I was slightly disappointed that the original Youtube title was misleading. Clearly the ants are being rubbed in his penis, not vice versa. I was expecting to see a man put his penis in an ants' nest but this will do.

I can't imagine being even slightly disappointed by this.

@OZ

this vid even delivers to the blind.

You do know I was being sarcastic, right?

You never know 'round these parts.

Although it WOULD have been pretty amazing if he had just laid down on an ant nest and stuck it in.

Unfortunately.

Also an exciting opportunity to finally make "Also His Balls Are On Fire" tag active! It's been a long six years..

You wonderful man

this is way more feel good than E.T. could ever hope to be.

This week on "What Would You Do.."

The traditional Thai androgyne.

Actually, you know what, you might be right. Due to the editing, we have no way of knowing whether the ant-covered branch shown in the beginning is the same as the branch that is being shoved into our hero's speedo. What's more, if you slow down the video between 0:37 and 0:40 - when the branch is carefully administered to his cock - you cannot see even a single ant. The leaves appear suspiciously bare.

I also can't see any ants on his body. While much of the allegedly-infested area is hidden behind a censor block (thereby precluding any comprehensive study of his penis), one would expect to see at least a few stray ants crawling around on his belly or upper thigh.

he isn't even taiwanese ffs!

Oh. Well, that part checks out: he's Thai, from Thailand. Not meant to be Taiwanese, despite the fact that this clip is hosted by TomoNews (a subsidiary of the Taiwan-based Next Media Animation).

Still fake as hell, though.

How dare you

Do you really think it's fake? I was just kidding TBH

I know you were kidding, but I decided to check into your claim just on a lark... and, well, check the time stamp I mentioned! 0:37 to 0:40. You can see it for yourself; not one single ant, either on the branch or on his body afterwards.

It's true, there are no ants on his body at :37 (which is before they put ants on him) nor are there ant visible on the part of the branch visible in shot, which is the opposite side from the spot where the ants are working on eating what looks like some kind of caterpillar nest.

Columbo: A Case of Ants

No, by "ants on his body" I'm talking about AFTER the branch is inserted, i.e. everything from 0:40 on. I think that meaning was clear in my two initial posts, but may not have been clear in my most recent; if not, then I apologize.

As for the ants being "on the other side", yes, I think the conceit of the filmmakers is that the ants were concentrated on the other side. But it's not just a matter of seeing far fewer ants than expected; there are literally no ants to be seen, anywhere. Even if the bulk of the ants were occupied on the other side of the branch, branches and leaves are thin, three-dimensional objects; some ants would be crawling on the "backs" of the leaves, and at least a few should be visible. They are not. In fact, there is n̲o̲ ̲v̲i̲s̲i̲b̲l̲e̲ ̲e̲v̲i̲d̲e̲n̲c̲e̲ ̲a̲t̲ ̲a̲l̲l̲ that the ants were actually on the branch when it was rubbed on the man's penis (save for a couple frames right at the beginning, where it almost looks like the branch might have a caterpillar nest - but no ants! - and a couple more frame later on, where he's slapping his body and a handful of black dots appear around his belly fat; most likely film noise, not ants)

You clearly specified ":37 to :40" I request a mistrial.