London Daily Mail's Cocksucker Photo Editor Goes Blind

What? WTF?

Johnny Depp is losing his looks? WHAT LOOKS?

A better headline, although not too interesting, would be: "One of our photo editors has gone blind."

With a link to a GoFundMe page.

I saw Toilet Turd, er, John Depp, on Kimmel's show a few nights ago. He looked bloated, yes. But he was still that same ol' Johnny: trying desperately to mimic the mumbles of Brando and the oh-so-wicked grimace-grins of Dylan.

Physically, I didn't notice that he was any creepier-looking than usual!

Somehow Depp has this idea that he can camouflage either his lack of wit, or his incredibly shyness, by being a reluctant lump of couch potato. Whoever interviews him has to nervously keep trying, coaxing, and if possible (and it's possible with Kimmel and it was possible with Letterman) get this constipated chimp to laugh and get over himself and say SOMETHING. ANYTHING.

Sans vagina as I am, and no fag either, I have NO idea why ANYONE would have EVER called Johnny Depp "the sexiest man alive."

IF I'M BEING HONEST, he looks just as homely thin, as he does chunky. NEITHER picture is "sexy."

He was OK playing freaks, I suppose. He was a fine "Edward Scissorhands." While he was way too young for the part, he was ok as Ed Wood, too. But as a leading man of any type? I don't think so. I can't rule it out because I haven't seen that many of his films, but I doubt it.

The only pretty boy who is actually uglier than Johnny Depp is round-faced Leonardo De Crapio.

On the bright side, it's always been a rather positive thing, that men don't have to be truly handsome (Cagney, Bogart, Gainsbourg, Depardieu) to be a sex symbol, while women almost always have to actually, truly be beautiful (with the exception of Anne Hathaway).

But I digress. Depp is only sexy for very desperate people. And dogs.