wsc

Certainly makes me want to get enmeshed.

Hilarious! Is the ostrich method of undressing? If I can't see me, you can't see me.

OMG! He knows what I'm thinking!

I quoted your post as a way of affirming it and because it inspired my post. I did not do so to counter or object, and apologize if that impression was conveyed.

She'd also have lived if this woman who'd already been photographed tens of thousands of times, posed for just a few more, then rode off quietly into the night. You can't chase a stationary object. They were chasing her because she was running. To keep from having her picture taken?!? Again?!? Why?

In a scene from The Queen, Helen Mirren's Elizabeth II receives Tony Blair to ask him to be Prime Minister and to form a new government "in my name." In their chat, the Queen tells Blair, "You are, after all, my 12th Prime Minister. My first, of course, was Winston Churchill." I took this as her way of telling the new PM, "Don't try too hard to impress me. I've seen better, and I've had the best." In the real world, this woman in a tiara is the only world leader still alive who actually served in World War II. She has weathered wars, crises -national, family, and personal- and met practically every world leader of the past 60 years. As queen, she is kept informed of world events in ways few others are, is no stranger to the antics of rogue nations or the horrors of natural and man-made disasters. And still has a public approval rating the envy of any politician anywhere. My points here are that she's been there, done that, and has more T-shirts than most anybody else. She's experienced, savvy, pragmatic, and flexible. And she is, above all, adept at surviving setbacks. This H&M thing, while perhaps personally sad and annoying, is a blip on her radar screen. She'll get through it, and she'll see The Firm does, too. Her greatest worry of the moment is probably the possibility of losing her husband of over 70 years. But when that happens, whenever it does, she'll get through that, too. Right about now, after some briefing, she's probably saying, "Fine. Next."

Well, see, now I have Starbucks in my nose. I'm something of a Royalist at heart, but even I would buy tickets to that cage match. Thanks for the mental images I must now fight with.

I didn't realize Stupid was an arrestable offense.

Just another typical Saturday night, he thought to himself.

People on the outside looking in might see being a royal as a fairy tale they wish could become true for them; watch almost any holiday Hallmark movie. A privileged life? Yes. Nice homes and cars? Sure. Fame, fortune? Certainly. But I imagine there's also a clear downside to being an HRH. At the highest level, do you realize that Elizabeth (from age 10 on, at least), Charles, or William were probably never asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" There's no point to the question for them. They have no choice in the matter. It would literally take an act of Parliament for them to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, or anything other than Queen or King. Their life was always going to be lived in the spotlight, every word scrutinized, every act talked about, any indiscretion publicized and magnified. And much the same fates befall their children, the royal princes and princesses. It's only when you become a distant, minor royal (read that as "irrelevant," which must do wonders for your sense of self-worth), do you begin to have options for your life's work. But you're still saddled with the fame and the spotlight, but in a way that can probably only cause scandal instead of earn praise. Elizabeth I said of Mary, Queen of Scots, before condemning Mary to death, "You were born too close to my throne," meaning Mary was a threat to Elizabeth's life and crown. In a less somber but perhaps still sad sense, Harry was born too close to the throne, as well. Second son of the Prince of Wales, he and his brother, shortly after Harry's birth, were dubbed "an heir and a spare." Catchy phrasing and typically Brit humor, it may still have somewhat stung the younger son, destined to live in the shadow of his older brother, the heir apparent. Photos of Harry as a child make him look impish, which by some accounts, he was. And adorable, too. Pics of him with his mother melt my heart, and images of his face at Diana's funeral bring tears to my eyes. All that grief and sense of loss played out before the eyes of all the world. Harry had some rough spots on his way to adulthood; the Nazi armband and Naked in Vegas come to mind. But he found himself and came into his own in the army. He wanted to be, and seemed largely to have been treated as, "one of the guys." Before Meghan, this might have been his happiest times. I have always had a soft spot for Harry, a sensitive boy growing into a somewhat wounded man, and have sensed a pain somewhere in his soul. I always had, and still have, reservations regarding Meghan; never saw her as a good fit for Harry or the Firm. But she seems to have made Harry happy, and I very much want that for him. If he needs separation from his royal roots and the bad and bitter memories that come from them, I wish him well. He has every right to follow his course toward a happier life. But he and Meghan seem to be struggling with an unprecedented transition and seem, too, to have formed unrealistic expectations of how it should and will go; keeping royal perks and access to the royal purse aren't realistic. I wish them well, but the interview didn't help. People who want a calmer, quieter, less drama-filled existence generally don't go on Oprah to talk about it, and I doubt the interview was Harry's idea.

