bostonman

It's funny. I don't find him even the least bit appealing. That's not to say that others can't, of course. Different strokes...

Actually, I'm more reminded of this song. 
 

I momentarily misread this as 15 guys in one MOUTH...

They really shouldn’t say things like that. I do believe that some people would then continue to leave off their mask IN ORDER TO see if Lupone would  actually stop the show. 

Some of mine have been mentioned - armpits, feet, seeing the outline of a guy's nipples through his shirt. And often, a guy who wears a chain around his neck. 
Baseball being the only sport I really follow, I will say that a guy in baseball gear will do it for me. But also football gear, even though I'm less into the sport itself. 
Thick necks. Intense eyes that "smoulder." A devilish smirk or an irresistible smile. 
Very tall men. (I once dated a guy who was 7'2". And keep in mind that I'm 5'6" lol. Ultimately we weren't compatible enough to last very long, but oh, we had some fun dates and nights!)
Also, with armpits - a guy in a t-shirt with loose sleeves, so that if he holds his arms up in just the right way, you can get a glimpse of the hair. I love that kind of tease. :-)

Yes!!!!

Yes!!!!

Some of mine have been mentioned - armpits, feet, seeing the outline of a guy's nipples through his shirt. And often, a guy who wears a chain around his neck. 
Baseball being the only sport I really follow, I will say that a guy in baseball gear will do it for me. But also football gear, even though I'm less into the sport itself. 
Thick necks. Intense eyes that "smoulder." A devilish smirk or an irresistible smile. 
Very tall men. (I once dated a guy who was 7'2". And keep in mind that I'm 5'6" lol. Ultimately we weren't compatible enough to last very long, but oh, we had some fun dates and nights!)
Also, with armpits - a guy in a t-shirt with loose sleeves, so that if he holds his arms up in just the right way, you can get a glimpse of the hair. I love that kind of tease. :-)

I had an odd experience last night which leads me to think about our curiosities about others having sex. Aside from porn, etc, if you could take a sneak peek at others doing it, would you? Or would you not want to see it? Or would you feel like their privacy is more important than your curiosity?
 
I live on the 3rd floor of a 3-family house, at the end of a street. Beyond the house, visible from my kitchen windows, is a parking lot area, recently redone - I have no idea who's really supposed to be able to park there, but in any case it's usually vacant at night. Last night, as I was about to head to bed, I waked into the kitchen and happened to notice that there was a car, engine running, in the lot, facing my direction. I had to assume that maybe there were 2 people going at it in there, but of course I couldn't see anything. But I looked out for a minute. Then, just a bit curious, I turned off the light to see if I could get a better view. No such luck, but shortly after that, the car started to take off, heading away towards the entrance, then it stopped again. I figured they had seen someone (that is, me) looking, and decided this wasn't safe to do. But after a minute, the car turned around, and came back to the spot it was before, but facing the other way, so the back of the car was facing me. So indeed, maybe they had noticed me, started to run, then decided to try again. Now I was intrigued lol - but obviously I couldn't see anything at all, so there was no reason to keep watch.
 
But then - I came back into the kitchen a minute or two later, in time to see the that a guy had gotten out of the car. (It was a cold night, but ok...) The passenger door was open, and he was facing in towards it. Ok... ...but then I saw his hips begin to thrust a little. Aha! It was hard to tell whether he was getting hand or head, or fucking, but clearly it was sex. The thrusting got faster and harder, and it became clear to me that he was fucking the young lady in the car (I did see her get out of the car later, so I know it was a girl). At this point, I got into high voyeur mode lol - I dared to open the window, and even hike the screen up, to be able to see a bit better. (Remember I'm 3 stories above them.) There wasn't really much to see aside from him moving his hips, but I did hear a bit of grunting as well. He was really seriously going at it, lol. Then, not long after, he pulled away - again, I couldn't see detail, so I can only assume he finished inside her. He zipped up, got back in the driver's seat...she stepped out for a moment then got back in...and they drove away.
 
The funny thing is, I saw so little of the actual sex, but of course my mind was having fun filling in the details. And there was the thrill of having gotten away with seeing it happen. Maybe I felt just a little guilty lol - but hey, it was there to be seen, so why not?
 
Anyone else have an unexpected chance to watch something like that? Especially if you're assuming they don't know you saw them?

Actually, I'm more reminded of this song. 
 

I’m planning to meet him later this summer when he’s in Boston. From chatting with him so far, he seems very friendly and very eager. And with a definite interest in the things I suggested I was into. So far so good. 😁

Yup - yet another first time poster coming out of the blue to defend a very unpopular escort. Just amazing. And not credible. We've seen this happen so many times. 
J.T. is that you? 

I momentarily misread this as 15 guys in one MOUTH...

Even series would be pretty crazy. Then again, give me the right 15 guys and I'd be tempted...

Even series would be pretty crazy. Then again, give me the right 15 guys and I'd be tempted...

I momentarily misread this as 15 guys in one MOUTH...

I momentarily misread this as 15 guys in one MOUTH...

