I love your dick. It’s beautiful even when it’s soft. And I love your arse and your thighs and your big shoulders and your arms and – oh God, everything.

But there’s something better than seeing you naked – seeing you almost naked.

Guys in pants

You’re slightly hotter with your pants on. Not because I don’t want to see your dick, but because I really, really do.

You standing in front of me, walking around the bed, in tight boxers that cup the bulge of your dick, makes me wetter than even the sight of your dick can make me. Because I know that it’s there – I can see the outline, temptingly close. Because I want to watch your boxers stretch as you grow harder. I want to put my mouth on the fabric and suck you in, wetting the cotton with my spit and feeling you grow thicker as you strain to get out. And if I’m lucky, I want to feel you twitch, and taste precum leaking through.

It’s hot because you’re not letting me see your dick.

Guys naked from the waist down

One word: boywanking. At University a boy I was deeply hot for used to sit in front of his laptop in a t-shirt in the morning. Not quite wanking, but not quite not wanking either. He’d shift in his seat, and I’d look at him from my position in the bed across the room. I’d pretend to be asleep as I watched his arse pressed against the back of the chair. I could see the slight curve of his hips, and watch his hands – one gently brushing the trackpad to mouse over a page, open and close browser windows, and the other holding his semi-hard cock as he waited for me to announce I was awake.

If I didn’t get so wet looking at it I could watch it for hours, just thinking about the cold chair against his arse and the weight of his cock in his hand.

Guys in not-quite-clothes

By this I mean primarily pyjamas, dressing gowns, towels. Anything that’s temporary and relaxed.  Clothes you’d wear sitting on the sofa when no one’s around except me. Private clothes, in which I can imagine you alone, casually puling the drawstring on your pyjama bottoms and sliding your hand inside to have a solitary, functional wank in front of the TV. Clothes that – if I’m lucky – still carry the scent of spunk and the filthy, idle promise that you’ll let me bury my face in them.

Not onesies, though. Even I have limits.

Guys draped in bedsheets

This one’s a bit of a cheat really – you’re technically naked in this scenario even if you’re not wholly visible. But crucially lying underneath a bedsheet or duvet is still ever so slightly hotter than lying fully exposed on top of it. Why? Because what I really want is to be unsure whether you have an erection or not. I want the satisfaction of reaching for your dick and either finding it hard or finding it about to grow hard in my hand.

I want to guess. I want you to roll over, sleepily, and let me strain to see whether your dick is pushing out the bedsheet. And then I want to walk over to where you’re lying, just as you wake up, and sit my fully-clothed self on top of you, squirming to feel your cock pushing back up against me. And I want to feel it twitch as I kiss you good morning.

As you’ve probably noticed, there’s been renewed hoo-ha recently about the presence of tits on page three.

Some people are campaigning against it, and I can see why. It’s a bloody odd thing for a newspaper to print, it makes the assumption that there are vast armies of men who won’t buy newspapers unless there’s something in there to give them an erection, and it perpetrates the myth that women are sexual only in so much as they have lovely tits to look at.

On the other hand some people I greatly respect and admire have denounced the campaign, saying that – among other things – there are worrying tendencies to slut shame the young women who pose topless, and what the fuck is wrong with naked bodies anyway?

All good points – there’s clearly a problem in here somewhere. I’m going to say at this point that I personally hate bans. While it’s clearly necessary to outlaw certain things, banning can occasionally prove to be the last resort of the unimaginative arsehole. There are often better solutions that don’t involve curtailing people’s behaviour.

So I’m not going to suggest that we ban the tits. I’m going to suggest that we add to them, by including dicks on page three as well.

The page three problem

The main problem with page three, and the reason that people want to ban it, is that it encourages us to view women as sexual objects. On the other hand, as Hayley Stevens argues, perhaps this argument itself is perpetrating negative attitudes – that you’re useless to society if you take your clothes off, that you being naked betrays other women, etc.

Both of these issues are focused on women. Let’s be clear – no one I’ve read has suggested that seeing a naked man will send all women into a misandric, frothing, abusive frenzy. Or that men being photographed taking their clothes off might be betraying the brotherhood.

