well, since he was probably 18 in the first picture and 25 or 26 in the second picture, it’s not too surprising, given that there were 7 years of athletic conditioning in the middle, that he’s gotten meatier. i’d much prefer the “now”, since he’s rather skinny and way too young in the “then” pic.
why would anyone prefer the “then” pic, i ask myself. well, taste is relative. but i just hate those young modern gay men who think any muscle or body fat is less attractive than all these scrawny little twinks. ick. like a man at 26 is less attractive, due to his age, than any little stick of a twink without a brain in his head.
MMMMMM… either please
I love the then shot as well as the now shot
NOW, NOW, NOW!
NOW
what he’s like 12 in 2001?
now
i go with now!!
so hot either way, but I have to with Then.
I must confess that I find him more appealing now.
LUCKY is guy who snaps Andy with his Rod showing at least a million USD
I’m just sayin’
love the new improved andy!!!
everythingimnot.wordpress.com
Both pictures are good – people will change, but this guy only gets better!!!! Love both.
well, since he was probably 18 in the first picture and 25 or 26 in the second picture, it’s not too surprising, given that there were 7 years of athletic conditioning in the middle, that he’s gotten meatier. i’d much prefer the “now”, since he’s rather skinny and way too young in the “then” pic.
why would anyone prefer the “then” pic, i ask myself. well, taste is relative. but i just hate those young modern gay men who think any muscle or body fat is less attractive than all these scrawny little twinks. ick. like a man at 26 is less attractive, due to his age, than any little stick of a twink without a brain in his head.
Then