Categories
"vintage" porn stars

jim & chuck

OMG! I want Chuck’s shorts, his hairy back….

can anyone identify what it says on his shorts?

9 replies on “jim & chuck”

I think it’s NPSL, probably for the 1967 outdoor soccer league, the National Professional Soccer League, unless this is as late as 1984 (I don’t know these performers), when there was an indoor National Professional Soccer League from 1984-2001.

From these picture angles, you can’t tell that “Jim Craig”, is actually Big Max aka Sam Pasco aka Mike Spanner. Why so many aliases? He actually has two profiles on GEVI. Woody is wonderful, but he seems to think that Jim Craig and Big Max, are actually two different people. Go figure.

You know what? It wasn’t until recently, that I figured out that Chuck Stewart aka Chuck Woods, is the same guy from the 1977 porn magazine by John Gamble called, “Manhandlers # 1”. Thank you Buck Naked! You’ve posted from this hot publication as well.

We can agree to disagree. I know you love mustaches, but I think Chuck looks so much cuter, without facial hair. I would also suggest he get little waxing, to get rid of his unibrow, and get a better haircut.

Other than that, he’s actually pretty adorable – that cleft chin! Yeah, I would describe him as being a stud-muffin, while we’re on the subject.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-igsXbCQ-LKU/WLwCIBV_ABI/AAAAAAAAtHc/iotXD2EJBL8opqOmkvoLfmbz8yhU5mA3QCLcB/s1600/Manhandlers1-019.jpg

Before I give you the full link, let me highlight this picture also. I can’t resist raunchy porn, conveying warmth. It both moves, and stimulates me. Big Max has a nice dick. Chuck Stewart has a nice ass.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RX0R2ciXxFA/WLwCJbxv2KI/AAAAAAAAtIc/lKggvMfCA1QpHVctys5WI3jQqR6PuIV0wCLcB/s1600/Manhandlers1-043.jpg

Okay, here’s the full link. Scroll all the way down to Sunday, March 5, 2017. Wow, it looks like Buck Naked, scanned the whole magazine! I know we both can appreciate that.

http://retrostuds.blogspot.com/search/label/MANHANDLERS

I can’t help being Queer Eye for the Porn Guy. Go ahead and call me a pissy, make-over queen. But even you have to acknowledge, that there is such a thing, as too much hair. Oy! The picture that Woody uses for Chuck Stewart/Woods’ GEVI profile isn’t the least bit flattering. His hair is piled on so thick, that it looks like a wig. Did it belong to James Brown? : )

https://www.gayeroticvideoindex.com/S/7/58097.html

I stand by my previous comments and advice. Just call me Pygmalion ; )

i don’t agree to that! and no, i don’t know about this “too much hair” thing you mention – what is that? I LOVE Chuck’s backhair! i am more critical of bad haircuts, and yeah, the one from GEVI isn’t so great – but the body hair?? delicious!

oh, and I did choose these two photos on purpose for “hiding” BIG MAX – I am currently quite fascinated with Man’s Image photography – and of course how many mislabeled auctions there are on Ebay – like the one I posted earlier of Matt Harper where it say’s “1976 Man’s Image” right on the photo, but he sells it as COLT.

I take it you like werewolf movies. Just kidding! What I meant is too much hair on the face, or on the head. Either of the two, can bury a guy’s attractiveness. Why cover up dimples, a cleft chin, a wide sensual mouth, or a strong jawline? I do acknowledge that some men look good, with or without facial hair (Ledermeister, George Payne, Giorgio Canali, etc.). And yes, I do think that the hair on Chuck’s back and ass, is rather endearing. Woof! But the unibrow, has got to go! ; )

actually yes – when i was a kid I LOVED Werewolf movies – and I do usually prefer facial hair to clean-shaven (if i ever posted selfies anymore, y’all would see a bushy grey beard!) but its true many men with good faces look quite good both ways.

Jim Craig is not the same guy in the second pic with Chuck,while he is standing up,wearing shorts. The second guy is too thin and look at the ring on his finger. Also one has a jock strap the other briefs. loved Chuck from “Hot Flashes” wondered if did more films.

I am intrigued, but not convinced. different shorts are easy to account for, they may have changed clothes, and the ring may have been taken off for the other photographs… more importantly, I am unable to find Chuck in pics with anyone else – in fact, the brochures I look at always have him pair with Jim, never alone – doesn’t mean you are wrong, just that we haven’t definitively (to me) proven one way or the other

Leave a Reply to Parisian Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.