So why is it specifically naked women that are the problem? It surely can’t be that, as well as having tits, women also have magical and hidden society-altering powers that are involuntarily activated as soon as they take their tops off. No – it’s not that women are somehow different, it’s that they’re the only bloody ones we see naked.

A parade of naked men

I’m not saying that we never see naked men. You only need to look at covers of things such as Attitude to get a really good see of a naked man. Occasionally I’ll spend upwards of two minutes in WH Smith seeing the naked men, with a thin string of drool running down my chin.

But the reason I’ll dwell on these pictures is because they’re a special treat.

Naked men are not a part of our culture in the same way that naked women are. Their dicks don’t come out on saucy postcards, they are less frequently employed as strippers, in films their good bits are usually hidden from the camera, and in posters and advertisements their cocks are usually well and truly covered. There are a few notable exceptions, such as the famous David Beckham package, which caused an appropriately well-endowed storm at the time, but it’s exceptional because it’s rare. As one who looks out for it on an almost constant basis, I can assure you that male nudity is disproportionately scarce. Most importantly, it’s completely absent from page three.

Solution: put dicks on page three

So, here’s my proposal, and it’s a disappointingly simple one, motivated in equal parts by my insatiable horniness and my sense of fair play: put cocks on page three. In fact not just the cocks – the whole body. Stick naked men on page three too.

I’m unlikely to open The Sun, but if I did I’d like to see Tony, 23, from Bradford telling me that although GDP has dropped by 0.5% he feels reassured that the Treasury has a plan for recovery. And more importantly, I could look at his dick. A nice, long, thick, photogenic dick. Not erect, of course, it’s a family paper.

You could alternate the days, with a man one day and a woman the next or even – just to blow everyone’s minds – put male and female models next to each other in the same picture. It would at least give the whole charade some semblance of realism. After all, men and women are often naked together, but it’s bloody unusual for a lone girl to spontaneously get her baps out while standing awkwardly next to a rose bush.

Should we ban tits on page three?

Look, I know it sounds facetious, and I realise that I’m a horrible coward for ducking controversy and not putting a tick in the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ box, but I’m not entirely sure I understand the question yet.

Do I object to newspapers publishing naked people? Not if they’re sold responsibly. Do I object to tits in papers? Maybe – but not because I object to tits, I object to inequality.

Right now I think it’s great that we’re having this discussion, and it’s important that people are aware of why this is causing such a stink. Whether you think it’s OK or not, I hope you’d agree that we should definitely be talking about it. Because when national newspapers dedicate an entire page just to a pert-breasted Tanya, 19, from Birmingham, not even mentioning it would be fucking odd indeed.

We need to think about this. We need to think about why we might object to nakedness in papers, and what we think about women, and whether we’d be having this discussion at all if the sexes were reversed. Why when it comes to sexual content women are rarely seen as the consumers instead of the consumed. Whether printing tits actually does anything to increase newspaper sales. Whether as a nation we’re demeaned, repressed, over-sexualised, or all of the above.

It’s a thorny issue indeed. Girlonthenet, 28, from London, says: “I don’t know much about the objectification of women, but how about you print some lovely dicks for me to look at while I mull it over?”

If you would like to join my campaign, please express your vigorous support in the comments below, or tweet/facebook this blog to make it clear to your friends just how much you like equality and/or cock.

Somewhere in the world there exists a blurry night-shot video of me sucking a guy’s dick. Don’t hit google, you’ll never find it. The guy who filmed it, whose dick starred in it, is not an arsehole. I’ve had odd moments of panic when I wonder if his computer ever got stolen, or if the tape from the camera was mislaid and picked up later by a curious friend, but I know with utter conviction that he’d never have deliberately shown it to anyone without my consent.

Kate Middleton’s tits

This week some tawdry celeb mags have published pictures of Kate Middleton sunbathing topless.

The pictures (for I have seen them – they are on the internet) are nothing special. They are exactly what you’d expect them to be. They are not newsworthy, or shocking – they’re unnecessary, and the taking of them was hurtful and intrusive and offensive. The buying of them equally so.

And yet I looked. I looked because I was curious. Everyone’s talking about these pictures. I wanted to confirm my suspicions that the fuss was about nothing, and that publishing them was something I could easily condemn.

