Life on Florida’s West Coast

You can be a girl every man wants…

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting Suncoast Scribe!

…and still end up married to Rick Salomon.

Pamela Anderson is undisputedly a sex symbol. She has been on more magazine covers than I can count and even garnered a small crossover female audience due to her column in Jane Magazine and appearances in some semi-funny sitcoms.

Nonetheless, she ended up married to Rick Salomon yesterday. Huh? All I can say is at least that still leaves the desirable men in the world for the rest of us. She shopped out of the bargain bin, so to speak. More power to her.

Who is Rick Salomon? His “claims to fame” are laughable, at best. He was the other party in that infamous and boring Paris Hilton sex tape. He was married to Shannen “my eyes are lopsided” Doherty. See? I told, you: laughable.

It just goes to show, you can have a killer body and a lot of money and still end up with the most boring and useless of men.

RSS feed | Trackback URI

2 Comments »

Comment by Jenn Subscribed to comments via email
2007-10-07 14:08:46

Thank you, Angie!
I have to go to an event today by myself, where most everyone else will be with spouses and partners. But your post reminded me that being single is still far preferable to being with the wrong (oh-so-wrong) guy.

 
Comment by Pfunk Subscribed to comments via email
2007-10-08 19:45:10

Pamela Anderson is not the sharpest of knives as far as I can tell. It seems like she’s the gal who will marry a guy because he tells her that she’s beautiful and smart…and of course, willing to make a sex tape.
Eh.

BUT, why compare yourself to others? Who cares if some folks are partnered up? We all have value–whether we’re single or not.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Subscribe to comments via email
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> in your comment.