Comments on: "I'd Hit It" Filter.

"I'd Hit It" Filter.

grapefruitmoon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:01:28 -0800

"Cute Girl" Filter: I know we've gone over this before, but I feel like there should be another discussion about making posts about female athletes WITHOUT appealing to "AND SHE'S HOTT" (or "SHE'S NOT JUST HOTT").

First, Allison Stokke now Rina Takeda. Can we find a way to discuss their athleticism without digressing into "I'd hit it"?

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:05:37 -0800

Yeah that one just begged for it, though. The post, I mean, not Rina. Watch the second video link. It's pretty much oglefilter.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:07:10 -0800

Yeah, that's what I mean - can we do without ogle filter?

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:09:21 -0800

I don't know, there's just one guy that said "I'd hit it" that I could easily remove (oh look, just did). It didn't seem like the whole thread was discussing how much people wanted to have sex with her.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:10:49 -0800

What if the female athlete in question was a pitcher? then "I'd hit it," would be appropriate, right?Right?Right?

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:13:53 -0800

Commenting on someone's attractiveness is not offensive, and it's not a double-standard. A post about a hot athlete of any gender would draw comments on their appearance no matter what -- happens here all the time. The key is getting people to understand what it means to do that without being demeaning. And on that count, MetaFilter has improved drastically.

By: Potomac Avenue

Potomac Avenue — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:15:38 -0800

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:15:58 -0800

One of these things is not like the other.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:17:54 -0800

A post about a hot athlete of any gender would draw comments on their appearance no matter what -- happens here all the time.

Can someone point me to where this has happened with a male athlete? I honestly don't remember ever seeing that.

(Honestly. This is a totally snark free comment. I promise.)

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:19:12 -0800

While I don't wish to downplay the athleticism required by the martial arts, and while I also think responding to that post with any reference to "hitting" would be in poor taste, I think that you may be comparing apples to oranges. Allison Stokke appears to have been an athlete first and foremost and was propelled into the spotlight without any volition on her part. Judging by the videos from that post, which I admittedly just glanced at and closed because I have very little interest in either the martial arts or Japanese school girls, Rina Takeda appears to be more of an entertainer than an athlete. Not that her status as an entertainer makes her fair game for sexist remarks, I just think we should be clear that these two posts and their subjects are fairly different.

By: ob

ob — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:20:45 -0800

Is this where I say that I have a man crush on Daniel Craig?

By: dersins

dersins — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:24:12 -0800

responding to that post with any reference to "hitting" would be in poor taste

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the post in question appears to consist solely of videos of hitting.

By: everichon

everichon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:24:37 -0800

I would be kicked by [her].

In the head, yet!

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:27:24 -0800

How about this one?

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:28:47 -0800

Yeah, grapefruitmoon, if you can conceive of a way to report on High Kick Girl that strips all the apparently intentional titillating contrast between nubile teen girl and hard-kicking karate champ that has gone into her production, I'd be stoked to hear about it. Otherwise, perhaps Metafilter is just reacting to what's already there. Her sexuality seems clumsily offered as a part of her appeal, what with the uniform, and it would be unfair to bar discussion of that, though I agree that a topnotch discussion of Japanese teen girls' sexuality as confronted by their displays of talent or ability is not the conversation that was happening, outright.

Have there been male pseudoathletes whose sexuality was wrapped up in their performance this way? Sure, not many, not often in horribly demeaning ways, but sure. What's his face the swimmer this past year had commercials about girls crushing on him and such. It's just not as much a cultural reversal and an eyegrabber to position male athletes as studmuffins.

By: Forktine

Forktine — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:29:05 -0800

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I neither speak nor read Japanese, and the fpp wasn't exactly overburdened with context), but isn't High Kick Girl the main character in a forthcoming movie? It's not at all like the Stokke yuckiness -- the perviness here is an integral part of the film marketing and promotion.

The whole shtick of this movie, as far as I can tell, is that there is a cute girl who does high kicks while wearing a short skirt. Yes? And since the attractiveness and upskirtedness are central to the film and its marketing, they would seem like fair grounds for discussion (albeit hopefully more nuanced than "I'd hit it").

But by the same token, why is this worthy of an fpp? There isn't exactly a shortage of underaged upskirt photos and videos available, and for all that the actress looks to be an amazing athlete the film looks to be solidly B-grade at best.

In other words, I think the error is in the fpp, not in the discussion. You can't escape from an undercurrent of "I'd hit it," simply because that's the entire premise of the advertising materials. Not very interesting, and certainly not worth the space on the front page.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:30:33 -0800

At least no one said "Enter the Dragon from Behind"

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:31:02 -0800

"So, on the whole twas very respectful for a thread"

I think only the British can get away with saying "twas" around here.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:32:21 -0800

You're supposed to say "the U.K.ish" and "twas" just means like jerk over there.

By: Potomac Avenue

Potomac Avenue — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:33:12 -0800

Is a "man crush" like a thing where a straight guy can say that he's attracted to another man, say an actor, and that he can imagine a little tongue kissing, say on the set of the 1992 Spike Lee Joint Malcolm X, while this hypothetical actor is dressed up in a Zoot Suit, but this "man crush" doesn't need to indicate anything about the completely straight guy's sexuality, even if certain pieces of ice might cross over from other movies and move slowly downward, dripping onto the actors manly chest area? Because if so, I have to "log off" the internet now.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:37:36 -0800

I'm kind of surprised that some softdrink company hasn't market a 'fitness drink' called 'Man Crush," now that I think of it.

By: ob

ob — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:39:23 -0800

They could sell it with Manwich as a two-for-one on homoerotic foodstuffs.

By: dg

dg — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:40:44 -0800

Can we find a way to discuss their athleticism without digressing into "I'd hit it"?
All signs point to "no".

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:42:38 -0800

I feel like there should be another discussion about making posts about female athletes WITHOUT appealing to "AND SHE'S HOTT"

Part of the difficulty is that since Martina Navratilova there's hardly been any prominent female athlete who hasn't incorporated the marketing of the sex appeal of her athletically toned bod into the general imperative of earning as much as possible during a short career.

Maria Sharapova started out as the anti-Kournikova [look, I can actually win tournaments!] but she ended up in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue just the same.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:46:34 -0800

Hmmm, hermitosis, that's a good example. Odd that the only post thus far with the "sexual athlete" theme that really is male-centered is about gay men. I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into this; but is the trend here that sports are geared towards men and male sexuality and thus there aren't sexually charged athlete posts about straight men because women aren't interested in "hitting" athletes? I can hardly believe this to be true. Are we above that, or is there just not enough material?

Or is this a plate of beans that I am totally overthinking?

I didn't mean to equate the Rina Tadeka and Allison Stokke threads as being the same, just as two examples of posts about women athletes where the highlight is on "And she's cute!" Sure, the discussions are completely different (Praise Dog), but it still bothers me a bit to think that the post probably wouldn't have been made were she not kicking people while wearing a skirt.

Man, could someone put some skirts on these beans?

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:50:31 -0800

I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into this; but is the trend here that sports are geared towards men and male sexuality and thus there aren't sexually charged athlete posts about straight men because women aren't interested in "hitting" athletes?

I'm not a woman, but I know plenty that are attracted to athletic men. I can't imagine that this is a real trend you're describing.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:51:42 -0800

oh also, what's with that post? the comments don't seem bad, but why is there a post about this girl on the blue?

"look! a karate girl! in a movie you don't care about! in a skirt!" i don't get why it's there for any reason besides ogling at the cute young japanese girl.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:53:49 -0800

I honestly don't know what you're asking here. Sexuality seems to be inherent in superheroes, which this girl/character is parodying.

By: sondrialiac

sondrialiac — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:54:18 -0800

Thanks for bringing this up. Discussion is a good thing.

By: adipocere

adipocere — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:54:39 -0800

I don't think that you can expect to discuss athleticism without it "degenerating," as they call it (as if male [and some female] sexual interest is inherently degenerate), without appreciations of beauty taking place at various locations along the classiness spectrum. Over and over again, aside from the latest Jennifer Anniston 'do, appreciation of human beauty has been tied to various factors of health - nice teeth, clear skin, that thing we vaguely call "shape," and so forth.

Many people find many things beautiful, which is fine and dandy, but expecting that either some will not find a long-trained, thoroughly exercised body (especially if it is a well-rounded musculature like you might see from martial arts or pole vaulting) to be appealing, or that they would find it appealing but also be compelled to hush up about it, will only lead you to disappointment.

"I would definitely have sex with that person would that they found me worth of consideration," however it might be couched, is about as natural as the reflexive loathing triggered by a recent post about the shooting of an unarmed civilian or the gut-level disgust generated by some other posts. I'm not sure why sex should be any different. I find the idea that the expression of such must be restrained to be somewhat odd, if not a little bit controlling. If there is a behavior you dislike from someone, you may ignore it or address that person, but thinking that you can somehow just make it go away for everyone because it bothers you is not going to be successful.

Thus far, the standard of entry to MetaFilter has been five dollars, a PayPal account, and regular access to the Internet, not a test for manners or restraint. As to myself, I am still a little confused about which fork to use. You might do better to simply ask for a little less tackiness in acknowledging that a human in full bloom of health can trigger one of the most basic of human urges — the wholesale omission of such is probably not in the cards.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:55:58 -0800

I didn't mean to equate the Rina Tadeka and Allison Stokke threads as being the same, just as two examples of posts about women athletes where the highlight is on "And she's cute!"

I'll be happy to equate them, if you like.

In neither case is the athleticism of the woman intrinsically noteworthy. No one would have made a post about even a world-record setting female high school pole vaulter if she looked like this.

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:56:23 -0800

And the guy who said he'd hit it just did it to make a feminist-aimed joke about how she'd hit him back. So, on the whole twas very respectful for a thread about a Japanese Schoolgirl who flashes upskirts while breaking baseball bats with her knees.

For those of you that are new or somehow missed it, jessamyn had a whole thing about how she would change her name if the site as a whole ever went 30 days without saying "I'd hit it." She purposely included ironic usuages of the phrase. She stopped tracking it at the end of the year*, but the site never really came close to going 30 days without some sort of version of it.

Other than just being a silly idea, it pointed out that the phrase really does get used a lot. One way of looking at it is that it's just a really tired joke, not really much different than the "You know who else..." Hitler joke that pops up in every other thread. But the other way of looking at it is that there is very rarely a post about a woman that does not include a phrase that means "I would like to have sex with this person" in it. Each occurance is pretty harmless on its own, but seeing it in thread after thread the effect starts to add up.

* I'd also like to point out that my previous comment, where I blamed jessamyn for promoting sexism by stopping the clock, was not serious and really only made as an excuse to reference Ghost Busters.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:57:04 -0800

Thanks for bringing this up. Discussion is a good thing.

Martha Stewart?

By: xmutex

xmutex — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:58:56 -0800

By: Stewriffic

Stewriffic — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:01:07 -0800

Oh no, xmutex you DINT go there.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:01:16 -0800

I am perfectly willing to accept that my advocation of random violence for entertainment purposes was over the line.

Not that anyone took offence. :(

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:03:20 -0800

We have had this exact same discussion enough times to where we almost need a "I'd hit it" page on the wiki.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:03:57 -0800

Joe Beese, please don't post links to girls, GIRLS, of 17 or so, here just to show how unattractive you think they are. That is in such terrible taste.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:04:56 -0800

Do not enough people find you attractive? Why are you so angry that people find people attractive and mention it in comments?

Uh, no. This is not a problem that I have. I'm perfectly secure in my own attractiveness (this is what I look like if you want to judge for yourself whether or not I'm getting any "pity honks") and get plenty of compliments from the outside world.

