stowe1
Ye Olde Curmudgeon
I have never really subscribed to the belief that you should only make good comments because there are legitimate reasons for observational criticism. Erik, you say you have always been told that if you can't say anything good about something don't say anything at all - well does that apply equally to people? I believe you can be critical of someone's performance without attacking him personally. But for much of his post, rrj did just the opposite. If he thinks Jimmy's performance is boring that's one thing. Comparing him to Santorum is the lowest of indignities. But to say Jimmy has a low IQ and is sociopathic is despicable and wrong and an offense not only to the dignity of the forum, but also, and most importantly, to Jimmy himself. If you can only engage in "ad hominem" attacks THEN say nothing at all. Moreover, rrj says that only members of the forum who agree with his views on Jimmy have the gravitas to make reasoned judgments. Well I'll put my gravitas and reasoning powers up to his anytime and he has insulted any number of forumites some of whom are dear friends who post continually with gravitas and well-reasoned points of view. To: RRJ, differing views on this forum are our way of life. But we tend to disagree agreeably without insult to each other, the actors, or management. And we frown on "ad hominem" attacks on any individual. Obviously this is a free speech forum and so you can post whatever you want subject to some discretion of the forum administrator. However, if you continue to post such despicable comments I'm afraid your posts will not be taken seriously by most members, what you think of as your gravitas and reasoned judgments to the contrary notwithstanding.
Mikey, I also thought I was done, along with you and our fellow Jimmy friends, having to deal with people vilifying our young man. But this one was beyond the pale, and I could not just let it pass without a comment, one with gravitas and is well-reasoned, I hope!!
Tampa, my dear friend, I actually agree with you about both model's severe short hair cuts, as I am a child of the 60's where long hair on cute boys was all the rage.
Jimmy looked at his best in my opinion, when he let his hair grow out a bit, but why does Chad get the pass on hair styles, when his is as short as anyone on Broke Straight Boys?
PS Thanks to Ms. K for the Chad image from another thread.
I think hair style has to fit the personna of the character created by the actor. Jimmy has always had short hair, but the cut in this scene is too extreme to me. I agree with you, mikey, that his hair length from his past few scenes was ideal and actually added to his handsomeness. For some reason Chad's hair length doesn't bother me, maybe because as best I can remember it's always been nearly the same. Rocco is one who looks sexier with longer hair as does Bobby. It seems to be more stylish today to have these buzz cuts than back in our more youthful days. Although when I was a youngster I always had a buzz cut because my Mother said so since it would only have to be cut once a month (the cost back in the mid-40s to early 50s for kids - $.15 and my Father was $.25 - lol!!!)
I end this post acknowledging and agreeing with Frontier's entire post on this thread which I forgot to quote here and since I'm a computer luddite I don't know whether I can go back to add his quote without erasing this entire post, so I will quote an especially meaningful one to me: "Jimmy is Jimmy. I am me. U are U. As a bottom, I would gladly let this man fuck me until he passed out." As a big 'ole bottom myself, Frontier, I heartily agree with you.
__________________
,
We have been here before with these kinds of questions in regards to a model bottoming. If the topping model enters quickly or "easily" there are always some who will question if the guy really is a virgin. We will probably never know for sure whether Jake had any experience bottoming before this scene. It's still quite possible though that he was a virgin. Here are a couple of things we know with certainty:
