Never again!
I mean…um…Of course not!
:: sighing ::
I’m sending somebody over with a universal STD cure. Again. This is your last freebie.
I’m going to try this. I’ll report back.
As to the OP- the guy does have a certain “bad boy” quality to him, which *can *be sexy, in the right circumstances. However, he also has a certain “wasting away from AIDS” quality to his face, which is never sexy. So, no.
Feel free to look at his Facebook page, which is viewable to the public. From this page, at least, he seems relatively normal and likeable.
I think it’s hard to say you’d sleep with someone just from seeing their picture. The unlikeliest-looking men can be hugely attractive to women through other qualities…you really never know.
Second that.
I still make the mistake occasionally of seeing an ugly guy with a beautiful women and think “How did he get her?!” when I know from experience that lots of other factors can completely override looks for women.
I’ve known 3 or 4 guys in my life who could go from club to club kissing lots of women and take home a girl every night if they wanted to. And honestly they are nothing to look at. One even has teeth like Quark.
And there can be a momentum with these things. If a guy beds a lot of women and keeps on good terms with them, he’ll get introduced (and recommended, deliberately or not) to others. He’ll be seen with women all over him, which will tend to make him look more attractive to other women.
Meanwhile the rest of us are in Catch-22-ville…
No, I wouldn’t, not now - bearded and overly tattooed men are not my type. But, two years and several hundred drunken nights ago, I might have, if he’d talked the right game. I may not have been very ‘prolific’ back then, but I also wasn’t very discriminating. And often, I wasn’t sober enough to be careful, either.
Straight dude here so, obviously no. As an academic matter, though, the ink and bald head w/ pony tail suggest someone with a personality type I would be unlikely to befriend–inasmuch as appearances indicate the person beneath.
If I met this look as a stranger I suppose it’s possible my prejudice could prevent me getting to know a deeply thoughtful, well-read man of the world. But I think it’s more likely he’s a self-absorbed punk. Or clueless about what people read into appearances.
Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Sparta any more.
Here’s one old fag who has better taste than that. Thanks, you (unmentionable body part).
Roddy
I am sorry if I offended anyone’s sensibilities. Clearly I did not mean any of you, or the bars you hang in. I just meant every town or city seems to have a couple of dives, where the damaged collect, and that they are very easy targets for this sort of fiend. Just trying to put 300 into an easily doable context.
If I was too harsh I apologize, I was only trying to make a point.
You’re just not going to the right kinds of bars, that’s all.
If I really wanted my revenge, I would point out to a certain Doper your use of “disabled” as an example of the disenfranchised, or an easy mark. Then you’d get what’s comin’ to ya!
Truly, your apology rings a little flat. “Too harsh”? Here’s how you might have made exactly the same (valid) point without unnecessarily specific and offensive examples:
Very likely all 300, were in some bar, half drunk, at closing time. Looks have nothing to do with it, nor does smooth or personality. He just needs to target the easy marks, the desperate and needy.
See? No-one is offended. Or at least no-one is likely to come in and say “Hey, I’m desperate and needy, and even I have better taste than that!”.
Roddy
This exactly. There are plenty of after hours bars in any big city where it’s very easy to hook up if that’s your goal.
Hey, elbows, did you mean to type “old fags” in your post? Given the tone of the rest of it I took that as a typo for “old hags.” If so, might save you some hassle to clear that up.
As for the subject of the OP, I’ll join the ranks of the unskeptical. Lord knows there’s no lack of hedonists with low standards.
“booya! Let’s get it on!” is going to have me laughing all day. I so want for that to work, somewhere, because it’s hysterical.
As to the OP: no. Not my type, even without the HIV and sadism and all that. And I’m married. And if I weren’t, I don’t think I’d be up for casual sex/one night stands anyway.
No, I did say Old Fags, and it is what I meant. I apologized for it. I’m a little desensitized to this phrase as a have a couple of good friends who self identify this way, toss the phrase off lightly. We use it often, in conversation among ourselves. And clearly, that’s where it should remain. (That’s not an excuse, just an explanation.) There is no excuse, there was no need to make my point so harshly, hence the apology.
If he had sex with men as well as women, and prior to November of 1987 (when I became monogamous) . . . then there’s a chance I already had sex with him.