What I'm trying to articulate is that it bothers me that there are these posts specifically about women athletes that aren't made because they're good athletes, but because they're "hot" athletes. In my mind, this diminishes the woman in question to her attractiveness, which is a disservice to her actual athletic ability. This mostly bothers me because I haven't seen the same type of post devote to a male athlete, which to me serves to reinforce the trend that whenever an attractive woman accomplishes something it's because she's attractive and not, say, because she's actually talented.

By: Stewriffic

Stewriffic — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:05:07 -0800

Jeeze. I'm getting more creeped out by the minute. Seconding AV. Blech.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:06:15 -0800

Flagged, Joe Beese: agreed, no need to label a perfectly good looking woman as unattractive in that manner.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:06:16 -0800

Oh no, xmutex you DINT go there.

I don't mind. I get to flag so infrequently.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:10:01 -0800

Yeah we have taken like eight different roads in this thread that all lead to creepytown.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:10:33 -0800

I find it a little more disturbing that people are assuming the subject of this thread is a scorned woman, but I'm not sure that they wouldn't make the same assumption if the genders were reversed.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:11:51 -0800

Joe Beese, please don't post links to girls, GIRLS, of 17 or so, here just to show how unattractive you think they are.

Oh, for Christ's sake...

Did I say she was unattractive? I'll wait while you go back and take a look...

[waits]

No, I didn't - did I? It's an ordinary-looking female high school athlete - found through a Google image search for "girls high school pole vaulter -stokke". And presented as such. Next time I'll be sure to put an all-cap disclaimer up front.

I'll make allowances for the fact that I waxed so piggish in the recent breastfeeding thread. But give me a break.

By: Stynxno

Stynxno — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:12:04 -0800

I'm perfectly secure in my own attractiveness (this is what I look like if you want to judge for yourself whether or not I'm getting any "pity honks") and get plenty of compliments from the outside world.

Internet argument, ur doing it wrong.

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:12:08 -0800

but the site never really came close to going 30 days without some sort of version of it.

While I agree it comes up a lot on its own, I do think that during that time period it occasionally came up because of the name-change thing.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:12:56 -0800

Damn you have a lot of photographs of yourself.

And the comments seem par for the course when discussing a movie about who does karate in a mini-skirt. I'm not sure that's worth a front page post mind you.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:12:59 -0800

grapefruitmoon- Do not enough people find you attractive? Why are you so angry that people find people attractive and mention it in comments? It's not indicative of sexism or boyzone, its indicative of being a human being with a pulse.

are you for real? in what world is it okay to respond to someone that way when all they want to do is ask, in good faith, that we stop referring to all accomplished attractive women as potential objects of lust? seriously, do you speak to people in real life this way? if someone mentions, politely, that they don't like the way women are constantly rated on a scale of fuckability, do you always imply that they're just bitter and must be ugly?

you know what? this is one of those times where I'm about to substantially escalate the vulgarity and rage of the thread, so I'm gonna back off, now. But jesus christ, dude. what the fuck.

By: dirtdirt

dirtdirt — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:13:21 -0800

I clicked over with a sort of tired, "do we need this again?" and after reading it am now even more tiredly convinced that yes, in fact, we do.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:13:44 -0800

AZ, ss far as I can tell, "people" is one commenter. Struck me as squicky too, for what it's worth.

One and a half, maybe, if you want to count fungible's silliness.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:14:32 -0800

Expressing the opinion that another person is beautiful without belittling them or denigrating them is a very difficult and delicate thing to do. The tenor of discussion about morality in our time emphasizes rights, so when discussing these people naturally tend to ask questions about what they're allowed to do and say: is it allowable - do we have a right - to say this or that about another person? In reality, however, it's usually the case that it's usually the case that it's not so much a question of whether we have a right to say something about someone else but rather of whether we do it in a way that will do them (and others) harm or good.

Incidentally, it's almost never possible to express the opinion that another person is beautiful in the right way when all you have to work with is a completely open forum with a fair amount of anonymity and with nothing but written words to do it with.

By: sondrialiac

sondrialiac — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:14:50 -0800

Joe Beese, this is better than the time you said that a 25-year-old sleeping with a 12-year-old wasn't really rape. But it still sucks and you should be ashamed of yourself.

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:15:48 -0800

Did I say she was unattractive? I'll wait while you go back and take a look...

In neither case is the athleticism of the woman intrinsically noteworthy. No one would have made a post about even a world-record setting female high school pole vaulter if she looked like this.

Premise A: These posts were made because the initial reaction was "These girls are cute", not because they are good athletes or otherwise noteworthy.
Premise B: This girl wouldn't get a post even though she's a better athlete.
Logical Conclusion: This girl isn't attractive.

So yeah, I'd say that was your point.

By: gman

gman — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:16:17 -0800

Joe Beese is fuckin' HOT.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:16:47 -0800

Yah, Joe, WTF was that?

In my mind, this diminishes the woman in question to her attractiveness, which is a disservice to her actual athletic ability.

I think some people have trouble seeing that, because being attractive can open so many doors and with particularly striking people or photos, we're almost hardwired to respond that level. After all, the photo of Allison Stokes wasn't of a photo of her actually pole vaulting, but of the iconic characteristics of her well trained body, so it's not surprising that many men reacted to it on that level and I think that's ok, within limits. It's one thing to say "Wow, great photo, she's beautiful, looks great etc, etc" vs "heh, heh, get her on my pole, heh heh"

By: waraw

waraw — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:17:17 -0800

My and my sexy, sexy, sexy extra thumb nub have nothing to say that I haven't already said in memail, but it's still true. That my thumb nub is sexy.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:17:25 -0800

accomplished attractive women as potential objects of lust?

Unaccomplished, unattractive women are also potential objects of lust.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:17:29 -0800

What, you say one person isn't a people?

By: and hosted from Uranus

and hosted from Uranus — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:17:37 -0800

In my mind, this diminishes the woman in question to her attractiveness, which is a disservice to her actual athletic ability. This mostly bothers me because I haven't seen the same type of post devote to a male athlete

It took all of two-minutes of searching to find this.

By: gman

gman — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:18:39 -0800

I love Metafilthy.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:24:59 -0800

I live in Philadelphia. The local baseball club won a big trophy just last year. I have it on good (single) female authority that the 2008 Phillies are (were) hot! Except for Matt Stairs.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:26:05 -0800

Yeah, but, and hosted from Uranus, that's all the way back in August.

And if it wasn't for being kinda hot would high school pole vaulter Allison Stokke be known at all? I mean come on, it's pole vaulting in high school for the love of god. No one pays attention to Olympic pole vaulters (well, again, unless they are hot).

So the answer to can we discuss these athletes without mentioning that their hot? is: no. Seriously. We don't discuss the not hot ones at all. And I don't just mean metafilter.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:27:22 -0800

Wow, so we have managed to (let me know if I have missed any) insult the poster in a completely uncalled for manner, link to pictures of random real people who have no relevance to this discussion, link to pictures of ourselves in a misguided attempt to refute completely uncalled for criticism, and brought up a commenter's previous unrelated comments made in another thread without provocation. Did we decide to just hit all the bases of "totally uncool things to do on Metafilter" and nobody told me?

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:30:31 -0800

YOU SHOULD DIE AND GO TO HELL AND COME BACK AND LET ME STOMP ON YOUR BURNT FACE AGAIN AND AGAIN

Did we decide to just hit all the bases of "totally uncool things to do on Metafilter" - yes!

By: dersins

dersins — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:32:49 -0800

Did we decide to just hit all the bases of "totally uncool things to do on Metafilter" and nobody told me?

I just received the following memail from ND¢:

"Dear dersins,

I just wanted to say how much I respect and admire your contributions to metafilter. You are by far my favorite person anywhere, ever, and I want you to know that I learned everything from you, and also you are hot and I would like to have your babies.

Love,
ND¢"

I'm flattered, dude, but I'm taken.

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:33:09 -0800

Did we decide to just hit all the bases of "totally uncool things to do on Metafilter"

Someone still needs to reveal the contents of a private message from another mefite.

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:33:33 -0800

Not previewing is totally uncool.

By: lunit

lunit — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:35:31 -0800

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the comments on that post, but the post itself (and the post it links to) sets the discussion up that way. Couldn't we just delete it and move on?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:36:17 -0800

Did we decide to just hit all the bases of "totally uncool things to do on Metafilter"

Someone still needs to reveal the contents of a private message from another mefite.

I'm drunk and I'll be happy to say something offensive if that helps.

Farts. Horse's ass. Dooty.

By: ersatzkat

ersatzkat — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:38:34 -0800

...and I will priggishly insult you for misspelling "doody"...

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:39:32 -0800

Hey, look, most celebrities are "hot" to some degree or other. I mean you get the occasional Paul Giamatti, but there are a lot more Brad Pitts. We wouldn't know who Brad Pitt was if he looked like Paul Giamatti. No one pays attention to actors who are only average-looking, either.

This young woman is a movie actor, and one of the reasons she is in the dreadful-looking film advertised here is that she is attractive. If she was unattractive, her karate skills would go unnoticed.

Alison Stokke is a different case altogether. The reason the very attractive pole vaulter got so much attention is that she's unusually attractive for a pole vaulter. I see two factors driving the fascination with this woman:

1. The prejudice that female athletes are ugly and masculine, and that the more successful they are as athletes, the uglier and less womanly they are. Ms. Stokke confounds that expectation, stirring interest among meatheads.

2. The prejudice that female athletes are hot and sexy. Ms. Stokke is particularly hot and sexy to many holders of this prejudice.

Discuss.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:42:43 -0800

In New York it's 'dooty.' In Boston it's 'Doot-ah" In Louisiana it's "Dooah-tayee" In Calfornia it's "Magic Circle Of Life Growth Miracle Dust" in Canada it's a "Poor Man's Hockey Puck."

Be more understanding of regional linguistic differences, lady.

By: rocket88

rocket88 — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:43:14 -0800

I find it a little more disturbing that people are assuming the subject of this thread is a scorned woman, but I'm not sure that they wouldn't make the same assumption if the genders were reversed.

That was me. It wasn't really an assumption so much as an off-the-cuff remark based on the absurdity of two egomaniacs publicly hating on each other in their "look at me" blogs.
And for what it's worth...I would make the same comment if the genders were reversed.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:47:16 -0800

To all those people who think it's somehow a killer argument to say "but those thoughts are natural": sure they are. Most of us have similar thoughts as we walk down the street and look at the passing throng, and yet somehow we manage to avoid vocalizing them. Shitting and pissing are also natural, and yet we don't do them in public. Have all the natural sexist thoughts you want while reading MeFi; just don't share them with the rest of us. Do I really have to make this distinction for you?

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:47:36 -0800

*hits rocket88*

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:47:37 -0800

their "look at me" blogs.

at the end of the day, is there really any other kind of blog?

(I said that. Me. Look at me saying that! Aren't I wise?)

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:47:40 -0800

adipocere: "I would definitely have sex with that person would that they found me worth of consideration," however it might be couched, is about as natural as the reflexive loathing triggered by a recent post about the shooting of an unarmed civilian or the gut-level disgust generated by some other posts. I'm not sure why sex should be any different. I find the idea that the expression of such must be restrained to be somewhat odd, if not a little bit controlling. If there is a behavior you dislike from someone, you may ignore it or address that person, but thinking that you can somehow just make it go away for everyone because it bothers you is not going to be successful.

I don't believe you're being disingenuous, but that argument is hardly a complete one.

As I mentioned above, this discussion goes well beyond the notions of rights and freedoms. As much as these things sometimes seem to be the core of the political morality that we all agree to, they're not really the primary motivation for our desire to be moral. To be blunt, there are certain things which it's wrong to say, not absolutely or because of some intrinsic set of moral rules but because they hurt people.

I hate to appeal to a common experience that I don't know we both have, but I find it hard to believe that you haven't heard people say things that you do find objectionable. I guess I'm trying to ask you: do you think there's such a thing as insulting or hurtful speech that shouldn't be spoken? If so, where do you draw the line between that and allowable speech? It's got to be possible to talk about sex and even another person's sexuality or attractiveness without belittling or denigrating them.

