This has many different implications. I have filed it because of its general political implications, the submission under PCness, at Roncesvalles and because of aspects of emasculation at TMDSC. However, looking at quite a number of pictures, the style aspect and how our perception of male looks has changed becomes obvious as well, so here we are.
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 instant 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, once 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! The time that such a display of my own body might have done that is not all THAT long ago not to be sure that I, for one, WOULD have puked my guts out. As an aside: The fact alone, that a homely and insipid blonde weasel like Daniel Craig could acquire "heartthrob" status and be considred "rugged" speaks for itself. He is neither breathtakingly handsome like Roger Moore nor breathtakingly male like Sean Connery, just breathtakingly irrelevant. 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.
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 phenomenon. 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 already. No doubt, watching Daniel Craig in the buff will lower the average male's testosterone level by another 10 percent and the female sense 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. It just occurs to me: Those two phenomena may well be related.