“Oh, how awful. They invaded this poor woman’s privacy for nothing. How disgusting they are. I’m so horrified I’ll shut this web page in a minute.”

I fucking disgust myself.

Because so rarely in life do I do things that I think are genuinely wrong. I’m happy batting away the judgment of other people when they call me a pervert or a slut, because I have the moral high ground. I usually have enough ethical awareness to avoid doing the things that – although tempting – are actually morally wrong.

And yet I looked at Kate Middleton’s tits.

Prince Harry’s bollocks

A similar dilemma arose during the recent ‘Prince Harry gets naked in Vegas’ shock. It turns out that a young, attractive man got naked in his hotel room with some people.

The resulting storm that brewed was both disgusting and weird. While Clarence House played whack-a-mole with the images that had popped up online, individuals were loudly asserting their right to see the pictures. “It’s a public interest issue,” they said “We pay for him,” they continued. And then, flailing vaguely around the issue of just why, exactly, someone they pay for should be compelled to let you see his bollocks they added “it’s a security issue.”

Well, no. It’s not, is it? Perhaps there are security issues associated with what happened, but the pictures themselves are not a security issue. No one is more or less likely to assassinate Harry on the basis that there is photographic evidence that he has testicles. The fact that the pictures were taken might form the basis of a story about security surrounding the prince, but the actual pictures themselves add nothing to that debate.

Nevertheless, a debate was had. Justifications were made, counterarguments swept under the table, and the prince’s own assertion that – you know – he’d rather we didn’t all cop a look at him in the nude went unheeded. The Sun knocked the whole thing out of the park with a grand announcement that it would publish the pictures because it was the ‘right thing’ to do.

Hooray for press freedom! Hooray for the Sun! Hooray for them posting naked pictures of someone without his consent! What larks, eh? Who wouldn’t shell out 20-odd pence to have a quick glimpse of the prince’s privates?

Well, I guess nice people. People nicer than me.

I’m going to put aside the spurious debate about press freedom for a moment and talk about ethics. Because hey – I’m not a fan of banning people from doing things if at all possible. If I were ruler of the world, I wouldn’t want to have to issue a diktat saying ‘newspapers cannot print pictures of members of the Royal Family in the nude.’

So let’s instead talk in more general terms: is there ever a compelling reason for a national newspaper to publish naked pictures or videos of someone without their consent?

I don’t think there is. Moreover, I don’t think there’s an honest justification for anyone to publish naked pictures of someone without their consent.

Tulisa’s blow job

A few months ago a video was released of FHM’s sexiest woman – Tulisa – giving an ex-boyfriend a blow job. Blogs were ringing with the sound of gleeful dudes rubbing one out, frowning moralists calling Tulisa ‘loose’, and bitchy women criticising her blow-job technique. Someone suggested to me that I jump on the bandwagon, grab myself some cheap SEO traffic, and review the video.

As you can probably tell, I didn’t. The idea of pointing and laughing at someone doing something that they clearly believed was private gives me the shivers. With the certainty that comes from knowing I never want my blurry night-shot blow job video to go online, I know that posting sexual pictures of someone without their consent is unethical and wrong.

Whatever you think of some of the more controversial things I’ve written, I have very strong views on consent, and ultimately I don’t want to be part of anything that tramples all over it. So even if you’re saying that Tulisa’s sexy, Kate’s an English Rose, even if you’re saluting Prince Harry and calling him a ‘top lad’ for playing naked games in his hotel room, the fact remains that he’s made it pretty clear he doesn’t want those pictures published. So we shouldn’t publish them.

But I looked

Here’s the tricky part. How do we ethically justify the fact that, although we’re disgusted by the idea of releasing hot blow job videos, or tit shots, or blurry mobile-phone snaps of a prince frolicking in a hotel room, some of us are happy to watch those things when they appear? The answer is we don’t – we can’t. There’s no need for me ever to see this stuff – it will add nothing of value to my life.

The people who publish this shit are hideous. The people who either take photos without consent or release photos without consent are doubly hideous. But if we’re completely honest with ourselves we’re not much better.

No matter what our reasons for looking, we are still disgusting. What makes me angry is that not only do these situations demonstrate how pathetic I am as an individual, but how pathetic we are as a species. We cannot bear to admit that we googled the pictures out of cheap curiosity or lust. Instead we cite press freedom, security concerns, or the hazards of celebrity.

