User talk:Gerrycheevers/Penis
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
gerry/rahb collab[edit source]
alright then. we have maybe 2 days to slap together a presentable article. any thoughts for a theme or approach, or should we do a straight-up encyclopedic tone and divide up the sections? 03:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thoughts[edit source]
- i think we should keep to g-rated images, such as the one i just added (or even more subtle than that). i don't think anyone actually wants to see any dong. 04:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Even the sand-dong image is a bit offputting to me for some reason. I'm thinking play it straight presentation-wise with maybe some medical drawings with humorous captions? -RAHB 04:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- right-o. alas, i thought i remembered a funnier picture from Morning wood. maybe mostly medical pictures perhaps one freudian suggestion? 05:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- So long as it's not one of the ten or so stock images that circulate around the internet with all the subtlety of an atom bomb. Now, what in the world should our approach to the writing be? Witty, childish, absurd, satirical? Aim it at chauvinists? Aim it at the Pope? Aim it at a bush? Questions, questions, questions. I like the idea of splitting up the sections either way, gives us a more or less equal go at things without too heavy a burden of continuity on any one of us. Which is nice because I think we're probably going to need a few central jokes as opposed to one "big joke". -RAHB 05:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- i think a straight-up, almost puritan approach would work best, since it is a subject that you can barely bring up without stifling a giggle. perhaps a narrative of a middle-school health class taught by a prudish nun, in the style of Jew? an encyclopedia entry edited to remove all possible double-entendre and insinuation, only poorly and repeatedly marked up (a subject
harddifficult to understand)? 06:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)- Perhaps an encyclopedic entry written by someone who has no idea what the physiological functions of the penis are or how to describe them beyond knowing a bit of the obvious from necessity, and so they just make up some of the other stuff based on what they think it's used for? A Ron Burgundy-esque "history" section could delve into the ancient evolutionary requirements that we've since outgrown, such as use in hunting animals or holding a shoelace in place while it's tied. -RAHB 06:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- i think a straight-up, almost puritan approach would work best, since it is a subject that you can barely bring up without stifling a giggle. perhaps a narrative of a middle-school health class taught by a prudish nun, in the style of Jew? an encyclopedia entry edited to remove all possible double-entendre and insinuation, only poorly and repeatedly marked up (a subject
- So long as it's not one of the ten or so stock images that circulate around the internet with all the subtlety of an atom bomb. Now, what in the world should our approach to the writing be? Witty, childish, absurd, satirical? Aim it at chauvinists? Aim it at the Pope? Aim it at a bush? Questions, questions, questions. I like the idea of splitting up the sections either way, gives us a more or less equal go at things without too heavy a burden of continuity on any one of us. Which is nice because I think we're probably going to need a few central jokes as opposed to one "big joke". -RAHB 05:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- right-o. alas, i thought i remembered a funnier picture from Morning wood. maybe mostly medical pictures perhaps one freudian suggestion? 05:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Even the sand-dong image is a bit offputting to me for some reason. I'm thinking play it straight presentation-wise with maybe some medical drawings with humorous captions? -RAHB 04:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)