May 19, 2004

An Obsrevashun.

I've noticed something. Something important:

While Linsday Lohan is a brand of hot that has me questioning whether I'm a good person or not, The Olsen Twins, much more enduringly popular, are a matched set of bony-assed, visibly soulless skanks.

What do these facts, taken together, say about our culture and the world we live in? I would suggest a few starting points - first, the sensationalism of the freak has more drawing power than the subtleties of the beautiful. Second, despite hip-hop's best efforts, the Kate Moss skeletal body type may yet make a comeback. Third, oh god, I'm definitely not a good person.

Also, could somebody who's not at work post the Lohan nipple-slip pics in their reply? Just for, you know, perspective on the issue.

Posted by sleepnotwork at May 19, 2004 11:37 AM
Comments

I don't really understand the fascination with Lindsey Lohan. She's not all that attractive to me. However, you can find the nipple slips at fleshbot.

Posted by: mallarme at May 19, 2004 01:22 PM

Man, taste is taste, but are you fucking blind? Just look at those things. Not to mention that she's got a real nice girl-next-door thing going on. And you know I've got to support my fellow redheads, even if she is a brunette in the pic I linked. Catch more discussion halfway down the page here -

http://www.whatevs.org/

Posted by: sleepnotwork at May 19, 2004 03:04 PM

I'm not saying she's ugly, but nothing I've seen makes me think she's worth getting all worked up over either.

Posted by: mallarme at May 19, 2004 03:11 PM

Well, I'm not saying I'd stalk her. But I never get into celebrities, and so someone who turns my crank even slightly is that much more interesting - I'm actually able to get caught up in the hype, even if just a little bit.

Also, in my defense, I (as you seem to have noticed) haven't been getting any lately:

http://www.sleepnotwork.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_sleepnotwork_archive.html#108499562606396713

Posted by: sleepnotwork at May 19, 2004 03:19 PM

I submit that your insufficient rate of non-manual ejaculation has unduly inflated your assessment of Ms. Lohan's attractiveness. Otherwise, one must assume that your ability to determine a female's physical desirability parallels that of a certain Mr. Kern.

Posted by: mallarme at May 19, 2004 03:24 PM

Well then, let's have that discussion - who do you think is hot (other than the little lady)? Let's talk taste. I, for one, have a real distaste for the tall blonde type (or, really, anything that's tall and skinny). It's interesting, that particular aspect of my taste is probably borne almost entirely out of my lifelong "outsider" status.

And what's the dig at Ludwig in reference to? Whatever it is, it doesn't sound very nice, man.

Posted by: sleepnotwork at May 19, 2004 03:47 PM

Heh. Go visit amihotornot.com with him sometime and you'll see what I mean. Anyways, my taste runs towards foreigners and brunettes, myself.

Posted by: mallarme at May 19, 2004 03:55 PM

I believe Mall is referring to a tendency to consider a "6" a "7".... Apparently, I'm consistently not selective enough when it comes to evaluating women :) The truth is I hate the numbering system, though I suppose it serves as an entertaining shorthand for guys.

Shit dude. If thinking Lindsay Lohan is hot means I have lame taste, then I have lame taste. She's not the most beautiful girl in the world, but certainly a 10 in my book. The classical American beauty can be just as hot as the European, provided it's carried off with taste.

Posted by: at May 20, 2004 12:25 PM

Exactly my point. No way is she a 10. Very few women are. I think maybe you just don't understand that the rating system requires a Gaussian distribution (also known as a "normal distribution" or a "bell curve"). In other words, a very few number of women should be at either extreme while the vast majority should be between four and six.

Posted by: mallarme at May 20, 2004 12:45 PM

Again, there's a psychology lesson here, but a full-on, movie-star, runway model "10" holds frankly little attraction for me. Even in Austin, there are very few women who fall in this category, so certainly my head gets turned as easily as anyone's, just out of the pure oddity of it: those people (male and female) are genetic freaks, and freaks require staring.

But for myself, I'd definitely take an 8 over a 10 anyday. Not based on experience or anything, just a general understanding that an 8 is going to, all things being equal, have considerably more going for her under the hood, mixed with a not inconsiderable understanding (though rarely consciously acknowledged) that pretty much any 10 is going to be out of my league or, in a best-case scenario, not worth the stress.

Posted by: sleepnotwork at May 20, 2004 02:26 PM

Though if you're dipping into the 6's, even if you think they're 7's, you're in trouble.

Anyone remember that David Spade joke about post-Star Wars Luke Hamill?

"May the fours be with you."

Posted by: sleepnotwork at May 20, 2004 02:28 PM

Don't you mean Mark Skywalker?

Posted by: David at May 20, 2004 04:23 PM

Jesus shit. My brain is pudding.

Posted by: sleepnotwork at May 20, 2004 04:32 PM
Site Meter