Funny Pictures Part IV - Funny Harder

[bitchroast]

lol @ jeff mills grills

expert cob twiddler

On 7/17/2019 at 11:08 AM, prdctvsm said:

 

[MadameChaos]

On 7/8/2019 at 5:41 PM, Joyrex said:

HAHA! sexual

[apriorion]

I don't get it. It that lightbulb thing supposed to be funny? Is it because those are private parts? Why are they lightbulbs? Why are the switches on the faces? Is that how those entities are sexually aroused? Does the designer of this thing think that breasts light up or are activated in the same way penises are? But they're not, right? I don't understand. And it isn't in an amusing way. 

[MadameChaos]

2 minutes ago, apriorion said:

I don't get it. It that lightbulb thing supposed to be funny? Is it because those are private parts? Why are they lightbulbs? Why are the switches on the faces? Is that how those entities are sexually aroused? Does the designer of this thing think that breasts light up or are activated in the same way penises are? But they're not, right? I don't understand. And it isn't in an amusing way. 

If the dick and boobs don't light up, you're doing it wrong.

[apriorion]

Oh. Huh. Okay. But, if illuminated boobs and dicks is how it's done right, then I still fail to see how this is funny. Is this supposed to be like a miniature statue document of sexual arousal? Why would someone make that, given that apparently everyone knows that breasts and penises are supposed to do whatever the equivalent of illumination is supposed to be? Is that what makes it funny? It's funny because almost everyone knows this already? Is it funny because they do it standing up? Is it funny because they are aroused without even touching each other? 

 

 

[MadameChaos]

1 minute ago, apriorion said:

Oh. Huh. Okay. But, if illuminated boobs and dicks is how it's done right, then I still fail to see how this is funny. Is this supposed to be like a miniature statue document of sexual arousal? Why would someone make that, given that apparently everyone knows that breasts and penises are supposed to do whatever the equivalent of illumination is supposed to be? Is that what makes it funny? It's funny because almost everyone knows this already? Is it funny because they do it standing up? Is it funny because they are aroused without even touching each other? 

 

 

It's a British thing.

[apriorion]

Ha. Thanks. 

[Joyrex]

It's just amusing and cute... didn't realize it would set off an in-depth analysis of genital abstraction representation in modern appliances...

[Joyrex]

[Joyrex]

[Braintree]

5 hours ago, apriorion said:

Oh. Huh. Okay. But, if illuminated boobs and dicks is how it's done right, then I still fail to see how this is funny. Is this supposed to be like a miniature statue document of sexual arousal? Why would someone make that, given that apparently everyone knows that breasts and penises are supposed to do whatever the equivalent of illumination is supposed to be? Is that what makes it funny? It's funny because almost everyone knows this already? Is it funny because they do it standing up? Is it funny because they are aroused without even touching each other? 

 

 

This is just like the whoopee cushion sketch from I Think You Should Leave.

[apriorion]

2 hours ago, Joyrex said:

Oh goodness. I hope that is photoshopped. 

Also, I agree with Al Capone about the dog's journey. 

[t yst r]

6 hours ago, Joyrex said:

The way she looks at that horse says it all.

[BUNKUM]

On 7/23/2019 at 2:13 PM, apriorion said:

Oh. Huh. Okay. But, if illuminated boobs and dicks is how it's done right, then I still fail to see how this is funny. Is this supposed to be like a miniature statue document of sexual arousal? Why would someone make that, given that apparently everyone knows that breasts and penises are supposed to do whatever the equivalent of illumination is supposed to be? Is that what makes it funny? It's funny because almost everyone knows this already? Is it funny because they do it standing up? Is it funny because they are aroused without even touching each other? 

 

 

Surely it’s a double entendre about getting turned on. That’s how I saw it 

[Joyrex]

17 minutes ago, BUNKUM said:

Surely it’s a double entendre about getting turned on. That’s how I saw it 

Finally, someone who gets it

[apriorion]

Oh goddammit

I'm dense

sorry guys

[Joyrex]

[Joyrex]

[Joyrex]

[YEK]

[Joyrex]

11 hours ago, yekker said:

I'm not getting it...?

[Nebraska]

[YEK]

3 hours ago, Joyrex said:

I'm not getting it...?

Eh... Just a bunch of geeky guys standing next to their games and not very pretty cheerleaders 

[Joyrex]

23 minutes ago, yekker said:

Eh... Just a bunch of geeky guys standing next to their games and not very pretty cheerleaders 

Okay... I get that - where's the funny part come in?

[apriorion]

Isn't that the picture with Billy Mitchell from the '80s, that guy from "King of Kong"?