"the poses and facial expressions of David Beckham were mildly sexual at most".
The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that a poster campaign featuring David Beckham in his undies and displaying a fine pair of goldenballs is unlikely to traumatise wide-eyed kiddies. David Beckham poses for his Bodywear range. Pic: H&M Earlier this year, Becks got most of his kit off for the launch of his "Bodywear …
What's he got there - a cucumber covered in aluminum foil?
No I think that expression means - "Ah so that's where I left my spare pair of socks."
Why on earth would anybody think that a picture of Mr Beckham in his smalls would upset a child? Why would a child think anything of it at all?
Granted, the odd teenager may think "fwwouar, he's hench*" but it's hardly traumatic for them and isn't going to make any difference to the way they're thinking.
*I think that's the term currently in use to describe someone who's attractive.
Most likely the same people that consider all the rape and murdering in the Bible and a viciously vengeful God to be perfectly ok for children. Also, many of them consider physical punishment to be totally cool, to, for their children.
Now everybody remember: a pair of tits is very dangerous for children. That's why we give them guns, so they can defend against it.
A pair of tits? I only saw David in the pic not his effervescent wife... Unless she was the stick they used to plump out his package....
Actually, "hench" means being built like a brick shit house (muscular and extremely bulky). It's nothing to do with attractiveness.
"Buff" would be the more likely used word by da yoof in this instance, (or "peng" if the attributed attractiveness was deemed to go beyond just the physique).
These stupid tattoos are...
at El Reg can be defined in units of 'mildly sexual'.
Posh's playtoy: 1 mildly sexual.
Typical Aussie budgie smuggler: 10 mildly sexuals.
Paris, because size does matter.
What does a Typical Aussie budgie smuggle ?. Is it that dried white fish that we see stuck through the cages?
An Aussie Tit smuggler on the otherhand needs no introduction.
Side remark . Please do not post pictures of Victoria Beckham in her underwear, that would really frighten the kids, but not for the same reason.
Victoria, that is.
For bid them to enter the men's section of M&S lest they see an orgy of packacking showing men in their underwear?
Agree with an above poster - most likely a god-squad.
Search YouTube for 'Father Ted lingerie'
won't somebody think of the children?
I certainly hope David Beckham wasn't thinking of the children while posing for that picture...
Dear El Reg,
Just reading this at 8.20am, surrounded by nerdy, slightly sweaty, poorly dressed men talking their normal inane dribble over their first coffee of the morning - the start of a normal day in engineering land. But now you've really brightened my morning with the delicious Becks (I'm trying hard to pretend the tatts aren't there).
I've sat through years of Reg posts and comments going on and on and on about Paris Hilton, and Bulgarian airbags, childish snigegrs, demeaning sexist comments and any excuse for any titilation and never once complained (unless some tosser gets really quite nasty). So, I assume this is the start of the deluge of partially dressed men to address the imbalance? If you are doing requests can you find an excuse to cover the new Bond film (50th anniversary perhaps), and include some Daniel Craig shots, please.
Ta very much
Goldenballs is a toad.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017