Its probably marketing for something else, like a story is going to unfold with the Coachella boyfriends and girlfriends, and we'll follow it breathlessly and some product/service/app will be unveiled at the end of it all and we'll all go out and buy it.

That's... vivid. Why, because I've had a meaningless fling once or twice? Yikes.

Am I truly alone in thinking this Shia LeBoeuf thing is freaking hilarious? Everything he does is calculated to get the masses foaming at the mouth about what a douche he is and *it works*. I think he's really funny, what can I say. I probably wouldn't hang out with him, but I appreciate the comedy of what he's up…

Aw drat.

For a long-term (or even medium-term) partner its ridiculous to have a "checklist" of any kind. But for a two-night stand? Go for it. That's the time to find the most bangable guy you can.

Seconded. I'm a Northern gal myself, so anything on my skin in the summer is too much. I have hair past my shoulderblades, and if its down in any kind of heat its like wearing a sweater. I wear it up in a bun most days.

Oh come on, this is fairly awesome. I wish them luck in their quest. My one piece of advice — from an old lady who has been around a few blocks — is that if they are from SF themselves, they should probably look for guys who *aren't* from SF, that way they don't risk actually ever running into them again and having…

So does she, you can see the outline of her foundation garment in the first picture.

Its amazing how much she looks like Elizabeth McGovern in that second picture. I wonder if they cast the pair of them because they actually do look like mother and daughter, in certain poses?

But that's what I disagree with, certainly as far as Carmen Carrera is concerned. She was on "RuPaul's Drag Race" — that is pretty much the *embodiment* of trading on her trans-ness. They can't say out of one side of their mouth "Pay LOTS of attention to me because of this characteristic!" and then out of the other…

There is nothing to respond to. You have mis-stated, mis-quoted, and flat-out lied. Your most recent post is nothing more than a continuation of your rank dishonesty.

No. I am making a distinction between ordinary people in the world, and people who seek fame and use an unusual characteristic as a defining trait. Ordinary people who mind their own business and face intrusive questions are right to be irritated; people who use something odd about themselves to seek fame, and then…

I don't. I said it was declasse and it is. However, I'm also not surprised or particularly outraged when people who use their unusual-ness to make themselves famous get peppered with questions about it. You don't want it to be a focus of conversation? Don't use it to propel yourself into people's consciousness.

Again, false. Not only false, but willfully so. I've read all my posts — I wrote them — and I stand by them. I have repeatedly said that behaving like that is fairly low-class, you even quoted one instance of it, but so is trading on an unusual characteristic and then feigning outrage when people ask you about it.

I do get it, I think its bogus and I'm calling it out. You can't have it both ways; either you get to be famous by trading on your trans-ness, or you get to have people not get up in your business about your trans-ness.

False. I am saying people who cultivate a public persona based on a very specific and highly unusual personal trait don't get to complain when people get up in their grill about that trait.

If you make a name for yourself by trading on something that has to do very specifically with your genitals, then you lose any claim to privacy about your genitals. If you don't trade on that, then its nobody's business. Trans, by definition, is about genitals — not entirely, but largely and significantly. If that…

Actually what I said — twice now — is that its pretty low-class to do that.

It means "low class" so kind of the same thing. Actually, a little bit meaner.

So if you read my first comment, you'll note that I also said it was rude.