I momentarily misread this as 15 guys in one MOUTH...

I momentarily misread this as 15 guys in one MOUTH...

I, too, prefer my Company to be set in 1970. I think that overarching idea that every show produced has to be "relevant" to our time is rather silly. There's no reason at all that we can't enjoy Company as written, in the time it's set. That said, I think there still are very relevant themes that DO remain for us to look at, so I still don't buy the need to update the piece so much. 
I understand the "biological clock" idea that runs in this production, but that in itself is also a very different story than is in the text. There is never any sense that the original Bobby wants to be a father. I don't think he ever uses the word "family" or thinks about future generations. He's very much a "me generation" bachelor who can't even figure out if or why he needs an emotional connection to a woman beyond the fun of casual relationships. (Or that yeah, he'll settle down eventually like everyone else, "for company" as he suggests - but that time is always in the future, not something he has to commit to yet, no matter what everyone else is saying to him.) So in this version, the text being essentially the same, Bobbie has no way to outwardly express any interest in having kids/family, even though this is the supposed "clock is ticking" reason she feels the pressure to marry, It's a little like a regietheatre opera production where we're being asked to make a lot of leaps that just aren't there. 

I, too, prefer my Company to be set in 1970. I think that overarching idea that every show produced has to be "relevant" to our time is rather silly. There's no reason at all that we can't enjoy Company as written, in the time it's set. That said, I think there still are very relevant themes that DO remain for us to look at, so I still don't buy the need to update the piece so much. 
I understand the "biological clock" idea that runs in this production, but that in itself is also a very different story than is in the text. There is never any sense that the original Bobby wants to be a father. I don't think he ever uses the word "family" or thinks about future generations. He's very much a "me generation" bachelor who can't even figure out if or why he needs an emotional connection to a woman beyond the fun of casual relationships. (Or that yeah, he'll settle down eventually like everyone else, "for company" as he suggests - but that time is always in the future, not something he has to commit to yet, no matter what everyone else is saying to him.) So in this version, the text being essentially the same, Bobbie has no way to outwardly express any interest in having kids/family, even though this is the supposed "clock is ticking" reason she feels the pressure to marry, It's a little like a regietheatre opera production where we're being asked to make a lot of leaps that just aren't there. 

Agreed on the wet teddy bears (wtf??) and frankly all the Liberty ads (Doug and his stupid emu are really wearing thin...) - and the creepy singing hood ornament is, well, creepy. 
The Pete Seeger song ("Hard Times In The Mill") is a classic, and I don't mind hearing it. But to me it doesn't make any sense in relation to the ad. The song *seems* to want to tell us (in this context) that the couple HATES parenthood, comparing it to the drudgery of working at a mill. If so, they really should give their kids to more worthy parents. 

I, too, prefer my Company to be set in 1970. I think that overarching idea that every show produced has to be "relevant" to our time is rather silly. There's no reason at all that we can't enjoy Company as written, in the time it's set. That said, I think there still are very relevant themes that DO remain for us to look at, so I still don't buy the need to update the piece so much. 
I understand the "biological clock" idea that runs in this production, but that in itself is also a very different story than is in the text. There is never any sense that the original Bobby wants to be a father. I don't think he ever uses the word "family" or thinks about future generations. He's very much a "me generation" bachelor who can't even figure out if or why he needs an emotional connection to a woman beyond the fun of casual relationships. (Or that yeah, he'll settle down eventually like everyone else, "for company" as he suggests - but that time is always in the future, not something he has to commit to yet, no matter what everyone else is saying to him.) So in this version, the text being essentially the same, Bobbie has no way to outwardly express any interest in having kids/family, even though this is the supposed "clock is ticking" reason she feels the pressure to marry, It's a little like a regietheatre opera production where we're being asked to make a lot of leaps that just aren't there. 

I, too, prefer my Company to be set in 1970. I think that overarching idea that every show produced has to be "relevant" to our time is rather silly. There's no reason at all that we can't enjoy Company as written, in the time it's set. That said, I think there still are very relevant themes that DO remain for us to look at, so I still don't buy the need to update the piece so much. 
I understand the "biological clock" idea that runs in this production, but that in itself is also a very different story than is in the text. There is never any sense that the original Bobby wants to be a father. I don't think he ever uses the word "family" or thinks about future generations. He's very much a "me generation" bachelor who can't even figure out if or why he needs an emotional connection to a woman beyond the fun of casual relationships. (Or that yeah, he'll settle down eventually like everyone else, "for company" as he suggests - but that time is always in the future, not something he has to commit to yet, no matter what everyone else is saying to him.) So in this version, the text being essentially the same, Bobbie has no way to outwardly express any interest in having kids/family, even though this is the supposed "clock is ticking" reason she feels the pressure to marry, It's a little like a regietheatre opera production where we're being asked to make a lot of leaps that just aren't there. 

Yup - yet another first time poster coming out of the blue to defend a very unpopular escort. Just amazing. And not credible. We've seen this happen so many times. 
J.T. is that you?