I guess I also want to say that it might be perfectly natural for certain people in certain circumstances to say something hurtful or damaging. It could easily be argued in court that it might be natural for a convicted rapist to rape again on release. So, really, your implication that it's okay to say "goddamn, I'd like to stick my dick in her" because it's natural falls flat; what's natural isn't always what's good for us. There's such a thing as tact: that is, holding yourself back from saying something which might do harm.

Finally, it's not 'controlling' to talk about what things are good to say and what things are bad to say. The things we say have an effect on others; this effect can be good or bad. Yes, it's hard to say what the effect of many sayings might have, and we shouldn't spend all of our time worrying about that, but I would have thought that it's relatively easy to see how saying something like "goddamn, I'd like to stick my dick in her" might be damaging.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:48:34 -0800

On non-preview: What languagehat said is dead-on.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:48:55 -0800

I think cjorgensen has a good point.

(When I worked in the past on multimedia products featuring professional ballplayers, the comments I heard from the women on the project when discussing photos of the players were almost exclusively about the beauty and sexiness of the ones who appealed. This isn't exclusively a "boyzone" thing in real life.)

By: Pater Aletheias

Pater Aletheias — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:49:17 -0800

We wouldn't know who Brad Pitt was if he looked like Paul Giamatti.

Then how is it we know who Paul Giamatti is?

By: jacquilynne

jacquilynne — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:49:24 -0800

I think the key feature of the Allison Stokke thing is that it wasn't being posted as "Here is an athlete who is hot" but rather as "There's currently an internet phenomenon surrounding this hot athlete, and she's pretty much not okay with that." It's not that she wouldn't have been posted about if she wasn't hot, it's that she wouldn't have become an internet phenomenon which then got posted about if she wasn't hot. There's a boyzone failure happening in there somewhere, but I don't think it's Metafilter's error.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:49:33 -0800

Yeah we have taken like eight different roads in this thread that all lead to creepytown.

All roads lead to creepytown. But you should see the aqueduct.

By: dg

dg — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:50:19 -0800

Joe Beese, please don't post links to girls, GIRLS, of 17 or so, here just to show how unattractive you think they are. That is in such terrible taste.
Deny all you want, I think your intent was clear in promoting the subject of the photo you linked as, if not exactly unattractive, as "ordinary" and not worthy of considering as sexually attractive. In fact, the major difference with regard to appearance between any high-profile female athlete and the majority of females alive today is a publicist and a professional photographer.

I must say, I tend to start off reading these threads with a mental "oh, here we go again - the girls are complaining about being desired after spending all that time in front of a mirror making themselves attractive" (a thought which makes me not very proud even as it pops into my head), but that is quickly dispelled by the boorish attitudes of the males here. I freely admit that I find all sorts of women attractive and that I am frequently guilty of perving on women with unclean thoughts in my head, but that doesn't mean I'm going to inflict those thoughts on those around me. I'm not sure if it's better or worse to keep quiet about these things, though - is it only wrong to think these things if you blurt them out? In my defence, I like a lot of things about women other than their appearance and I'm a long way from viewing the female of the species as simply physical objects. That doesn't, though, make it wrong (in my view) to view them as physically attractive in addition to other attributes that appeal to me.

I'm going to stop now before I dig this hole any deeper ...

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:50:25 -0800

But you should see the aqueduct.

Leave the horses out of this.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:52:30 -0800

What languagehat said is what should go on the wiki. Either that or:

"I'd hit it."

That's great, but we don't particularly care.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:53:25 -0800

Ha! So we got a boyzone post in MetaTalk, and several I/P and cop brutality posts in MetaFilter.

I think we might need another moderator.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:55:40 -0800

I agree with you. All of you. Really.

Actually, I'm just really really really bored.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:56:12 -0800

Do not enough people find you attractive? Why are you so angry that people find people attractive and mention it in comments? It's not indicative of sexism or boyzone, its indicative of being a human being with a pulse.

Coming up next, on Married with Children - Al just wants to watch the football game, but Peg keeps nagging him for shopping money!

By: dersins

dersins — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:57:44 -0800

Then how is it we know who Paul Giamatti is?

He's actually talented.

Oh, and his father was arguably more famous than he ever was.

By: stet

stet — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:58:31 -0800

Jesus Christ, grapefruit moon, you're about half the age I thought you were. Also, not dutch. I wonder who I was actually thinking of?

At any rate, I think the thread linked went remarkably well considering it was about a young woman being marketed (note passive voice) sexually. The only comment involving sexism that jumped out at me was this one which is complaining about the sexist lameness in the linked videos. Maybe there's been a lot of pruning?

Long story short: Don't like the post, like the comments (except for tkchrist's about guys' staff infections. that's just nasty), disgusted by the Allison Stokke thing, and glad you brought it up.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:59:30 -0800

Coming up next, on Married with Children - Al just wants to watch the football game, but Peg keeps nagging him for shopping money!

Their daughter Kelli was HOTT!

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:00:14 -0800

jacquilynne: It's not that she wouldn't have been posted about if she wasn't hot, it's that she wouldn't have become an internet phenomenon which then got posted about if she wasn't hot. There's a boyzone failure happening in there somewhere, but I don't think it's Metafilter's error.

I disagree. The problem in that thread is the comments.

lee: I was impressed by her vaulting. I am serious, really!

Effigy2000: I'd hit that. The track, I mean. I could stand to lose a few kilos.
...
Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America: I'd let her vault my pole. I'm sorry.
...
Roman Graves: More like high school pole smoker! Am I right, guys??
...
Iron Rat: Very pretty girl, and such a classic athletic pose.

kbanas: Hot.

It's like a bunch of people didn't even read the (pretty touching and sorta sad, I thought) quotation in the very short post. What other explanation is there for

POST: "Someone is sad because she's being objectified on the internet."
COMMENT: "Wow! She's hot!"

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:00:20 -0800

I never knew Giamatti's father was the baseball commissioner. Was learning that worth reading this thread? At any rate, I just saw this monstrosity of a beverage at the convenience store near my office.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:02:34 -0800

I just saw this monstrosity of a beverage at the convenience store near my office

They'd go well with these.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:02:36 -0800

Then how is it we know who Paul Giamatti is?

because his acting ability is that much stronger than brad pitt's. brad pitt isn't a terrible actor, but his rocket to stardom and superfame isn't as much for his acting as it is his looks. Paul Giamatti trip to stardom wasn't remotely rocket-like, being older and having acted for longer than Pitt, and it's due entirely to his acting ability. the difference is substantial.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:03:15 -0800

The only comment involving sexism that jumped out at me was this one which is complaining about the sexist lameness in the linked videos.

Well, I certainly meant to be complaining when I called the second video "bollocks." You know, the one that just scans up and down her legs.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:05:17 -0800

sorry, giamatti is actually younger than brad pitt.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:08:51 -0800

"Really, what's done at this point—if people seem to be having a good time and the thread itself isn't going to hell—is usually just leaving it open to wander off topic. So, hey, Cheerios all around!" --cortex.

Can someone drop me a line when we get to the Cheerios in this thread?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:10:20 -0800

why, you gonna pee in them?? Hahaha..

By: Evangeline

Evangeline — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:10:36 -0800

I'd hit all of ya. Over the head. Repeatedly.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:11:21 -0800

All right, that's it. Somebody needs to call jonmc a cab.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:11:24 -0800

Then how is it we know who Paul Giamatti is?

He's actually talented.

Well he is very talented, but Pitt can act. It's just that his other quality overshadows his talent. Why did people react to Stokke the way they did? By and large because her other quality (the same as Pitt's) overshadowed her talent -- at least to them. And Pitt gets TONS of attention because of the looks. Just the fact that you can suggest that he has no talent is an example of how overshadowing this other aspect of him is.

Now, women are classier about how they ogle, but that's really the only difference. However, we don't see "hey look at Brad Pitt do some high kicks" fpps. (though weren't there some Brad Pitt does adverts in Japan threads? that might fall under the "everything Japanese is utterly fascinating" exemption)

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:13:52 -0800

too late, koselitz, I'm already home. I haven't left in a month actually. (and I haven't had a cigarette in almost a week)

*gibbers*

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:14:07 -0800

To restore the balance, we will need more threads with Australian surfers in plum smugglers.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:15:17 -0800

Or, um, more threads with plum smugglers in Australian surfers.

By: mrmojoflying

mrmojoflying — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:15:26 -0800

sorry, giamatti is actually younger than brad pitt.

You're just noticing his inner rage and that look of "I'm always one apoplectic fit away from paralysis."

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:15:29 -0800

Brad Pitt; yeah, he's a handsome guy, and no doubt that's contributed to his success, but the acting world is full of handsome guys who haven't become succesfull. and his performance as Floyd in true Romance was brilliant.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:16:44 -0800

true dat, jonmc, on both counts.

By: netbros

netbros — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:17:26 -0800

At any rate, I just saw this monstrosity of a beverage

For the recovering alkies among us, some non-alcoholic piddle.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:17:43 -0800

same with Matthew McCouwhoueverthehelyouspellit and his performance as Wooderson in Dazed & Confused.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:19:37 -0800

God I hate McCalifragilistic. But I have to admit, he has turned in a couple of performances that didn't make me want to puke.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:21:02 -0800

the fact that his name begins with "mc' is in his favor.

By: ob

ob — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:22:59 -0800

I just saw this monstrosity of a beverage at the convenience store near my office.

I have story about that particular beverage. A couple of months ago Mrs. ob were at a friend's house hanging out with him and his girlfriend and we ran out of ales early on in the evening. He and I did the proper gentlemanly thing and we went out to but more beers. In the liquor store we saw cans of the aforementioned nectar and we thought, yeah we'll get one for a joke and do a blind taste test. Suddenly, this guy comes barelling round the corner, he picks up to 40s of Old English and then he sees the can in my friend's hand and he says: "You actually like that? It tates like shit! One of my buddies drinks that and we make him stand ten feet away 'coz it smells so bad." We went back, tried it and he was right.

The moral of this story: If a man who drinks 40s tells you something tastes like shit, it tastes like shit.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:23:22 -0800

Y'know those times when you're talking about something really deep and important and serious, like people dying for no reason or a tragedy or trying to end sexism or learning to be civil with each other, and you keep trying to make big, interesting points and respond to peoples' suggests, and suddenly you realize that everybody has a beer in their hand and is talking about Brad Pitt and Paul Giametti while listening to Cheap Trick, and they're all looking at you like you ought to be drinking a bit more?

Yeah.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:25:21 -0800

ob, by the fifth or sixth beer you're not really noticing taste anymore anyway so what the hell...

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:26:16 -0800

because his acting ability is that much stronger than brad pitt's. brad pitt isn't a terrible actor, but his rocket to stardom and superfame isn't as much for his acting as it is his looks. Paul Giamatti trip to stardom wasn't remotely rocket-like, being older and having acted for longer than Pitt, and it's due entirely to his acting ability.

Yes, Giamatti is a character actor, and Pitt is a leading man. Leading men get the best parts (other than in indie films) and are more attractive but character actors are usually more talented (Brad Pitt is kind of a bad example, Keanu Reeves is a better one).

But there aren't many female character actors, and most of the ones that do exist are also extremely attractive. Watch the Academy Awards and pay attention to the relative attractiveness of the Best Supporting Actor nominees versus the Best Supporting Actress nominees.

I once saw an interview with a casting director, and she said that regardless of the role, men needed to be either very attractive or very unique looking. When asked about women, she said they just needed to be very attractive.

