.
  • In the AI image below, note the weird appearance of the hands.  Also, his left upper leg appears longer than the right one, and the spandex has an unnatural-looking crease between his quadriceps and hamstring muscles.
• Inexplicably, AI can't yet accurately reproduce simple text.  So the dead giveaways in image #2 are the clear "Spotify" text and the "FCB" in the crest above that.  In general, look at any logo or text in an image, like the brand name on the waistband of briefs, or even a sign in the background.  If the lettering looks jumbled and indistinct, then the image is suspect.
  • The second lad is hung, though, isn't he?  It reaches almost to his knees, and he's presumably not even fully erect.  Why are so many of these hung guys the skinny ones?
• Models in AI images typically have unnaturally smooth, plastic-looking complexions with few, if any, skin blemishes.  They remind me of sexualized Ken Dolls.  

It's hard to tell whether either one of these images has been morphed to make their cocks look bigger.  Neither one has any of the telltale signs of such manipulation:  discolored skin around an area where a body part (a face or cock) has been Photoshopped onto the original image, or a general blurriness to a morphed image.  Both of these images are crisp and clear.

Having said all that, two caveats are worth noting:

• Originally real images can be enhanced by AI technology -- basically, extensive Photoshopping that would otherwise take hours can be accomplished in only a few seconds after entering the relevant instructions, like "enlarge the bulge in his groin."
• The latest top-of-the-line iPhones have this technology built into their camera apps.  Combining different features from several different shots of a subject can be done with a few touches of the relevant buttons on the phone.  So those seemingly perfect smiles and poses of a family photo on this year's Christmas card or letter may actually be an AI-produced combination of the best features of several different photos taken within a few seconds of each other.

The number of AI fakes on AM hasn't become an epidemic yet, but it's growing fast.  Have fun deciding whether an image is real, AI-generated, or AI-enhanced!

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks @JackFTwist.  As always, you teach me so much about tech (which fascinates me but is something of a closed book for me).  

I do find it ironic that sometimes the skinniest guys have the biggest dicks - seems soo unfair 😪.

2 minutes ago, teddy0012 said:

Thanks @JackFTwist.  As always, you teach me so much about tech (which fascinates me but is something of a closed book for me).  

I do find it ironic that sometimes the skinniest guys have the biggest dicks - seems soo unfair 😪.

I have apparently over reacted to @JackFTwist's post. I have misunderstood its intention and introduced politics where none was intended. I profoundly apologize. 

5 minutes ago, AK29 said:

I have apparently over reacted to @JackFTwist's post. I have misunderstood its intention and introduced politics where none was intended. I profoundly apologize. 

No worries here my friend.  Politics can make us all a bit hot under the collar.

I prefer to get hot in other places, if you catch my drift 😈

17 hours ago, AK29 said:

I have apparently over reacted to @JackFTwist's post. I have misunderstood its intention and introduced politics where none was intended. I profoundly apologize. 

No problem, @AK29.  Our mutual misinterpretations seem to have been cleared up by Ambassador @teddy0012.  Maybe it was the late hour, or a Disturbance in the Force, or something else in the air that led us both to misinterpret a post and overreact to it.  Instead of my usual practice of just saying to myself, "Meh, whatever," and moving on to the next post, I let a post trigger my impulse to get up on my soapbox, and for that, I also sincerely apologize.

Now, back to the main topic:  the incredible endowments of those two twinks, especially the second one, and the possibility of AI enhancement or other manipulation of a real photo.  Trying to answer that question involves several complicated considerations, and my responses were getting so long that they would've disrupted the flow of comments about those images.  So instead, I'll continue the discussion in a separate blog for anyone who cares to follow it here:

• https://www.adonismale.com/blogs/entry/5145-hints-for-detecting-ai-generated-images/