"... guess I won't be now." This would be my point. "Not now" and "not yet" don't mean not interested or never. But blocking a potential client probably does. Some might see this as bad for business. As Pretty Woman said to the saleslady, "Big Mistake! Huge!":

I agree, and have always used the Rent.Men site anonymously. Out of curiosity, what are the benefits of membership? And even if a member, is it not possible to still visit the site anonymously? Also, and unanswerable by any but the escort, why would an escort block someone for checking out their profile? Makes no sense to me, and seems a bit petty.

I agree completely regarding the decision, or perhaps more accurately, the policy regarding titles for Archie, and for the increasing number of others that have been or will be relegated to the status of "minor royals." Prince Charles, to a larger extent, and the Queen to a lesser one -she, after all, has less time ahead of her than Charles has ahead of him, and therefore, perhaps, less active interest in a more distant future - are keen to reduce the rolls of those supported by the Sovereign Grant, or the used-to-be-used Civil List, royals supported financially though public monies. As the Queen's children have children, and those children have children, and now even those children are having their own children, the number of members of an extended royal family is growing by leaps and bounds. Boundaries must be set and someone must set them. The most common complaint reported in British opinion polls regarding the Royals is the cost of keeping them in the manner to which we might all like to become accustomed. With William now having three children of his own, the likelihood of any of Harry's children being needed to support royal succession is becoming increasingly remote. This is even more the case for the Queen's other children (Anne, Andrew, and Edward) and their children, and even more so that that, for the Snowden line, descendants of the Queen's deceased sister, Princes Margaret and her husband, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, created Earl of Snowden for his marriage to Margaret. None of the Snowden line have the HRH designation, and the children of Anne and Edward do not use royal titles. Archie, although every ounce a cutie, to be sure, not being named a prince or given the HRH designation, was in line with the policy of limiting membership in the official Royal Family, and not motivated by any prejudice or ill will.

Thank you for the illumination. When I read your post, I realized I had misremembered the quote and searched for the wrong word. Receiving a response, however, led me further down the wrong path. In the case of the young man, however, or one like him -should we ever, in fact, cross paths- I would be as "charming" as possible and quite content to start at the breast before moving on to more meaty fare to play my tune upon his flute.

It's said that music can tame the savage beast. Let me hummm something onfor you.

From your expression, I'm afraid I might have offended you. Can you think of some way I can make it up to you? Please, please, please! Well, I'll just wait down here until you're ready. Just tap my head with your... Well, eh, just tap it.

I'd like this one in the Weekend Package, please.

Or Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan. I was surprised to learn that over 70 countries -some large, some small- drive on the left. In the case of this handsome, muscular hunk, however, I'll take whichever side he offers. I am, however, partial to the front. I hope he has a nice stick for our ride.

The comment on Singer's acting puts me in mind of a great story about Katherine Hepburn. In a biopic of her, Hepburn herself repeated a line from a review of her performance in some New York play, early in Hepburn's career, with the review having been written by the sometimes razor-tongued Dorothy Parker. Miss Parker was quoted as saying, "Miss Hepburn's emotions ran the gamut from A to B." In her account, Hepburn added, in that ever-so-Hepburn inflection, "Funny now. Wasn't then."

The dejection in that face seems to sigh, "For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: 'It might have been!'"

I see escort ads every day for men I would only touch with a ten-foot pole, or ones I'd decline in favor of going home alone to satisfy myself. It seems that, for some, the mere willingness to engage in sexual activity for compensation makes them see themselves as a viable and desirable sex companion, even though -in my eyes, at least- they lack the face, the body, and/or the "equipment" that would be needed to secure my interest. And hardly a day goes by that I don't see a "411 on Whatshisname," linking to an ad, which when seen, makes me cringe and ask "Why? How?" could anyone find this man remotely attractive or desirable. All this simply proves the truth that "nobody is everybody's type, and everybody is somebody's type." And although, with some escorts, I couldn't see an attraction if I tried for a thousand years, it doesn't mean nobody else can or does. And since I'm not being asked to participate, it's really none of my business. And as far as how such men as these -and including the current subject Mateo Blanco- attract enough business to survive, or possibly even thrive, remember that almost 75 million people voted for That Man. So some things simply defy rational explanation or logical understanding. But given the size of the population, the law of large numbers means there may be a market for whatever they're selling. Now then, where did I leave that pole?

Lord, love a duck! And now I envy it, too.

From the pics, I would think he means the times are limited to those hours between his tattoo appointments.

On a related note, I've heard reports that Brodie Sinclair is a perfect asshole. I don't believe it, of course. After all, nobody's perfect.

Saw this photo posted elsewhere with a caption. Searched but couldn't find it, so I'll paraphrase best I can: Dog says: Dude! What the fuck?