By: mudpuppie

mudpuppie — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:29:33 -0800

Hey guys? Guys? Hello? *taps on shoulder* You guys? Hey? *tugs on sleeve* Hey guys? Jonmc needs someone to play with. Okay? Guys? You guys? Hello? Is anyone listening? Guys? Okay thanks.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:30:37 -0800

Clooney's another of these, though. A handsome guy who can act. I think the thing is with a lot of these guys is that they don't need to. But he's turned in a couple of winners, too.

But there aren't many female character actors, and most of the ones that do exist are also extremely attractive. Watch the Academy Awards and pay attention to the relative attractiveness of the Best Supporting Actor nominees versus the Best Supporting Actress nominees.

Maybe this is true broadly speaking. But the first "character actress" I could think of was Kathy Bates. Maybe that's just me. I do think that "Hollywood" is far more willing to put a good-looking talentless woman in a lead role than do the same with a man. Maybe that's because they don't "need" the ability, but I mean, I hate those movies. And so does everyone I know.

By: ob

ob — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:31:05 -0800

ob, by the fifth or sixth beer you're not really noticing taste anymore anyway so what the hell...

Jonmc, I admire your bravery. I can drink a lot of things but beer with clam juice? Nah, not me.

BTW, the second worse thing that I ever drank was a shot of absinthe with Tabasco in it. I was in a pub near the end of the night and it was a whole round of shots bought by one guy we were drinking with. He told us it was absinthe with a dash of raspberry. We, stupidly, believed him. Christ, that was bad.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:32:12 -0800

Brad Pitt is kind of a bad example, Keanu Reeves is a better one

Am I going to take shit for saying this? Keanu totally could have pulled off Floyd in True Romance.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:32:25 -0800

Oh come on, burnmp3s. There' Judy Dench and...well, there's udy Dench.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:32:47 -0800

Shit! Where's my 30 second edit feature?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:33:38 -0800

BTW, the second worse thing that I ever drank was a shot of absinthe with Tabasco in it.

I once drank a shot of habanero infused tequila. they made me sign a waiver. It was tasty, but good lord, it was hot.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:35:16 -0800

Am I going to take shit for saying this? Keanu totally could have pulled off Floyd in True Romance.

*gives Durn Bronzefist shit*

No, he couldn't have. Not as well. Rory Cochrane, however, could have.

By: dersins

dersins — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:39:26 -0800

Keanu totally could have pulled off Floyd in True Romance.

He basically already did. Twice.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:40:05 -0800

Brad Pitt's performance as Floyd in True Romance was, as far as I understand it, "act like your standard So Cal stoner". This is what he gets lauded for? What about Babel, or Burn After Reading?

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:42:27 -0800

Am I going to take shit for saying this? He was good in Fight Club.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:42:35 -0800

Clooney's another of these, though. A handsome guy who can act. I think the thing is with a lot of these guys is that they don't need to. But he's turned in a couple of winners, too.

Really? Clooney cannot act all. No range. Whatsoever. Whatever the character, he's George Clooney.

Now, I really like Clooney, enjoy his presence, etc, and that sort of response is probably why he's so successful, but he cannot act at all.

By: Catfry

Catfry — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:42:35 -0800

ying "I'd hit it." She purposely included ironic usuages of the phrase. She stopped tracking it at the end of the year*, but the site never really came close to going 30 days without some sort of version of it.

Other than just being a silly idea, it pointed out that the phrase really does get used a lot

Can we do a data dump on this? I'd gotten the impression the expression was used much more after her challenge. Like flies to honey many mefites cannot resist a chance to tease.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:42:36 -0800

Dersins, Rivers Edge...I'll grant you, that was one of Keanu's better performances. But Pitt's stoner in True Romance was far far superior, and Cochrane's in D&C was better than either.

Brad Pitt's performance as Floyd in True Romance was, as far as I understand it, "act like your standard So Cal stoner".

as the link to Bill & Ted shows, so many others manage to fail at it somehow.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:42:41 -0800

Yes, Giamatti is a character actor, and Pitt is a leading man. Leading men get the best parts (other than in indie films) and are more attractive but character actors are usually more talented (Brad Pitt is kind of a bad example, Keanu Reeves is a better one).

this is far too broad a comparison, and I think you might be confusing "Leading Man" with "Lead Actor." a Leading Man is, by definition, handsome. that's just a name for a handsome actor who plays handsome roles. But Lead Actors in movies are simply the the actors playing the most significant male part. In The Godfather, Al Pacino was the Lead Actor, but not a Leading Man. Cary Grant was always a Leading Man, etc... Giamatti is no longer just a character actor, though that is certainly how he spent the overwhelming majority of his career.

By: desjardins

desjardins — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:43:43 -0800

grapefruitmoon, wow, I was certain you were older based on the consistent maturity of your comments. I always like to be pleasantly surprised and challenged.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:45:37 -0800

You know, I never thought of Keanu playing a stoner in Bill and Ted. I always thought of him playing a dope. That's a terrible stoner rendition if that's what it's supposed to be.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:45:54 -0800

Can we do a data dump on this? I'd gotten the impression the expression was used much more after her challenge. Like flies to honey many mefites cannot resist a chance to tease.

Voila.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:46:29 -0800

I realized Brad Pitt was a better actor than I had given him credit for when he played an entire scene with a Jamaican accent in Meet Joe Black and I didn't laugh out loud at him.

By: pearlybob

pearlybob — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:47:07 -0800

same with Matthew McCouwhoueverthehelyouspellit and his performance as Wooderson in Dazed & Confused.

You have to say it correctly. His name is Mathew McConaughey-HEY!!

Mmmmmmm, he just makes me all happy inside!!

Ok, thanks all. Go back to...whatever it was you were doing.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:48:36 -0800

Well it's true that Clooney doesn't stretch much. But I think he turned credible performances in -- whether you liked the movies themselves or not -- O Brother Where Art Thou, Solaris, and Syriana.

What the hell? He was in The Limey???

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:49:25 -0800

I am so waiting for Mathew McConaughey-HEY!! to play the lead role in the Bill Clinton biopic. "That's what I like about these interns, man...."

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:51:35 -0800

Of course I grew up in the era when people thought that bastion of wood, Kevin Costner, was an actor. Instead of a golf cart salesman or whatever it is he does now.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:53:17 -0800

This is probably the best place to mention that my favorite actor is Nicholas Cage, both because he's clearly not sexy in the slightest way (maybe once was, a tiny bit, but certainly not now) and because he's constantly choosing the most awful and ridiculously strange roles.

Also because a good chunk of those awful roles try to use him as the sexy character. Adds to the hilarity. This, for example, is probably the funniest and stupidest horror movie I've ever seen.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:53:47 -0800

whatever else he's done he's forgiven for because of Bull Durham. (same goes for Tim Robbins)

By: spamguy

spamguy — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:55:06 -0800

Funny you mention it. There was a comment and photo just this morning that made me think 'I'd hit it'...

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:55:16 -0800

Nicholas Cage, both because he's clearly not sexy in the slightest way

News to me, dude, plenty of women I know have described him as "hot." I don't understand it either.

*points pistol, asks for huggies and whatever cash you got*

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:55:57 -0800

Am I going to take shit for this? I think unicorns are kick ass!

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:58:03 -0800

I don't know why Orgazmo popped into my head just then.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:01:20 -0800

Wait. Wait wait wait wait wait. I just figured out the "he" you were talking about. Costner? Forgiven? NEVER.

I mean, even in the Untouchables, a decent flick, his friend gets shot and he's all "Damn it. Goddamn it."

He couldn't act his way out of a paper bag if he played the Unknown Comic.
Ok, that makes no sense. But you know where I'm going with this.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:02:25 -0800

No, not really.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:02:58 -0800

Raising Arizona was great. Lord of War came close to being OK. Anything else with Cage just doesn't do it for me. I guess I've had my fill of "running/diving in slow motion from an explosion" sequences.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:06:20 -0800

136 comments about this non-issue? Really? At this point, there simply isn't any "I'd hit it" in the high-kick girl thread. It's just not there. High kick girl is funny for various reasons, not the least of which is her being made to wear that schoolgirl outfit all the time, but the basic complaint just isn't true. (of course, this is due to the mods, but I think they would have nixed the offending comments sans callout)

Also, FWIW, I didn't read Joe's comment as saying the girls were unattractive. They're just normal girls. And his point (as I took it) was that there are plenty of female high-school pole vaulters. The only reason Stokke got so much "press" was that she looked good in that particular set of photos. I seem to recall other photos of her floating around at the time and in most other photos she actually looked pretty much the same as those other girls. Like an average high-school female athlete person. (for those who might take umbrage at the use of "average": most people who look really great in a given photo will usually look worse in person. A good photo can work miracles)

Anyway, this isn't a completely bad callout and I will not lobby for having you feel bad, but I think it was a bit premature and/or unnecessary in this case.

This mostly bothers me because I haven't seen the same type of post devote to a male athlete, which to me serves to reinforce the trend that whenever an attractive woman accomplishes something it's because she's attractive and not, say, because she's actually talented.

Sure... I don't think I see it here. I agree that it happens a lot, but not so much here.

besides, the whole Japanese school-girl-fetish thing is a liitle too close to pederasty anyway, so it slides right through sexy into creepy

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:07:38 -0800

Hmm... Michelada.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:08:57 -0800

136 comments about this non-issue? Really?

No, not really. Most of the comments consist of us playing Critic's Circle with a cast of male actors.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:09:44 -0800

As was pointed out, Cage seems driven to take on quirky, non-mainstream roles, so there is plenty of regular-mo fare if you've missed it.

Plus, I'm having a hard time imagining anybody else as Sailor Ripley in Wild At Heart.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:11:43 -0800

Ooh yeah, Wild at Heart. Forgot about that one. Rather enjoyed it, even if the Santa sequence gave me nightmares.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:13:40 -0800

Actually. For fun, try imagining Mickey Rourke in any role he didn't originally play.

I guarantee you'll want to take a shower. He kinda dirties up the place. Not necessarily in a bad way.

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:14:52 -0800

Anakin Skywalker.

By: quin

quin — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:16:01 -0800

Brad Pitt's performance as Floyd in True Romance was, as far as I understand it, "act like your standard So Cal stoner".

Supposedly, that character was one of the inspirations for Pineapple Express. Apparently someone saw him and wondered what would have happened if the movie had decided to follow him instead.

Also, I now feel this weird compulsion to do a post about a woman running a high fever.

Just so I can say with completely sincerity that "This is about a girl who's hot. Really hot."

By: mullacc

mullacc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:16:33 -0800

grapefruitmoon is just upset because her cat's still a dick.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:17:26 -0800

Oh man I picked the wrong day to stop living in MeTa.... I don't really see the High Kick Girl in the same way as the annoying Stokke thread, but maybe it's been cleaned up since this callout showed up?

136 comments about this non-issue? Really?

No.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:19:06 -0800

*sleazily* But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some power converters

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:19:45 -0800

Oh wait, you said Anakin. Hmm.

Yeah. Still dirty.

By: chugg

chugg — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:20:16 -0800

I just saw this monstrosity of a beverage at the convenience store near my office

Monstrosity? Beer and Clam is a great hangover remedy! Just don't mix it with beer that tastes like watered down horse piss.

Also, Caesars.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:20:31 -0800

No.

Yeah, well, ok. I got halfway through, wrote my comment and then went back to find out how much people love/hate George Clooney.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:22:51 -0800

Though it was very polite of you two to answer my rhetorical question. Wasn't it?

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:23:15 -0800

Oh man I picked the wrong day to stop living in MeTa

o hai

By: Bageena

Bageena — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:23:57 -0800

Can we have an 'Ogle filter' post about members of Mefi? I mean, am I really the only person here who'd like to see a 'Beautiful Girls of Mefi' calander or something? At least that might stop me from mistaking some members for females.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:23:59 -0800

I wonder how Mickey Rourke would do as Orlando.

