trixtah | Sexy man-beasts

I was having a chat with one of my exes (and good friend) this morning, about identity politics. She's in a phase where she's unsure of what she's doing on the sexual orientation spectrum. I personally think that if a label fits, use it, but don't get boxed into owning 100% of a category. Anyone who is a reasonable human being is a more-or-less hazy constellation of the labels that might apply to them - as soon as you try to start defining yourself by absolutes, you'll have to start chopping bits off yourself to fit. The Procrustean myth is a good warning, IMO.

Secondly, yesterday while I was helping them dog-wrangle,

saluqi,

faxon and I were talking about Desperate Remedies, which is one of New Zealand's cooler and quirkier movies. I had to confess that I had a thing about Kevin Smith, one of the actors (of course, for

saluqi, it was about the frocks). Also, a fey Cliff Curtis isn't a bad thing either.

So, in an effort to show that a fairly butch dyke isn't necessarily limited by her labels, I present you to you the four sexy man-beasts who I actually do go "Phwoar!" at:

Naveen Andrews (ok, hair and eyes, I know, I know)
Hugh Jackman (do I need to say more? But I wish he'd get better haircuts in RL).
Lenny Kravitz (and why can't I find suits like this to wear? I suppose not being a filthy rich rock star might have something to do with it. And big boobs would spoil the line. *sigh*)
The aforementioned Kevin Smith, and him in Desperate Remedies (it's all about the sideburns, mmm.)

So there you go. However, the guys I very rarely fancy in RL aren't big macho man-beasts. Quiet strength, a nice voice, humour, lack of sexism, lack of passive-aggressive "baby me" behaviour, and, er, long hair and grooming are things I notice. But I notice those qualities in women a lot more quickly. Oh well.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Oh, god, I can't stand indescisivness either. But I also have biiiig issues with "leadership" that doesn't involve any consultation to speak of. I suppose that is where my anarchist tendencies come out. :-)

Re Rochester, I know he was supposedly redeemed, but I wasn't convinced by it. I suppose I'm just a suspicious person. I can see why Jane was attracted to him, and if he hadn't been so manipulative I suppose I might have found him more appealing. Still, it was nice to have a happy ending.

As for sideburns, I'm afraid I think Gerald Butler's in Phantom were fairly hideous. There aren't that many men who have the right facial shape to carry off sidies extending beyond the bottom of the ear (unless they are following a line at the top of the jaw). And they were fluffy while his hair was slicked back behind his ears. Ick ick ick. I think the way he has his sideburns in RL is just fine though.

Most men look good with them extending to between the middle of the ear and the bottom of it. Having them cut off level with the TOP of the ear is very 1984. Yuck.

I don't know why I feel so strongly about them... but I suppose these things often aren't rational.

Re leadership - I see what you mean. But I'd call that "command" rather than "leadership" :)

Re Rochester - I didn't say he had changed, I said his actions in the fire redeemed his behaviour against Bertha somewhat. Agreed for the happy ending. I love them - although it's refreshing when the ending isn't happy, now and then. That's mainly about Hollywood movies.

Re Sideburns - I think you've had a lot of observation and have made up your mind. I still haven't seen a lot of 'em, so I really cannot say what I think about them. And no, these things aren't exactly rational :)

BTW, returning to John Barrowman... Have you seen this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=BdSszlp8aVQ) of John Barrowman introducing and singing "I am what I am"? I was impressed - the song sort of fits his life...

Sexy man-beasts

no subject

no subject