Who are these people?
Either I am coming undone, or a huge fraud is being foisted upon an undiscerning public. I prefer to think the latter possibility is the likely one, since denial of my own lack of currentness tends to guide me more and more these days. The fraud, as I see it, concerns certain females of difficult-to-discern calling in life, yet who seem to be preeminent in their exposure. That is, who are these broads and what is it that they do?
The first one to confuse me in this manner is Jennifer Lopez who, for a while, especially when she was connected with the amazingly untalented yet ego-driven Ben Affleck, went by the sobriquet 'J-Lo'. I don't think the name J-Lo is operative any longer, not that I give so much of a shit one way or the other. Anyway, what exactly is, or was J-Lo? Is she a singer? Is she an actress? She has deservedly never been lauded for possessing skill in either domain. She is a moderately pretty, moderately Hispanic looking young woman with a stunningly appealing ass. OK, I admit I am something of a gluteal fetishist, and that part of her works for me.
The other one is a certain Jessica Simpson. Her mug is on every mag, yet, I don't get it. I think she is on some TV show of which I have no desire to ever tune in. An article in the Globe and Mail tells me she is in a remake film of the 'Dukes of Hazard', as if such a piece of video-excreta warranted a cinematic remake, let alone having been aired in the first place.
I guess she is supposed to be attractive. Yes, she is a cute-ish blonde, with cute-ish boobs, and that seems to be about it. She is not sexy. She is not alluring. She is not even mildly interesting, and it seems she has cut a swathe of some sort by being bonehead stupid.
What a scary comment on contemporary society that such a person should be making huge sums of money just for 'being'. And, not for 'being' much of anything.
Look at other attractive women over the years, including those who have featured relatively prominently both in my, and the sexual fantasies of others. Take Marilyn Monroe. She was an actress of, if not the first order, at least one with a deft comedic touch, and sometimes a surprisingly compelling dramatic talent. Debby Harry of Blondie, aside from the fact I've adored her for literally decades by this point (and she still looks damn fine), she is one hell of a song stylist. One of the best.
For heaven's sake, even boobsie Pam Anderson does act, she actually works for a living, and has a lot more of a mind than the prominence of her torsal orbs let dirty-old-men (and dirty 14-year-old boys) lets be acknowledged. In other words, there is a reason for her existence.
But, I guess in a Paris Hilton (speaking of un-pretty, and un-interesting) world, there is something afoot that I am not to be made privy to. Just as well, for I find no wicked ideas are spawned by, in the case of the aforementioned Jessica, a female who seems to exemplify a mid-Western Baptist's concept of sin. Sort of like the Playboy centerfolds of yore, they didn't work for me, either. Maybe I'm odd, when all is said and done, but I've always fancied women who look, sound and smell like real women. You know, the sort of person with whom, after passion is spent, you just might like to lie back in bed and chat with.
The first one to confuse me in this manner is Jennifer Lopez who, for a while, especially when she was connected with the amazingly untalented yet ego-driven Ben Affleck, went by the sobriquet 'J-Lo'. I don't think the name J-Lo is operative any longer, not that I give so much of a shit one way or the other. Anyway, what exactly is, or was J-Lo? Is she a singer? Is she an actress? She has deservedly never been lauded for possessing skill in either domain. She is a moderately pretty, moderately Hispanic looking young woman with a stunningly appealing ass. OK, I admit I am something of a gluteal fetishist, and that part of her works for me.
The other one is a certain Jessica Simpson. Her mug is on every mag, yet, I don't get it. I think she is on some TV show of which I have no desire to ever tune in. An article in the Globe and Mail tells me she is in a remake film of the 'Dukes of Hazard', as if such a piece of video-excreta warranted a cinematic remake, let alone having been aired in the first place.
I guess she is supposed to be attractive. Yes, she is a cute-ish blonde, with cute-ish boobs, and that seems to be about it. She is not sexy. She is not alluring. She is not even mildly interesting, and it seems she has cut a swathe of some sort by being bonehead stupid.
What a scary comment on contemporary society that such a person should be making huge sums of money just for 'being'. And, not for 'being' much of anything.
Look at other attractive women over the years, including those who have featured relatively prominently both in my, and the sexual fantasies of others. Take Marilyn Monroe. She was an actress of, if not the first order, at least one with a deft comedic touch, and sometimes a surprisingly compelling dramatic talent. Debby Harry of Blondie, aside from the fact I've adored her for literally decades by this point (and she still looks damn fine), she is one hell of a song stylist. One of the best.
For heaven's sake, even boobsie Pam Anderson does act, she actually works for a living, and has a lot more of a mind than the prominence of her torsal orbs let dirty-old-men (and dirty 14-year-old boys) lets be acknowledged. In other words, there is a reason for her existence.
But, I guess in a Paris Hilton (speaking of un-pretty, and un-interesting) world, there is something afoot that I am not to be made privy to. Just as well, for I find no wicked ideas are spawned by, in the case of the aforementioned Jessica, a female who seems to exemplify a mid-Western Baptist's concept of sin. Sort of like the Playboy centerfolds of yore, they didn't work for me, either. Maybe I'm odd, when all is said and done, but I've always fancied women who look, sound and smell like real women. You know, the sort of person with whom, after passion is spent, you just might like to lie back in bed and chat with.