By: From Bklyn

From Bklyn — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:25:36 -0800

Clooney is... I always kind of had mixed feelings about Nick Cage, thought he was always the same guy, movie after movie and then I saw him in "Adaptation" and I kind of had to take it all back. I still don't really like him, but he can most certainly act. He was two people in that movie. It was creepy. I didn't like either of them, but they were distinct... Clooney is just charming as all get out and knows it and makes fun of it very well - as does Pitt. As does Chow Yun-Fat. And as J.C.vanDamm does not.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:26:19 -0800

And re: bud light & clamato: my dad has been drinking it (with real beer however) since forever. His explanation is that the acidity of the tomato juice neutralizes the basicness of the alcohol is it's less stomach-upsetting due to a more neutral pH. It is, apparently, SCIENCE.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:26:53 -0800

Could Orlando Bloom do any Mickey Rourke roles?

By: netbros

netbros — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:29:37 -0800

Mickey Rourke as Forrest Gump.

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:29:37 -0800

*sleasily* "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth. "

By: Catfry

Catfry — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:30:58 -0800

Can we do a data dump on this? I'd gotten the impression the expression was used much more after her challenge. Like flies to honey many mefites cannot resist a chance to tease.

Voila.
Didn't even think to try google. Dunno how exact the data is though but substituting 2007 for 2008 in your search string gives a slightly lower number.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:32:54 -0800

Dunno how exact the data is though but substituting 2007 for 2008 in your search string gives a slightly lower number.

A ha! Of course, you're right, we'd have to read all mentions of "I'd hit it" in 2008 to see the context.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:33:33 -0800

"You have my bow."

*lights Lucky Strike, squints*

By: desjardins

desjardins — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:34:01 -0800

Can we have an 'Ogle filter' post about members of Mefi?

WHAT A GREAT IDEA

*facepalm*

By: quin

quin — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:35:04 -0800

Rumple : Could Orlando Bloom do any Mickey Rourke roles?

Maybe Angel Heart other than that? No. Probably not.

Though I'd pay cash money to see Bloom attempt Marv from Sin City.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:35:05 -0800

Well, a very light (but not in that way) lager goes nicely with either tomato or Clamato (if that's your thing). I've tried it with dark beers and, well, it mostly just wastes the beer. Though we actually mixed a tomato and KLB raspberry wheat -- it was the only beer left in the fridge -- and it wasn't terrible.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:38:23 -0800

Well, compared to Bud Light, nearly anything qualifies as real beer. In this case, it would have been Canadian. or Blue, which would be improved by dropping a chunk of shit in it, moreso by tomato juice.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:38:43 -0800

And I want Mickey Rourke to be Rorschach.

You could have that whole "dropped him down an elevator shaft" about Rourke and it wouldn't sound wrong.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:41:01 -0800

I want Mickey Rourke to be Rorschach.

"Another round. Of drinks. For all my friends. Hrm."

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:41:32 -0800

He couldn't replace Klaus Kinski in anything.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:44:07 -0800

Zu allen meinen Freunden.

*sneers*

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:46:22 -0800

Though it was very polite of you two to answer my rhetorical question. Wasn't it?

I pretty much hang out in MeTa ready to answer questions and I'm often not clever or nuanced enough to figure out what's rhetorical. Your seemed a lot like other people's "Oh my GOD you people are really overthinking this in your typically irritating way, here's the math that proves it [insert numbers]" comments so I just wanted to make sure, for skimmers later, that it was clear that this wasn't what was happening.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:48:55 -0800

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: MetaTalk is my favorite dive bar.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:51:43 -0800

Damn you have a lot of photographs of yourself.

Eh, I'm a photographer and I've experimented quite a bit with the self-portrait genre. Also, my Flickr account is something like four years worth of photos.

Jesus Christ, grapefruit moon, you're about half the age I thought you were. Also, not dutch. I wonder who I was actually thinking of?

Hrm. Nope. Definitely not Dutch. And thanks... I think?

grapefruitmoon is just upset because her cat's still a dick.

TRUE DAT.

grapefruitmoon, wow, I was certain you were older based on the consistent maturity of your comments.

Awww, thanks. I don't know that I'm actually consistently mature, but it's nice that I'm faking it convincingly!

And er, slightly on topic, this wasn't really a "call-out" per se, but I guess it would be fair to consider it a "knee-jerk" reaction when I saw the post framed in terms of Takeda's attractiveness. I'm glad to see that we've come a long way in terms of discussion from the Allison Stokke days, but I guess I still don't think that it's necessary to mention any woman's attractiveness when discussing her accomplishments (unless the two are specifically related).

I feel pretty strongly about this because yes, attractiveness in females opens a lot of doors that are unfairly much harder for unattractive women to get through. Simple stuff, like getting good service in a restaurant, is a lot easier for "pretty" women and it's totally a gross standard. So, when I see discussions in MetaFilter about "such and such woman is really great at this thing and SHE'S HOTT" I feel kinda slimy - like, what does it matter that she's pretty? Would she be less talented if she wasn't? Women get much more attention for anything that they do if they're attractive and it's really not the same for men - at least not that I've seen. Perhaps I'm just biased on noticing the extra attention placed on attractive women because I'm a woman, but I really just don't think that men are also judged on their aesthetic worth whenever their other talents are considered.

So, that's why it really bugs me and feels creepy when this sort of post comes up. We've gotten so much better as a site in dealing with sexism, and nothing's ever perfect, I just felt like this was an area we could still use some work on.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:52:59 -0800

In my defense, the personal thought processes and intent behind "I'd hit it!" is a long, long hike away from "I want to ogle you like an object and/or put my penis in you."

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:54:41 -0800

Obviously, Mickey Rourke as Ozymandias is the bolder choice.

Rourke would have been a pretty great Jack Torrance, I think. I dunno who you'd get for Wendy today...Anne Hathaway, maybe? I know that sounds like a hell of a weird match, but I assure you I know exactly how to do it and goddamn I wanna write the screen treatment RIGHT! NOW!!

...Yeah, but I won't. Also: Mickey Rourke in Elizabethtown!

By: adipocere

adipocere — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:59:21 -0800

No, koeselitz, I don't find people's speech objectionable as such — I may find reason to argue with it, I may disagree, I may counter, but you won't hear me saying "You don't get to say that." I don't care if it is an AACS decryption key, ~~holopro~~ [redacted] or "You're a stupidhead;" "shouldn't be spoken" is not a concept which I accept. I find no Deplorable Word which will somehow end all life as we know it: no eardrums will shred, no brains will melt, no heads will explode Scanners-style.

People have, many, many times in my life, said things that I had an unpleasant emotional reaction to; my skin never split open and blood gushed out. While I might rather have not heard them, never ever would I tell someone that they do not get to do so. I'm free to counter, not to sew someone's lips shut with a wagging finger of "you could hurt my feelings."

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, without evidence of such, is about as far as I'd go, and I rather think that you should simply be fined for whatever injuries might occur as a result of doing so.

I hardly said that what is natural is what is right; I merely point out that sexual desire, that terrible bugaboo, as a emotional/hormonal reaction, seems to be singled out here in the way that other reactions are not. Trying to draw actions such as rape into it, really, you might as well Godwin that puppy right there and be done with it. If you want me to spend time making fun of the idea of drawing some parallel between someone expressing sexual attraction and the crime of rape, I will, but I think it's a bit too easy as a target.

When people are "hurt" (how to distinguish between people who are actually hurt and people who are simply posing as such as a way to manipulate others, especially online?), well, that's sad, and tragic, but that's life. Someone being offended is a bit like diarrhea: it's your own personal reaction, and not something for which everyone else is responsible. Too bad you've got it, and I'll hold the door for you if you have to dash to the can, but that's your own business. More so when the speech in question isn't directly addressed to you. If you would truly hold up someone saying that they are hurt as the defining standard, you're heading right for Fahrenheit 451 territory. Let konolia have a free hand with the site, then; she was offended at how people perceived her faith, and wanted that speech to stop, too.

And, yes, trying to curtail the reactions and attendant speech of others is controlling. That's pretty much how I would define controlling. The attempt to elevate it to some moral principle which Must Be Followed is what I would actually call disingenuous. It's a person who wants someone else to do something, or not to do something, not a physical law of the universe, not a stone tablet handled down from the mount, and pretending it is such is a way to, as they say, entertain the pleasure of elevating a bad mood to a principle.

Perhaps I find the endless cries of "boyzone" to be offensive, and a thinly-veiled attempt to stifle that unruly male sexuality. If I find that damaging, is that now something of which may never be spoken? If I find the offended huff to be puffery for posturing's sake, can I request that the kibosh be put on it? I think the very concept that men "should" not express their honest feelings to be repressive and, yes, damaging to the whole gender. Should I launch myself into a thread anytime the word "jerk" is used and gravely ask what the problem is with male masturbation? Do I get to stop and derail a post every time someone says "dick," and begin a grinding discussion of what precisely people have against male genitalia? I very well could, if all it takes is the claim of ruffled feathers being damaging. I could be offended at Disneyland if I wanted to. Scratch that, Disneyland sucks, they're rather unpleasant to their employees and they promote the concept that workers must be completely subjugated to management and any sticky five year old who gets drug in by well-meaning parents. Maybe Chuck-E-Cheese.

And that is what I believe that, as a standard for censorship, the idea that someone has or might take offense, is useless in a practical sense, verifiable in no reasonable way, and, were it seriously taken as the universal principle which is often advocated, might very well lead to the most boring conversations ever conceived, or at least more boring than the conversations people have with me, and nobody wants that, now do they?

By: marxchivist

marxchivist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:01:58 -0800

Thanks koeselitz, Wicker Man looks wonderful in a terrible way. I've managed to miss that movie, but that teaser you linked to makes me want to see it. My first thought was that you had linked to Vampire's Kiss.

By: dg

dg — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:02:50 -0800

... I really just don't think that men are also judged on their aesthetic worth ...
Something for which I'm personally grateful every day.

By: dirty lies

dirty lies — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:04:17 -0800

The problem is that no one in this god infused country knows how to make a good chelada/michelada.

You need a good beer to start with, fresh clam juice, fresh tomato juice, very coarse sea salt, a good hot sauce, not that vinegary piss tasting Tabasco, the English sauce with the unspellable name, fresh Mexican limes and a 1 liter glass full of ice cubes so cold they crack when you pour the beer. And you need to be sitting on a tropical beach.

I believe it was the extra nutrients in micheladas that kept me from getting scurvy and dry corneas during college. That and stealing bread from the cafeteria bread and making free condiment sandwiches.

By: Dumsnill

Dumsnill — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:09:00 -0800

LIBERIAN BOY

Liberian boy
You know that you came
And you brought me joy

Just like in the movies

Two lovers in a scene
When he says do you love me
And he says so honestly

I love you Liberian boy

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:09:01 -0800

Fresh clam juice? I'm not that squeamish, but clam juice is just one of those things that I enjoy thinking is purely manufactured, perhaps from unlaundered socks and used Q-tips.

I don't think I could enjoy it if I thought it was liquid from clams.

By: minifigs

minifigs — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:09:15 -0800

Ghostbusters would have been a completely different movie with Mickey Rourke in Rick Moranis' role. As would Honey, I Shrunk the Kids for that matter.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:09:45 -0800

Simple stuff, like getting good service in a restaurant, is a lot easier for "pretty" women and it's totally a gross standard

Why is this a gross standard? It's at some point simple economics. People will come out to a place that's populated or staffed by attractive people, and business will do better. I'm not sure if this constitutes a gross standard, or just life.

By: theroadahead

theroadahead — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:12:42 -0800

One way of looking at it is that it's just a really tired joke, not really much different than the "You know who else..." Hitler joke that pops up in every other thread.

I'd Hitler it.

Two mints in one . . . .