But the very fact that we want an excuse shows we know deep down that seeking out these pictures might not be our most glorious moment – that we’re crossing a moral line. So let’s drop the excuses altogether, shall we? We can admit that we want to look whilst trying to avoid looking, and while this internal battle rages we can stop lying to ourselves and everyone else.

Let’s not invent bullshit excuses to try and wriggle out of guilt. Accept the guilt. You’re not looking at Prince Harry’s bollocks because you’re a freedom fighter. You’re looking because you’re disgusting. We’re disgusting.

I am disgusting.

Clothes should technically be unimportant – boring, unappealing bits of fabric that we wear to protect our modesty and stay warm. Except, of course, they aren’t. We wear them because we want to look good – we choose things that hide our ugly bits and show off our best bits.

Someone recently asked me why women’s clothes were so much more sexual than men’s, and whether I was disappointed that men’s clothes didn’t show them off in such a sexual way. My response was a surprised guffaw – men’s clothes aren’t sexual? Have you ever seen any men?

Sure, it might not be as obvious to a straight guy (or a gay lady) that the things men wear accentuate their beautiful bits, and there are fewer items for men that are as screamingly sexual as, say, a beautiful corset on a curvy lady. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t sexual at all – some men wear clothes that are so hot I have to bite my fist to restrain myself from biting through the fabric and nuzzling enthusiastically at whatever I find beneath.

Fashion itself is shit, of course – fashion is the art of persuading people they are bad, wrong and ugly in order to sell them expensive things they don’t really need. But in the meantime we have clothes – clothes from 20 years ago, clothes from the back of your wardrobe, clothes that you’ve just dredged up out of the laundry pile – any of these things can be beautiful if they show you off right.

So, eschewing fashion itself and concentrating on ‘clothes that make me slick my knickers’, here is the GOTN Boys’ Collection.

Tight t-shirts

Yes. Yes please. Black or white, ideally, but any colour’s probably good. I like seeing the shape of your arms stretching the fabric, and exactly where your nipples are. This item of clothing comes with a warning, though: if you push the sleeves up to your shoulders I will want to lick you on the tube.

Jeans that fall off your hips a bit

I don’t mean ‘jeans that defy gravity by hanging just below your buttocks’ – this is too extreme. There is nothing for me to imagine. I’ll probably have a quick look if you have a particularly shapely backside, but the mystery is gone so there’s not much for my mind to dwell on.

But jeans that are just a bit loose? Jeans that hang low enough that when you stretch I can see the dark trail of hair pointing down towards your dick? Jeans that show off the top of your hipbones and the dimples just above your arse in the back? Get some, and watch me get wide-eyed and dribbly.

Uniforms

Oh God what a horrible cliché I am. Still – show me a man in an army uniform and I’ll show you how quickly I can drop to my knees.

Tight cotton boxers

I love boy’s pants – as a girl I’d give my right arm to wear them. Not just ones I’ve bought straight from the shop, you understand, but ones taken from the bedroom floor of a guy I’ve just fucked. Pants stretched to just your shape, with that delicious smell of sweat and precome.

But the best thing about these tight cotton boxers is the bulge your dick makes when you’re wearing them. The way it stretches the fabric when you get hard, and the ease with which I can slide the elastic to just below your balls, cupping everything nicely as I run my hand over your solid cock.

Watches

OK, girlonthenet, you have officially gone mad: watches cannot be sexy.

Au contraire. You know where you wear a watch? On your wrist, at the end of your arm, near your hand. Hands that are beautiful, arms that are beautiful, and – ultimately – hands that you wank with.

If you wear a watch I will be unable to look at it without imagining what it looks like on the wrist attached to the hand that’s tightly gripping your red-raw, rock-solid dick. I don’t care what the time is, I care about what you look like when you’re wanking. The flexing tendons in your wrist, the frantic rubbing, the pained and desperate furrowing of your brow, your thick fingers squeezing the last drops of spunk out of your twitching dick.

Nice jeans, tight t-shirts and clinging pants will highlight the pretty things about you, but ultimately I’m a simple creature – the quickest way to get my attention is to make me think about you wanking.