Pipe For Two

[anotherbob]

Plus with two puffers, it'll be nearly impossible not to smoke way too hot.

I think that's the point. Clearly tall guy is punishing the short guy. Probably for being so short.

 

[makhorkasmoker]

I like pics like this. It shows how Men were, in some ways, so much more free back in the day

 

[anotherbob]

honestly

I like pics like this. It shows how Men were, in some ways, so much more free back in the day

not sure how you get that from that picture. Or maybe I don't read what kind of free you mean. To me it just looks like an attempt at making a goofy picture with two guys that look very stiff.

 

[TheIronMonkey]

honestly

not sure how you get that from that picture. Or maybe I don't read what kind of free you mean. To me it just looks like an attempt at making a goofy picture with two guys that look very stiff.

Maybe they're very stiff below the picture frame, not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[makhorkasmoker]

honestly

not sure how you get that from that picture. Or maybe I don't read what kind of free you mean. To me it just looks like an attempt at making a goofy picture with two guys that look very stiff

I mean free to do a gag--or indeed any kind of show--without the sexual interpretation overwhelming all others in a significant portion of the audience.

 

[Pipingntrucking]

Funny thing is the act of smoking a pipe in my native language can be transformed to the act of felatio, so that's the standard joke when i'm walking out with my pipe on my work lunchbreak. So yes it could be a some kind of gay activity in Dutch.

I figured that would be reserved for cigars.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

 

[DanWil84]

I figured that would be reserved for cigars.

Depends if you like donkey dick sizes, having a lancero sized one is only a good thing if it is a cigar.

 

[anotherbob]

I mean free to do a gag--or indeed any kind of show--without the sexual interpretation overwhelming all others in a significant portion of the audience.

who knows. The things that signal that kind of assumption change over time, but that certainly was a thing back then too. A good example would be the career of Franklin Pangborn.

 

[anotherbob]

Maybe they're very stiff below the picture frame, not that there's anything wrong with that.

they might also not have legs at all.

 

[makhorkasmoker]

who knows. The things that signal that kind of assumption change over time, but that certainly was a thing back then too. A good example would be the career of Franklin Pangborn.

I think the "sissy" character is another issue. The documentary "The Celluloid Closet" has a nice section on that. The sissy was definitely a sort of "code" much of the audience understood. I'm talking about stuff like in the OP's gag pic-- depictions of physical contact between men back then.

As this is a pipes forum, I'll use this example: I often see classic films where a male cigarette smoker will get a light off another guy's pipe. To do this, the pipe smoker will leave the pipe in his mouth, puffing to get the ember going. The cigarette smoker sticks the tip of his cig into the bowl, and sucks. For a long moment they're head to head, often with their hands touching--to shield the wind, to hold the pipe steady--and it seems totally symbolic to me (living in the time and culture I live in), and I think it WAS symbolic, but so far as I can judge from the context and especially the characters, it's usually a symbol of a male bond, not necessarily anything sexual. And I think: wow, they could actually do that back then and the audience would understand (and not misunderstand)! Amazing!