This has many different implications. I filed it firstly because of its general political implications (i.e. the submission under PCness) at Roncesvalles, then because of the emasculation aspect at TMDSC. However, having digested quite a number of pictures in the course of my modest research, I believe it's something about which The Evil Style Queen ought to have a say as well.
I don't even own a TV set, hardly ever go to the cinema, and buy a DVD only if it's become cheap enough, so I am usually years behind, but I have never found that a disadvantage. However, I find this case of yet another offputting "in-our-face" strategy of the "gay" lobby worth a comment. Homosexuals are a small minority (although they are working hard on changing that) yet the heterosexual majority is FORCED to acknowledge their sexuality now it's featured in mainstream films.
This is not new but still topical:
DANIEL CRAIG is urging movie bosses to revolutionise the JAMES BOND franchise by including a gay scene involving the superspy in the follow-up to CASINO ROYALE. The heart-throb actor has also reportedly told studio chiefs he is prepared to film a full frontal nude scene to please both his male and female admirers. He says, "Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it."So the perversion and corruption has already gone far enough for a (presumably) straight man to want to appeal to his female AND MALE "admirers" (in a sexual sense). Now come, all you straight people and tell me that the thought that a nude display of your body might "please admirers" of the same sex does NOT make you puke your guts out.
As an (important) aside: The fact alone, that an insipid blonde weasel like Daniel Craig was able to acquire "heartthrob" status and is considered "rugged" speaks for itself. He is, to speak in James-Bond-terms, neither breathtakingly handsome like Roger Moore...
...nor breathtakingly male like Sean Connery...
...just breathtakingly irrelevant.
Let me tell you, dear corrupter-media, THAT is "rugged"...
...and NOT a dull drip like Daniel Craig, even though he must have auditioned that "tough-guy-expression" in front of the mirror countless times.
And he has just an average physique as well, if that. How anybody who ever saw the pectorals and other assorted muscles of a Lloyd Bridges can find the remotest pleasure (whether aesthetically or sexually) in a nonentity like Daniel Craig is beyond me. Notabene that men in the past weren't afraid either to show that they had chest hair, different from the neutered men of today.
Lloyd Bridges in Sea Hunt.
Daniel Craig in ... well, whatever.In this context it ought to be mentioned that in America a population-wide decline in men’s testosterone levels during the last 20 years can be noted, which is not related to normal aging or to health or lifestyle factors. In plain English: They don't have an explanation for that. This decline is consistent with other long-term trends in male reproductive health, such as decreases in sperm quality, increases in testicular cancer or cryptorchidism. The societal neutering of men has gone a long way and has now safely arrived in the body.
No doubt, watching Daniel Craig in the buff will lower the average male's testosterone levels by another 10 percent and the female sense for and understanding of male quality even more. Lloyd Bridges in bathing trunks looks not just infinitely more manly, but even more classy and gentlemanly than Daniel Craig in a three piece suit. I guess we've found ourselves not just in a spiral of emasculation, but in one of yobbofication as well, and both is not a bit funny.
And it just occurs to me: Those phenomena may well be related.