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:13:28 -0800

Hold on. Mickey Rourke... and tomato juice.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:14:49 -0800

I really just don't think that men are also judged on their aesthetic worth

Actually, I seem to recall having seen several studies make their way through the eye of the media sphincter claiming to show that attractive people of both genders are statistically more successful than their mortal counterparts. This isn't to say that men and women are treated the same, of course, but there does appear to be an attractiveness bias working for and against men, also.

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:20:29 -0800

It is, apparently, SCIENCE.

...except beer is acidic, so it's not very good science.

By: amyms

amyms — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:23:03 -0800

This just needs to be said:

Paul Giamatti is waaay hotter than Brad Pitt.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:23:51 -0800

What do you have against acidic juice? Are you an anticlamite?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:30:24 -0800

Paul Giamatti is waaay hotter than Brad Pitt.

you're just saying that so some poor guy will hit himself in the face with a shovel to try and get laid.

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:32:00 -0800

FYI, the cooter counter (wiki) was reset, on average, about twice a week during 2008.

I might put in what languagehat said over there.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:32:22 -0800

you're just saying that so some poor guy will hit himself in the face with a shovel to try and get laid.

I've tried it. It didn't help.

By: empath

empath — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:38:09 -0800

Haven't read the whole thread, but the big difference between the alison stokkes thing and this is that Alison stokkes was a normal teenage girl who had celebrity thrust upon her by a bunch of skeevy guys on the internet, and this girl is (as I understand it) starring in a movie and is actively looking for celebrity.

I think commenting on the attractiveness of celebrities who are actively marketing their own attractiveness is totally within the bounds of acceptable discourse.

By: stet

stet — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:38:45 -0800

And thanks... I think?

Sorry, that was ambiguous. It was neither a compliment nor a critique, just one of those moments where my mental picture of someone online doesn't line up with real life. Please take that remark and my comment in a positive fashion. Even though you're not Dutch you big not-dutch-being jerk.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:42:56 -0800

Even though you're not Dutch you big not-dutch-being jerk.

I'll try harder next time!

By: CitrusFreak12

CitrusFreak12 — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:45:16 -0800

I really just don't think that men are also judged on their aesthetic worth

Tell that to a short guy.
Or a scrawny guy.
Or a guy who can't grow a good beard (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE).
Or an unattractive guy, for that matter.

Not saying one excuses the other, just saying I disagree with you on that point.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:45:17 -0800

it's not very good science

The Lies My Father Told Me.

I think I'll have to re-evaluate my world view.

By: ob

ob — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:46:37 -0800

As a guy, I have to say that I find it pretty tiresome when I read comments like "I'd Hit it". Firstly, "it". Secondly, it's pretty redundant for a guy to say that he would like to have sex with an attractive woman. I don't particularly care who you'd like to have sexual congress with.

By: jtron

jtron — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:51:04 -0800

the English sauce with the unspellable name

HP Sauce?

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:57:25 -0800

It's made out of fermented anchovies of course.

Apparently it's popular in asian cusine, which suprised the hell out of me, but considering it's a tasty sauce made out of disgusting fish parts shouldn't be a suprise at all.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:59:00 -0800

I have to say that I find it pretty tiresome when I read comments like "I'd Hit it".

eh, depends on the context. Rarely used, it can be fine, especially if for comedic effect. The problem is that it's over used in a juvenile way.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:04:15 -0800

Orlando Bloom was great as the Joker in the last Batman movie. Too bad he died.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:05:57 -0800

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:10:53 -0800

I don't particularly care who you'd like to have sexual congress with.

How about who we'd like to have sexual senate with?

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:14:55 -0800

jtron, I think they meant Wornoutincestiresomehobbitshire sauce.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:25:51 -0800

Or a guy who can't grow a good beard (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE).

John S. Bowman and Jane (Milroy) Bowman. (No wonder Mrs. Bowman has such a disillusioned look.)

By: grumblebee

grumblebee — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:34:29 -0800

This makes me sad.

Expressing the opinion that another person is beautiful without belittling them or denigrating them is a very difficult and delicate thing to do.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:35:09 -0800

And I going to take shit for this?

Hitler was right.

By: Bageena

Bageena — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:35:28 -0800

desjardins, I was going to make you February on my calender, but not now.

Now you're July.

By: everichon

everichon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:40:39 -0800

I am also not Dutch.

By: dg

dg — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:41:23 -0800

you're just saying that so some poor guy will hit himself in the face with a shovel to try and get laid.
I've tried it. It didn't help.
Now you fucking tell me!

By: dersins

dersins — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:44:45 -0800

Bageena, before you sounded like you maybe don't "get" social interaction, but now you're just sounding like a creep.

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:48:21 -0800

Sexual Congress!

By: Bageena

Bageena — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:50:55 -0800

Hm. Well, both comments were actually supposed to be funny/sarcastic, so let us just chalk it up as FAIL for me on that. I never actually wanted a 'Sexy Mofo's of Mefi' calender. Back to listening more, posting less for me.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:53:48 -0800

-Simple stuff, like getting good service in a restaurant, is a lot easier for "pretty" women and it's totally a gross standard

-Why is this a gross standard? It's at some point simple economics. People will come out to a place that's populated or staffed by attractive people, and business will do better. I'm not sure if this constitutes a gross standard, or just life.

I might be wrong, but I think you misunderstood the statement. I believe she was saying it's easier for "pretty" women to get good service in a restaurant. You seem to be talking about the attractiveness of the wait staff.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:21:51 -0800

Rarely used, it can be fine, especially if for comedic effect. The problem is that it's over used in a juvenile way.

And I think the larger problem is that it's not rarely used on MetaFilter. Any individual person might (and probably does) use it rarely.

let us just chalk it up as FAIL for me on that.

Does anyone watch The Big Bang Theory, and there's this one episode where Leonard has to hold up a SARCASM sign for Sheldon, the big braniac who is a little clueless about more human interactions? I feel like sometimes we could use little indicators like that here. I was pretty sure Bageena was not only kidding but not trying to kid in a creepy was, but it can be hard to tell.

Also Bageena sounds like what my friend used to call her vagina back when we were five or so, so the name always makes me laugh.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:22:30 -0800

dersins, that's only because you lack context for the comments. Marisa Stole the Precious Thing was recently outed as a man! A man I tell you!

Not sure where he was going with the whole calendar thing, since obviously cortex gets July.

How come no one ever calls me a creep? I try so hard!

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:23:59 -0800

I never actually wanted a 'Sexy Mofo's of Mefi' calender.

They could never afford my posing fee.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:28:05 -0800

I wasn't outed as a man; I was outed as not being an anime character. And I'm still a little sore about that.

By: Bageena

Bageena — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:40:38 -0800

jessamyn, that's apparently what my nickname means to more than a few people. A couple of years ago, I met two girls from Ohio who taught me all kinds of words I'd never heard before including 'bageena' and 'blumpkin'. They were two of the most beautiful girls I'd ever met in my life and they were also the absolute sickest. Anyways, I stole the word from them and made it my own. I figured it was safe, that it was a totally made up word and I liked the way it rolled off the tounge.
I googled the word a few days ago and it looks like it's now listed in the urban dictionary as slang for vagina. So yeah, now that the word is starting to solidify behind that definition, I should probably change my nickname, but I won't.
I love the Big Bang Theory though. I'm glad I'm not the only one who watches it. I do needs me one of them signs.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:41:16 -0800

You promised me you'd give me December, you creep.

By: nola

nola — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:47:00 -0800

For what it's worth, I'd hit all of you. I'm just joshin' I wouldn't fuck any of you dogs. But I would punch you all in the mouth.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:51:44 -0800

I can earn the whole springtime, lads. Ogle over here. I enjoy the feminist rodeo clown bit.

This actually gives me a great idea. How much lulz would I have over a Ladies of Metafilter calendar with myself on every page. Level 10 Camwhore!

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:58:50 -0800

Nola, I posted the first three people from my list of "people I'd like to hit," in another thread. I only posted the first three. I thought my list was quite long (clocking in at around a thousand), but if you have all of metafilter on yours you win!

And jessamyn and Bageena I am going to go watch some of this The Big Bang Theory, and if it sucks I am adding both you to my list!

Sadly, I don't expect it to be about porn.

By: Lentrohamsanin

Lentrohamsanin — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:59:49 -0800

I call October!

By: mattdidthat

mattdidthat — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:01:13 -0800

posted by fixedgear Sexual Congress!

Yes We Can. Yes We Can. Yes, Yes, Oh God Yes Yes Fuck Yes Yes We Can.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:03:00 -0800

I'd hit Lentrohamsanin! Of course by "hit," I mean hit. I think I can take him.

Umm, cortex, can we break out the Cheerios yet? I gotta take a pee.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:03:40 -0800

And I think the larger problem is that it's not rarely used on MetaFilter

Matter of perception, I think. Obviously, you and the other mods see a lot, where as I can't recall the last time I saw it, even after glancing through the Cooter Counter. Obviously other users will see it differently.

There are about 100 cited uses of the phrase "I'd hit it" on the Counter, covering a year. That sounds rare to me, in a pure numbers sense.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:28:28 -0800

Yeah it's a perception thing. To me twice a week is not rare enough to make it comedic, it makes it repetitive and tiresome. Then again I probably have seen almost every instance in the past year where almost no one else has.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:39:11 -0800

I believe she was saying it's easier for "pretty" women to get good service in a restaurant.

Yeah, that's totally what I meant.

Can I be September? September is always a dud month for calendars, I've noticed. But hey, it's my birthday month and I'm happy to be that dud.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:41:57 -0800

And October has Halloween.

By: Bageena

Bageena — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:48:22 -0800

What the eff. I take back my calender comment because I get called a socially-retarded creep and then everyone wants in on it? Consider this plate of beans BAFFLED!

By: nola

nola — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:51:41 -0800

Forget it jake, it's Metatown.

By: not_on_display

not_on_display — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:56:56 -0800

Holy crap, this post is HOTT.

No, I mean it. Did someone turn off the A/C?

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:05:50 -0800

I get called a socially-retarded creep and then everyone wants in on it?

It's weird, isn't it? I have no explanation.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:10:31 -0800

And just so people know, I was so gunning for that damn cooter clock! I was even emailing people who used the term and begging them not to do so again. But all the same even I made the list, under the "irony" category, and was perhaps the only one to make it under the "meta" category as well (not sure there). I was crushed and thought it way unfair since I was talking about a probe hitting Mars! I mean I could have taken it if it had been a comment about where an alien probe was going, but this was NASA! And saying, "At least they hit it this time (and no this doesn't reset the cooter clock)" really shouldn't have counted. I'm paraphrasing myself there, since I am too lazy to look up my own quotes.

By: Rock Steady

Rock Steady — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:23:54 -0800

I bet a "Ladies of Rylstone" style calendar done by MeFites (male and female) would raise a pretty penny for some worthy charity.

/not volunteering

By: jtron

jtron — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:46:05 -0800

If you need any lumpy, pale, hairy, tattooed and pierced handicapable models, I am so totally in.

Wait, there's a calendar?

By: Potomac Avenue

Potomac Avenue — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:36:26 -0800

A girl in a bar said I was sexy the other day so I will be in your calender. Oh course, she was a bit confused, having recently karate-snapped a board with her head, or at least that's what the police report says. Nevertheless, I feel pretty.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:50:40 -0800

I take back my calender comment because I get called a socially-retarded creep and then everyone wants in on it?

Once the perceived potential transgression and associated offense of an earnest, socially tone-deaf calendar proposal was exorcised by the collective rebuke and retraction, the topic itself was made functionally harmless and folks felt more comfortable moving on to the cheerful post-transgression deconstruction of the event through embrace/mockery.

Consider this plate of beans BAFFLED!

