In Pursuit of Hotness
by The Pop Culturista
It has come to my (admittedly short) attention that there may be quite a few people out there who are somewhat confused as to what constitutes "Hotness." Being the charitable soul that I am, I shall gladly take a few minutes out of my day to help clear up any misconceptions.
 Mary Kate Olsen, she is Not Hot. She's skinny, she dresses so very badly, and her taste in footwear should be actionable. She's wealthier than three oil heirs plus one shipping magnate, yet she dresses in oversized tshirts and tights. And no, absolutely no style points are awarded if the tshirt and tights in question cost a grand apiece. Expensive does not equal stylish. Oh, and wash your nasty hair, would you.
 Jennifer Garner, she is Hot. She was Hot when she was preggers, she was Hot a week after giving birth, she's Smoking Hot now. Look at that hair, the Grecian-style dress, the understated jewelry. Beautiful. Even when she's in jeans she's style, grace and poise. And she makes such a cute mommy.
 This boy-thing (whose name we do not speak), he is Not Hot. He was never Hot. He could never approach Hotness. He couldn't pay Hotness to buy him beer at the 7-11. Leaving aside completely the caricaturesque whigger posturing...no, we can't leave that aside, that's pretty much what makes Hotness an unattainable level for this loser. Well, that and his pasty skin and squinky-ass eyes. But that bit's pretty much genetic.
 Anne Hathaway, she is totally Hot. Large eyes, sculpted face, beautiful hair, and always immaculately turned out in public. Best of all, she's woman-shaped, not some stick figure of a woman thing. She carries probably 20 lbs more than the studios would like to see on her, but she has delightful curves, and seems to be intent on keeping them. Hot Girl-Woman, we applaud you.
 Uma Thurman, outside of films (meaning without the assistance of an entire wardrobe and styling department), she is never Hot. She's lovely enough, even if her fingers are as long as most people's hands, but she could not stylishly dress herself should her life depend on it. Her Great-Aunt Mae must be very flattered that she chose to wear her old housecoat to that shindig, however. I bet everyone at the Sleepy Oaks Retirement Home in Boca cheered weakly at its reappearance.
 Kate Winslet, she is Blazing Hot. She is what's considered "zaftig" (a fucking stupid synonym for "normal" if we ever heard one), and is rather ruthlessly unapologetic about it. She's beautiful, always gorgeously dressed, and can actually act her way out of the type of bag of your choice.
 This female (also whose name we do not speak), she could not be Hot if she paid someone to run behind her with a flamethrower. This ensemble is just one example of her baffling fashion choices. Even without the inexplicable, er, tights (what the fuck are those things?), that dress is unforgivable. It looks like something that might be donned by a 14 year old for her Junior Prom, but would look much better on her because she would eschew the tights-type things and whore shoes.
And here, my pets, is the ultimate comparison between Hot and Not:
On the left, the gruesome Tommy Lee pretending to kiss some flavor of the month from his reality "rock" show. On the right, the spectacularly Hot Anthony Kiedis laying some serious tongue on the spectacularly Hotter Dave Navarro in their Warped video.
You get one guess which one is Hotter, the quiz will be on Tuesday.
|
Stumble It!
Comments
i falied to see chloe from "24" on your list for hot
i know
i have a problem
Posted by: the turtle | October 28, 2006 1:37 AM
Anne Hathaway and Uma Thurman are completely and utterly amazing. However, you failed to put the queen of all hotness on your list -- Monica Bellucci.
Also, if I were gay, I doubt I'd find musical sellouts whose blew all their creativity more than 10 years ago, hot.
Posted by: Cullen | October 28, 2006 7:31 AM
Ann Hathaway is stunning. But I can't ever think of her as "hot" when she will always be the girl in Princess Diaries to me.
Posted by: michele | October 28, 2006 8:35 AM
>>Also, if I were gay, I doubt I'd find musical sellouts whose blew all their creativity more than 10 years ago, hot.
When I see anyone use the words "musical" and "sellouts" in the same sentence I automatically stop listening. How, exactly, can they be sellouts when the entire point of getting into music is to make as much money, and fuck as many girls as possible? Artistes? Creating for the sake of art? Don't make me laugh.
Posted by: Pop Culturista | October 28, 2006 8:45 AM
Dude. Anyone who thinks that the point of getting into music is to make as much money and fuck as many girls possible should be thrown into a wood chipper.
Sure there are side benefits to making good music, but there are plenty of bands out there that are making music for the sake of making music.
And you can freaking hear it when it happens to a band. When did it happen to Floyd? The Wall. When did it happen to The Beatles? The White Album. When did it happen to Metallica? And Justice For All... When did it happen to the Chili Peppers? BloodSugarSexMagic.
Tesco? Kali? RSM? Back me up here.
Posted by: Cullen | October 28, 2006 10:09 AM
P.S. The wood chipper comment was exaggeration for effect. I do not endorse or condone death by wood chipper. I was just illustrating how seriously I take the topic.
Posted by: Cullen | October 28, 2006 10:11 AM
I'm gonna have to go with "I hate the term sell out" here.
Most bands struggle just to survive. I'm certainly not going to begrudge them any success they get after spending all those years living in vans and eating ramen noodles three meals a day, if that. When a band I like becomes successful, I'm pretty happy for them. And if I think they changed their music to get that success, well then I just stop listening to them. But I never freak out on them for doing what they needed to survive and make a living doing what they love.
