Oh yeah. He looks good in a thigh holster, though.
Natter 68: Bork Bork Bork
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Guh.
I just looked up my first real date (the unreal dates were the ones I didn't realise I was on--I just let him take me out, pay for everything, and buy me secondhand books of poetry so we could discuss orgasm symbology). He looks just the same, and seems to still be doing more of what he was doing then.
He brought me a rose, which turned me right off (at the time--don't mind so much now), and called me his Nubian Princess, which meant I was never getting over the rose.
On today's xkcd, Zombie Marie Curie returns with advice for today's young women....
There are multiple Google logos today. And they are cute.
Leafing through the mental rolodex of lovers, I can safely say none looked even remotely like a) any family member or b) each other.
Ditto this. I do have a type but none of my lovers have matched it. Well, the male ones. The female ones have.
My female type is pretty specific -- Carla Gugino or Mila Kunis. Or a combination thereof.
Not familiar with the artist Google is paying tribute to. Maybe I should Google that. [link]
My female type is typically aggro. Or Christina Hendricks.
I have many types. The women strayed furthest from the ideal, though.
N probably matched closest to any of my female ideals. And I am constantly drawn to women who look like she did back in '96, when she still had those long, glorious curls. (I've seen pictures of her online, and she's still just mind-numbingly gorgeous, but in a more modern way.)
Paul's the least close to my physical type of anyone I've been with for more than an evening. I mean, he's pretty, but in a softer way than my usual OH HAI, CHEEKBONES! aspect and far hairier than I tend to like in men.
Honestly, I think I tended to go for men based on the "would we make pretty children?" test. Paul clearly passed that in practice.