The canonical line is "pissed and slightly baffled". HTH.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:10:31 -0800

"Maybe this is true broadly speaking. But the first "character actress" I could think of was Kathy Bates. Maybe that's just me. I do think that "Hollywood" is far more willing to put a good-looking talentless woman in a lead role than do the same with a man. Maybe that's because they don't "need" the ability, but I mean, I hate those movies. And so does everyone I know."

Collateral damage: When dudes are all like, huh huh I'd hit it, we get pandered to with Jessica Alba in movies.

Even ones like Fantastic Four, which totally could have been good.

Also, the wounded cries of men whose sexuality is somehow threatened when jerking off is made fun of should really invest less of their identity in their masturbation. The reason jerking off is a joke is because it's inconsequential, you weird high-strung bastards.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:16:44 -0800

Judy Dench and Kathy Bates! Yeah! Who needs that 30 second edit feature? I knew I could name two.

By: dawson

dawson — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:18:22 -0800

Or a guy who can't grow a good beard (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE).
But Castro was handsome!
Also, this reminded me of Matt Damon Does Matt McConaughey. Sadly this does not reference sexual congress.

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:46:26 -0800

cjorgensen - Your quote was At least we hit it this time. And no, jessamyn, this doesn't reset your name change. It wasn't sexual, but since it used & then acknowedged that it played off of the taboo phrase it counted. Ironic "haha not talking about sex" usages counted. It was a real "seizing failure from the jaws of victory" moment.

By: Bageena

Bageena — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:56:31 -0800

Thanks Cortex. I hadn't read that thread before. Someone really needs to put together a collection of the greatest flameouts on this site. Please. That would be awesome.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:12:42 -0800

Judi Dench and Kathy Bates? You don't have to be over 60 to be a character actress, ffs.

Um, Jane Lynch and Missi Pyle and Joan Cusack and Fran McDormand and freaking Julia Stiles and Alicia Witt and my beloved Tilda and Cate Blanchett even.

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:20:54 -0800

The wiki page actually covered 11 months or so, which might throw the numbers off slightly, & I think even more stupid three-word comments got deleted & never counted. I'm curious about whether the challenge made the phrase more popular, but that feels a bit like blaming those annoyed by it while infantilizing those who just couldn't resist the taboo.

Writing that makes me want to check: Anti-feminist Bingo! & the sequel.

Note the main one I'm seeing in the thread is "What use is it to me to care about other people's issues?" though many of the others are touched on. Simply rebutting those claims - or collecting the rebuttals we already have - could be a decent & really helpful wiki page. (Inspired by a global warming wiki countering common denier BS claims, which I can't find right now.)

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:30:10 -0800

I like Clamato.

My mom enjoys the occasional Clamato and beer; apparently it's quite refreshing on a hot summer day. I don't think she'd want that premixed stuff, though, which sucks as Mother's Day is approaching and she is hard to shop for.

/Pointless Rambly Ampersand Family Update #28031

By: Meatbomb

Meatbomb — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:13:23 -0800

Clamato with cilantro is best.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:46:07 -0800

Writing that makes me want to check: Anti-feminist Bingo! & the sequel.

eh, you're being silly and overly emotional.

By: kittyprecious

kittyprecious — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:13:45 -0800

Um, Jane Lynch and Missi Pyle and Joan Cusack and Fran McDormand and freaking Julia Stiles and Alicia Witt and my beloved Tilda and Cate Blanchett even.>

So...you just have to be a redhead or have a nose that doesn't quite match your face, then?

And back to the earlier question of women ogling male athletes, how has no one brought up Kickette yet?

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:12:00 -0800

I'm kind of surprised that some softdrink company hasn't market a 'fitness drink' called 'Man Crush," now that I think of it.

You didn't watch Stephen Colbert last night, did you?

Basically, he accuses the New York Times of falling to its knees and giving back alley blow jobs for 20 bucks, and declares that this makes him want a nice, cold Sierra Mist, a bottle of which which he proceeds to drink.

No one does it like Colbert.

(Also, does anyone know why Larry Lessig's published would request the link to Lessig's new book -- ReMix -- be removed from the Colbert site the day after Lessig's interview? Weird.)

By: jonmc

jonmc — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:12:43 -0800

You didn't watch Stephen Colbert last night, did you?

Look who you're asking.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:16:01 -0800

There are a couple of things I have to respond to here:
1. What the fuck? Why, God, why?
2. Paul Giamatti was helped by his famous relation. It's a door-opener at a minimum.
3. Brad Pitt is hotter than and a better actor than Keanu Reeves.
4. There are lots of men who have a great combination of looks and talent that never "make it".
5. #4, but with women.
6. Most importantly, the fact that George Clooney is always George Clooney in every picture he does is a feature, not a bug. He is an old-fashioned movie star, like Carey Grant. People give him jobs because they want a movie star, not a character actor. Much love to Clooney. Fuck all those method-acting bores.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:17:44 -0800

Crap it's Cary Grant. Now I'm going to have to commit Harry Caray or, more appropriately in Philadelphia, Harry Callas.

By: Evangeline

Evangeline — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:48:28 -0800

People give him jobs because they want a movie star, not a character actor. Much love to Clooney. Fuck all those method-acting bores.

Character actor does not necessarily equal method actor and vice versa. In fact, I would imagine "close to the vest" actors like Clooney (whom I love) are just as likely to be method actors. Just because that Clooney personality shines through, doesn't mean he's not putting in some hard work. Character actors can (not that they must) rely heavily on external characteristics - a funny walk, a weird accent, vocal variations - to create a character. Most good actors aren't dogmatic in their approach to acting. If an eye twitch helps convey a character's emotion, then use it. If you need to drag up memories of your dead grandma, then use that. Use what works.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:56:06 -0800

Judi Dench and Kathy Bates? You don't have to be over 60 to be a character actress, ffs.

That's a good list, but I didn't say there weren't lots of them (someone else said that). I said, in response to "most of the ones that do exist are also extremely attractive", that the first one that came to mind was Kathy Bates (though BIITEOTB and all that).

Also, having dissed Costner in The Untouchables (and generally), I stumbled on to this about Mickey Rourke: He is alleged to have turned down a number of high-profile acting roles, including Eliot Ness in The Untouchables.

I have to go lie down now.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:13:26 -0800

Harry Dean Stanton is a character actor, but the only character he plays is Harry Den Stanton, and he does it brilliantly.

By: scrump

scrump — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:20:47 -0800

Can we have an 'Ogle filter' post about members of Mefi? I mean, am I really the only person here who'd like to see a 'Beautiful Girls of Mefi' calander or something? At least that might stop me from mistaking some members for females.

Only if it's comprised entirely of male MeFites who are consistently mistaken for women because of their usernames.

As a bonus, we could include the "oh my God, you're a guy and I was totally in love with you" reaction comments from other male MeFites.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:30:27 -0800

Good idea, but only if they're in drag.

By: mrmojoflying

mrmojoflying — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:38:27 -0800

Harry Dean Stanton is a character actor, but the only character he plays is Harry Den Stanton, and he does it brilliantly.

I once got piss-faced drunk with Harry Dean Stanton at a movie premiere. We were in the VIP room, but neither of us really felt like we belonged so we ended up sitting on a sofa together chatting about trivial stuff, knocking them back pretty quickly and joking about how much more entertaining the evening was getting the more we had to drink. I kept trying to think about where I knew him from. He said he was a musician and told me the venues that he played at. Then I remembered that I had seen him play at a club in West LA when I first moved to California - a really weird, memorable show. After an hour or so, I began contemplating the serious lack of wisdom involved in trying to keep pace with a man for whom alcohol seemed to have no effect, the only other person I actually knew at the party came up to us and said something like, "Harry Dean Stanton, awesome to finally meet you." They chatted for a minute, and the friend re-circulated. I turned to Harry and said, "Ohhhhhhh, so yer faaaaamoush?" He looked at me without blinking and said, "Not really, I thought *you* were famous."

By: Evangeline

Evangeline — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:03:51 -0800

Harry Dean Stanton is a character actor, but the only character he plays is Harry Den Stanton, and he does it brilliantly.

Harry Dean Stanton is fantastic, but I sure hope he's not anything like Roman Graves.

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:30:56 -0800

Writing that makes me want to check: Anti-feminist Bingo! & the sequel.

eh, you're being silly and overly emotional.

Do you realize how many people in the world lack potable water? How about them? Huh?

By: grumblebee

grumblebee — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:36:27 -0800

I've been working in theatre for a couple of decades, and though I'm guilty of using the term, I'm convinced "character actor" is meaningless. Or, rather, it means something different to everyone who uses it, so when three people are discussing character actors, they're probably all talking about different things.

Here are a few of the ways people use the term:

-- an actor who seems to change his personality, voice and/or appearance with each role. Lon Chaney, young DeNiro, Peter Sellers and Merl Streep are good examples.

-- an actor who is himself "something of a character," meaning that though he may not seem to change much from movie to movie, he's always quirky. Examples include John Turturro, Jack Nicholson and Jeannene Garofalo.

-- actors who don't fit (or tend to play) the traditional leading man, leading woman or ingenue parts. This, I believe, is the original meaning of "character actor." In a traditional play, say "MacBeth," the title roles -- MacBeth and Lady MacBeth -- would be played by the leading man and the leading woman. Other parts would be played by character actors. In "The Wizard of Oz," Judy Garland is the leading lady (or possibly the ingenue) and Ray Bolger, Burt Lahr and the others are character actors.

Obviously, these are subjective categories and they overlap. What is Jack Nicholson in "The Shining" or "The Witches of Eastwick"? Is he a leading man or a character actor. There isn't a right answer. It depends on how you use the terms.

What's much more interesting is that there are two main styles of acting (and a lot of sub-categories and variations). There are actors that "play themselves" (e.g. George Clooney and Cary Grant), which Evangeline called "close to the vest" actors, and actors who are chameleons. The latter type get much more credit -- to the point where some people (e.g. someone in this thread) -- think of them as "real" actors and think of people like Clooney as taking the easy way out. This doesn't surprise me. Being a chameleon is a great piece of SHOWMANSHIP. It naturally wows people. Whether it's easy or difficult isn't the issue in terms of its effect. The issue is that it seems impressive and magical.

However, having worked with both sorts of actors, I can promise you that the guys who "play themselves" and the guys who constantly change are working equally hard. I happen to like Clooney, but I'm not going to argue whether or not he's a good actor. That's a subjective call.

(I was fascinated when Dustin Hoffman got so much acclaim for his role in "Rain Man." I think he's a great actor, and I think he was really good in that movie. However, it wasn't a particularly challenging part. Many actors could have played it just as well. People are wowed by the showmanship of parts like that -- parts that involve all sorts of tics and quirks -- but such parts are relatively easy, because once the actor has worked out the physical and vocal tricks, half his work is done. All Hoffman has to do is talk in his Rain Man voice and he's basically set. In fact, I saw him jump into it on Saturday Night Live.

I'm much more impressed by his subtler performances in films like "All the Presidents Men" and "Kramer vs. Kramer." "Tootsie" is also fascinating. It's a fantastic performance. But I guarantee you that the scenes where he was in drag were easier to play than the scenes where he wasn't. In the non-drag scenes, he had nothing to hide behind.

If you think he was just "being himself" in those scenes, try it some time. Try videoing yourself "being yourself" in imaginary circumstances. Try "being yourself" as you pretend to be dying or seducing someone. See how natural you seem when you "play yourself" but have to use someone else's words. It isn't easy.)

I suggest there's a more useful meter for whether or not someone is a good actor than whether or not they change from part to part. The meter is believability. To me, Clooney is a good actor because he seems real. When he's being attacked by aliens or whatever, I actually believe he's being attacked by aliens. He reacts as I thinks someone really would react. On the other hand, I think Keanu Reeves sucks because, to me, he's stilted. Instead of reacting naturally, he seems like he's reading from cue cards. He's stiff and uncomfortable.