Posted by: michele | October 28, 2006 10:22 AM
Well, I'd re-enter the debate but music for me is just something that functions as a slight enhancement to everything else, ie. not even remotely a priority. So carry on with your ownselves, if you like.
Posted by: Pop Culturista | October 28, 2006 10:36 AM
I have to agree with Cullen on all points except Uma. It doesn't get much hotter than this.
Posted by: tesco | October 28, 2006 11:38 AM
Points for style, Tesco. Points for style.
Michele, I'm not begrudging any artist fame or fortune. But there is a point when most artists forsake the integrity of their music for the easy buck. And that's what I have problems with. RHCP, Metallica, and many others did it ages ago. But there are bands that have been successful that I don't think ever sold out. Or, when they did, decided to step back and re-evaluate themselves.
Dream Theater never sold out. Rush never sold out. The Ramones never sold out. Peter Gabriel might have at one time, but he certainly changed his tune quickly (and "So" is one of the best albums ever made).
Essentially, I have no problems with artists getting paid for what they do. I mean, that's the way it works, right? I have problems with artists pumping out garbage (subtle double entendre, eh?) and getting paid tons of dollars for it because of pre-established credibility.
Don't even get me started on industry bands.
What's really funny about this, is that it's all due to entropy. In the 50s and 60s, the studios created bands like this all the time. Booker T and the MGs were a studio band. The difference was, was that they were talented musicians given creative license to put out really good music. Nowadays, these bands are formed to fit a mold that companies decide upon in forcast/projection meetings to fit some kind of stereotype they believe will sell to the masses.
The degradation of commericial music through time. Sonic entropy, baby.
Posted by: Cullen | October 28, 2006 12:08 PM
Good god...music is SO subjective, how can you even point to Band A and say, "that sucks, that person sold out!" What sucks for one person is brilliance for another. It's a meaningless argument.
Posted by: Pop Culturista | October 28, 2006 12:12 PM
Well, there's subjectivity and then there's subjectivity.
Take a band like Aerosmith. When's the last time you heard an Aerosmith song that didn't sound like every other Aerosmith song you ever heard?
Cookie-cutter cash machine.
Posted by: Cullen | October 28, 2006 12:15 PM
And another thing ...
Things like musical integrity, creativity, brilliance ... they are hard to define. They do speak differently. And that's why we cherish them so much.
But anyone can call bullshit.
Posted by: Cullen | October 28, 2006 12:17 PM
Well, ok, that makes more sense, then, when a band churns out the same things over and over...I suppose I can see your point there. But Steven Tyler...Not Hot. That whole band looks like a bunch of down-on-their-luck vampires.
Posted by: Pop Culturista | October 28, 2006 12:29 PM
Point taken on Aerosmith.
Steven Tyler = not hot.
Liv Tyler - hot.
Posted by: michele | October 28, 2006 1:53 PM
man
i miss all the good threads when i take a nap
Posted by: the turtle | October 28, 2006 2:49 PM
selling out is a tough word to use.Some day everyone is going to get sick of being on the road. And when that first decision has been made to take a deal, you already have kinda sold out haven't you?
I mean I know it is barely selling out, but now you are losing creative control because you just want to eat.
I've never been in a band that has sold a bazillion albums so I can't go any further than that, but seeing someone make it in the industry is give and take. You bust your ass for them, they help you out. It's kinda weird, but you have to give something to get something. It is just the way things work. Call it selling out? Yeah maybe. But it's what we have to work with and if you want to eat the next night, sometimes selling out isn't such a bad word.
Posted by: the turtle | October 28, 2006 2:57 PM
Well, again, I don't have any problems with someone making money doing something they love.
My problem is when (it is apparent) they've stopped loving the music and just love the money.
Posted by: Cullen | October 28, 2006 3:23 PM
Well there are bands who never did it for the love of the music. I mean industry bands, as you said, we won't go into, but other bands just find a way out and keep sliding down that road.
I mean dude, it stops being a love and becomes a job after awhile. When you have lawyers reading over contracts about what you can and can't do, dude, thats a job. And that kinda takes all the fun right the fuck out of it.
I know it sucks. But that is the way it is.
Posted by: the turtle | October 28, 2006 3:29 PM
All I will say is this:
Guys kissing - not hot.
Chicks kissing - hot
Posted by: Ernie | October 28, 2006 8:22 PM
I don't know about that. Depends on the guys.
(Certainly not Tommy Lee)
Posted by: michele | October 28, 2006 8:35 PM
Damn skippy. Nor do two chicks get a pass just because they're chicks. They also have to be Hot, or otherwise Yummy.
Posted by: Pop Culturista | October 28, 2006 8:37 PM
who cares if they're sell outs or not - it's all about the fuckable factor here!
Posted by: shawna | October 28, 2006 8:55 PM
Anne Hathaway gets on my last nerve, but I will concede that that scene in the car was the only redeeming feature of the otherwise boring piece of dreck, Brokeback Mountain.
...speaking of men kissing, and yet somehow failing to be hot. (Navarro + Kiedis = Yum, the rest, yawn.)
Uma Thurman is one of those women, to me, who is gorgeous and hot, without ever actually being pretty. Felicity Huffman falls into the same category.
Posted by: Tanya | October 30, 2006 10:31 AM