Do you mean the mullet tuff boy look, or his looks, in general?
The Full House look, I mean. It's very then. But he's updated himself quite tidily.
I can separate the pretty from both behaviours -- and each of them by itself is enough to make me not a fan. Though the schtupping one is far worse (it could be repaired by her working it out and falling for the friend in some terribly cheesy Lifetime movie way. But I suspect that wasn't the case, and there are a few groupies out there wondering if it was them).
and there are a few groupies out there wondering if it was them
occupational hazard of being a groupie?
The Full House look, I mean. It's very then. But he's updated himself quite tidily.
Oh, yeah. It changes over the course of the series. I never watched it when it was in first run, but I see it with the kids, now.
Though the schtupping one is far worse (it could be repaired by her working it out and falling for the friend in some terribly cheesy Lifetime movie way. But I suspect that wasn't the case, and there are a few groupies out there wondering if it was them).
Well, it's really akin to rape, isn't it? She (assuming she was sober enough to give consent) would have been consenting to be with him, not the friend. Is this more than rumor? Is it something he copped to in an interview or something?
occupational hazard of being a groupie?
Of being a
bad
groupie. I've never had sex with a guy that I couldn't be sure who it was. How could you not notice? But I'm assuming there was something in the Stamos groupie sex that made him think he could get away with it, and he didn't include getting busted in the anecdote.
I keep thinking it's even more important, if you're a groupie, to verify the identity of your partner, but that implies that there are many one on one scenarios in which the identity doesn't matter. And I'm fairly sure those are a minority.
Is it something he copped to in an interview or something?
I'm pretty sure I read it from him.
Ewwww. And the ewww is only slightly mitigated by the fact that he seems to now realize it was a bad thing, but just not enough. And admitting to it in an interview just floors me too much to be able to consider whether or not I could appreciate the candor.
just not enough
Yeah, that's the real kicker -- he
knows
he was screwing her over, but he wouldn't say it so blithely if he had even a glimmering that it was rape.
Coming up on Discovery Channel: "DIY Surgery"
Anybody else actually subscribe to the print version of TV guide? I just got around to looking closely at their new, larger format and...it...really is completely useless.
I mean, it's got the articles, which were sometimes fun to read, but the only reason I ever subscribed was because a) it was more complete then the Globe's or the Herald's listings, and b) so I didn't have to futz around on-line to find out what was going to be on a week ahead of time. This thing doesn't have ANY local listings - you now have to go on-line to get them. That makes it less comprehensive (apart from listings for a few movie channels that TVG was pretty hit or miss on for non-movie stuff anyway) than what the Globe puts out in the Sunday paper.
I'm thinking this could be a major fiasco - maybe more people get it for the articles than I thought, but I also think the people who aren't on-line in any significant capacity still vastly outnumber those of us who are.
Seriously, since they have this weird auto-renew thing, I'm going to have to make an effort to cancel because I see no reason to keep getting this. Unless the on-line version is going pay, I can get anything I'm interested in there from now on.