That meter is useful whether you're evaluating a "character actor" or leading-man/lady. To me, Jim Carry sucks because he pretty much always seems fake. He hams it up (brilliantly sometimes) but I never believe him -- at least not in his comedic roles. I know the hamming is what makes him appealing to some. It's subjective. But I happen not to like it. On the other hand, Peter Sellers always seems real to me.

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:47:22 -0800

That's a good list, but I didn't say there weren't lots of them (someone else said that).

Yeah, that was me, and it was not a really well thought out comment. What I meant was, a male actor in Hollywood can be famous and successful without ever getting to play a Leading Man-type role or being considered attractive, significantly more easily than female actress can. I think this is partially due to the relatively limited types of female roles in most films, most women appear as love interests or sexualized characters of some sort.

Kathy Bates is a good example. She was an extremely talented and respected stage actress throughout the 70s and 80s, but she was never offered any decent film roles, and more attractive women ended up being cast in her parts when some of the plays were made into films. It wasn't until Misery that she got her big break, and I can't help but think that the only way she got that part was because it was a horror movie that needed an unattractive actress to star in it for it to be effective.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:08:19 -0800

How about them? Huh?

I mow the lawn and fix things, so it’s fair.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:03:30 -0800

Only if it's comprised entirely of male MeFites who are consistently mistaken for women because of their usernames.

Or their manboobs.

By: mdn

mdn — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:24:12 -0800

I really just don't think that men are also judged on their aesthetic worth

It's probably not quite that simple, but I think women are a lot more flexible about what is attractive than men are - some women get very attracted to weird looking men (like the nicholas cage example above), not just the straight classically handsome faces like brad pitt. Even tom cruise has a kind of weird face if you look at it, but he's totally beloved by a lot of girls (or has been at least). I think women tend to judge more in the eyes and the demeanor, the way they carry themselves typa thing, than just the shape of the face.

But for men it's usually more straightforward somehow - hair, body, lips, it's just a yes or no question... (i once experimented back when "hot or not" was around and got totally different ratings with a short haired and long haired pic, for instance)

And Brad Pitt's a better actor than George Clooney. Clooney is always the same nice but very-aware-of-the-camera guy. He's charming and debonair in every movie. That isn't really acting. Brad Pitt actually plays different characters, whereas clooney is like david duchovney, always playing a movie star...

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:12:09 -0800

"Harry Dean Stanton is a character actor, but the only character he plays is Harry Den Stanton, and he does it brilliantly."

I like the idea that Harry Dean Stanton is really playing a character named Harry Den Stanton (who I imagine is somehow Dutch) in every movie, and who is entirely a construction of Harry Dean Stanton's, who has an elaborate backstory for him (which runs, to Harry Dean Stanton, like a collapsed Paul Auster narrative).

By: mrmojoflying

mrmojoflying — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:20:30 -0800

In large part, what makes an actor "good" goes on completely behind the scenes. Do they have the requisite physical skills for the role (i.e. can they juggle or ride a horse)? Do they have a work ethic and attitude that is conducive to completing a quality project? Are they flexible enough in their craft to adapt to the specific directions of the director? Do they have experience with this role or these types of roles so that they can work efficiently? Do they work until things are right? Thing like that. In the movies, what we really see is a combination of how well the actor, director, DP, cinematographer, gaffer, make up artist, horse wrangler, and everyone else who has a hand in the movie is doing to make the "actor" look like they can "act".

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:27:01 -0800

In large part, what makes an actor "good" goes on completely behind the scenes.

The story goes that Laurence Olivier was working with Charlton Heston - in Khartoum (1966)? - coaching him from every angle he could think of to improve his wooden performance. Finally, Olivier sighed and said simply, "Charlton, be better."

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:31:27 -0800

Harry Dean Stanton has his own PWEI song, that's pretty cool.

By: dersins

dersins — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:48:31 -0800

The story goes that Laurence Olivier was working with Charlton Heston - in Khartoum (1966)? - coaching him from every angle he could think of to improve his wooden performance. Finally, Olivier sighed and said simply, "Charlton, be better."

I've always preferred the (probably equally apocryphal) story of what Olivier said to Dustin Hoffman on the set of Marathon Man. Apparently Hoffman, in typical Method-acting manner, would stay up all night just wrecking himself physically and emotionally, in order to prepare for scenes in which his character was an exhausted wreck.

One day on the set, Olivier turned to Hoffman, who was fading fast, and said "Why don't you try acting, dear boy. It's so much easier."

By: strangeleftydoublethink

strangeleftydoublethink — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:50:36 -0800

I met Harry Dean Stanton at the premiere of The Wendell Baker Story and I'm so glad I did because it saved the night from being a complete disaster. That was the worst movie I ever made myself sit through. As soon as it was over, I dashed out of my prime seat in the balcony, almost mowing over Owen Wilson on my way out of the lobby. Seeing Owen alone made me hesitate for a moment by the door, where an old man was standing and munching on popcorn. It was Harry Dean Stanton. I thanked him for his work and left.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:58:44 -0800

I like the idea that Harry Dean Stanton is really playing a character named Harry Den Stanton

I'm pretty sure David Lynch likes this idea, too.

By: fidelity

fidelity — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:08:44 -0800

Harry Den Stanton is Danish, not Dutch. He's the main character of Peter Høeg's Forgotten City (Glemt by):

Harry Den Stanton was born in Roskilde, a small town outside Carlsberg on Christmas Eve and adopted soon by the daughter of the local minister, now married to the local beer baron. Because of a mixup on young Den Stanton's first day at school, he is placed four grades ahead of his proper, where, lost and afraid, he befriends a similarly lost American exchange student Paul Auster. Many people believe that Den Stanton was born in 1926, but this is impossible to prove due the accidental destruction by fire of all town records in 1929 and a subsequent epidemic of ergot poisoning in 1931 and 1932 which completely erased, during their waking hours, the memories of all the people of Roskilde. (Høeg, 3)

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:20:45 -0800

You guys are fucking miracle workers with typos.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:07:31 -0800

It began with Harry Dean Stanton's first credited role, in which he played Andrew, an executive who plans to kill his wife for the insurance after gambling away company funds. What's held back from the audience is that Andrew knows that if he is arrested, he'll be outed as Harry Den Stanton, and not only convicted, but forced to return to a life that he has not, by himself, created. This is a marked difference from the radio show on which it was based, where Karl Swenson played Andrew, unaware of Andrew's double life.

By: gman

gman — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:33:07 -0800

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:07:49 -0800

You look like a really good athlete.

I'm quite a good swimmer (not Michael Phelps caliber, obvs, but certainly good) but I can't tell if you're kidding. No MeFi posts are going to be made about my athletic abilities, that's for sure.

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:09:55 -0800

You guys are fucking miracle workers with typos.

Yep, right in the Longinas.

By: vapidave

vapidave — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:44:28 -0800

jonmc is a cab

By: jfuller

jfuller — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:39:10 -0800

> grapefruitmoon is just upset because her cat's still a dick.

I'd hit it.

By: dawson

dawson — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:51:33 -0800

It began with Harry Dean Stanton's first credited role...
And IMDb has the entire movie on line, so that's an evenings entertainment. Thanks klangklangston.

By: goo

goo — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:05:02 -0800

Clamato with cilantro is best.

Bleg, eeergh, eeew, gag with me a spoon. Peter Høeg is an author I like very much, but I couldn't read this thread beyond this comment without (blergh, bleegh) gagging. Ta, muchly.

By: Mick

Mick — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:36:13 -0800

Ask not for whom the ax grinds. It grinds for you.

By: goo

goo — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:54:15 -0800

And Harry Dean Stanton is my favourite member of the Brat Pack, and I just learned tonight the man is 82 fucken years old and still rockin (as the scary Prophet Roman on Big Love. Roman also makes me gag, though.

By: nonmerci

nonmerci — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:49:02 -0800

Since I'd like to discuss the fineness of male athletes, I'm going to have to side on the 'fair game' side of this spectrum.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:14:59 -0800

"Why don't you try acting, dear boy. It's so much easier."

but so much less fun.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:27:43 -0800

In the interest of clarity, when I referred to "method-acting bores" I was really thinking of Sean Penn, not Giamatti, who I thoroughly enjoy. Sean Penn is a talented but tedious person. I was also thinking of the run of Oscar-winning performances in the late '80s, when you had to portray someone who was physically or mentally fucked-up in order to win best actor (Hoffman, Daniel Day-Lewis, etc). These guys are good actors, but sometimes it's fun to watch someone who is charming, handsome, and suave playing a charming, handsome, suave character.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:52:12 -0800

Since I'd like to discuss the fineness of male athletes, I'm going to have to side on the 'fair game' side of this spectrum.

As Exhibit A for the defence, I'd like to offer this picture of Linford 'the lunchbox' Christie.

By: NortonDC

NortonDC — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:12:20 -0800

You know who started out as a character actress supporting the hotter ones? Scarlett Fuck ing Johansson.

Fight Club was certainly not the role where Pitt first showed that he really had skills. That would be Twelve Monkeys. To me, that's the first time he didn't look like he was thinking about how damn pretty he is.

As far as Clooney always being Clooney: "Like Bogart, like Tracy, Connery is always fully present as himself, regardless of the role. And yet the articulation of each character is clearly defined, singular, with subtle differences in the way each conveys thought, in their gestures and emotions."

By: box

box — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:56:54 -0800

I sometimes confuse Harry Dean Stanton and Dean Stockwell.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:57:34 -0800

I like Dean Stockwell (remember the tooth!) but he should be just fucking honoured to be confused with Harry Dean Stanton.

By: Lentrohamsanin

Lentrohamsanin — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:10:43 -0800

I get Stockwell and Dan Hedaya mixed up all the time.

By: nooneyouknow

nooneyouknow — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:59:11 -0800

I sometimes confuse Harry Dean Stanton and Dean Stockwell.

Wait, what? Harry Dean Stanton isn't this guy? I am shocked.

By: quin

quin — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:14:30 -0800

I sometimes confuse Harry Dean Stanton and Dean Stockwell.

How could you confuse the two? One is a filthy fucking Cylon, and the other is 'well armed and knows where you live'.

It's important to understand the difference so you know which threat you are dealing with.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:25:04 -0800

The life of a character actor is alway intense.

By: IAmBroom

IAmBroom — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:57:37 -0800

OK, late to the party, but - "athlete"? Really?

This isn't an athlete. She's a martial arts movie star (wannabe). Her sexuality is as much a part of her intended appeal as her athleticism.

It's like calling men out for commenting on how hot some starlet looked on the red carpet, in her off-the shoulder skin-tight Donna Karan gown.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:23:28 -0800

But depending on the accessories, that same gown can look either hot or "What WAS she thinking?!??".

If they didn't take her shoes, handbag & jewellery into consideration, they'd be displaying horrific & abhorrent shallowness.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0800

Oh, Ubu, I forget that you don't get American celebrity magazines.

They almost never menton the accessories or consider the ensemble.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:18:44 -0800

Don't they show photos of different celebs wearing the same dress (at different events, obv) with the fashion panel rating who did it best?

"NO!!! Strappy gold sandals & bling just DON'T WORK with this number. Penelope Cruz wins, with basic tan kitten heels & an understated silver bracelet"

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:24:46 -0800

They do that all the time, but without appeals to accessories. They're just like, "Penelope Cruz because Salma Hayek looks fat!"

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:49:00 -0800

or is that a...baby bump?

By: Rock Steady

Rock Steady — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:59:23 -0800

I sometimes confuse Harry Dean Stanton and Dean Stockwell.

I get Scott Bakula and Richard Dean Anderson mixed up all the time.

Can we get Ziggy to compute the probability of that?

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:07:45 -0800

The likelihood is approximately 1 in a fat man wearing no pants who is mocked at every turn by his cartoon universe.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:15:09 -0800

!

/Henry computes the odds according to his cartoon universe