Ramblings: Where are the Female Sex Symbols?

My wife and I had an interesting, albeit random, conversation while watching TV a couple of nights back, with some reference to George Clooney spurring us to talk about celebrity sex symbols.

Eventually, we were naming names, and then asking out loud, "Who are the current female sex symbols?"

For the males, it was pretty easy: Matt Damon, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Will Smith, Tom Cruise (apparently still popular overseas), the Hemsworth's, and up-and-comer Channing Tatum.

 

"Damn, I'm sexay!"

For the females? This is where we got stumped.

(Keep in mind I am no pop culture expert, so I'm not in my element, so to speak. Still, allow me to be Shallow Jes for awhile.)

Now, I'm talking about women that are very well known and popular primarily for their 'beauty', such as Pamela Anderson, Cindy Crawford, Cameron Diaz, Selma Hayek, Jennifer Aniston, Jessica Simpson, Farrah Fawcett, Angelina Jolie, Marilyn Monroe, Jessica Alba, etc...

Given how shallow our society is, it is obvious that the male sex symbols have a lot more staying power (pun not intended). Since women tend to be objectified more, there are always way more women sex symbols, and much of society seems to always be looking for hot, young things. The women have more competition, in that regard, and don't seem to retain their fame and status for nearly as long.

Look at the list of males, and many of them have been around for a long time. These fellows still command a lot of money, swooning, and fantasies.

For the ladies?

Jennifer Aniston - Still pretty good looking, popular, and good for the 40+ crowd. She's not the A-lister she once was, but she is still kickin' it.

Angelina Jolie - She looks like a living skeleton now that she's lost 100 pounds, and hasn't been in anything of note in years.

Jessica Alba - She couldn't act her way out of a paper bag, and has been invisible since her role as the Invisible Woman.

Megan Fox - Got herself kicked off of the Transformers franchise, and then had hideous plastic surgery. Why, Megan, why?

---

The only three names I could come up with, after some thought, were Scarlett Johansson, Kim Kardashian, and Sofia Vergara. Either I don't follow pop culture enough, or things have changed.

Mmm...bewbs!

ScarJo isn't really an A-lister, but she is hot, part of the Avengers franchise, and seems to be one of the few current actresses that most people will know easily as a sex symbol. I haven't seen Vergara in much, but her name pops up often enough as a celebrity crush of many men. Kardashian has been a master of capturing media attention, even if many people simply want her to be run over by a septic truck.

---

Now, society hasn't really changed all that much. Men and women are still as shallow as they always have been, and many celebrities, especially women, are evaluated on their looks more than anything else. Hey, I am the same way with my celebrity crushes. Kristanna Loken, aka T-X, isn't on my Top 5 list these days!

(She's not happy at being kicked off of the list)

I can think of a few reasons for the shortage of these symbols.

1. Franchises / Ensemble Casts - So many movies now are part of franchises, or have so many sequels, that having A-list talent isn't nearly as necessary. With the Avengers, you could have easily cast any women in ScarJo's role, and it wouldn't have affected attendance. With so many ensemble casts, the women don't really stand out or carry a role like they used to.

A good example is Zoe Saldana in Star Trek. She's a good-looking woman, but she's just one little piece of that big pie. Any of the hot female actresses in the Game of Thrones series will have the same problem.

2. Reality TV - Let's face it, there is far too much attention paid to these garbage programs, and you get the likes of Kim Kardashian, Bethenny Frankel, and Paris Hilton focused on much more than the usual actresses. Most reality show fade in and out pretty quickly.

3. Choices - With so many more entertainment choices, the major studios don't control nearly as much of the viewer eye as they used to. When there were fewer channels and movies to watch, the big stars captured a larger percentage of the public's attention.

---

This whole string of ramblings hasn't been a statement of values (ie. "I want more objects of desire"), so much as an observation of what I see. Any other current female sex symbols I'm missing?

AdRants: Not Charmed by Charmin

While most advertising campaigns are forgettable, there are some that are so bad, annoying, or gross that it actively makes me not want to buy their products.

Charmin toilet paper has just such an ad campaign: A family of pooping bears that cares way too much about toilet paper usage. Case in point...

The Charmin ads don't just have these bears using toilet paper, dancing with toilet paper, sleeping on toilet paper, or making love while rolling around in toilet paper. No, the focus of this campaign is the First World Problem that certain toilet paper brands leave bits of paper behind after you wipe. 

Witness Mama Bear inspecting her child's ass for these naughty paper bits, much like Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine Karl Dönitz inspecting the German U-boats before their launch.  (Why the reference? It's obvious this bear family is German, given their love of poop)

My memory isn't what is once was, but I can't recall my mother ever looking at my anal sphincter to see if my butt crack was free of a paper trail. Yes, this bear family has a special inspection area you have to go through every time you dump a load.

Using cutesy animals in ad campaigns is nothing new, but WHY WOULD BEARS EVER NEED OR USE TOILET PAPER? Would this ad campaign ever fly if real humans were used? Of course not!

Whilst walking down the trails around Tofino, we came across a LOT of bear scat. Not once did we see any used toilet paper bits next to the piles of digested berries and fish.

I'm sorry, but seeing bears with fragments of used toilet paper on their bottoms is disgusting. When I'm eating dinner in front of the TV, I'd rather hear about feminine hygiene products than see this crap (pun intended).

Thus, I make a point not to buy this product, even when on sale. Somebody needs to pay the price for burning these haunting images into my head!

Tuesday's Thoughts: Sep 17th, 2013

The wife and I saw Star Trek: Into Darkness this past weekend.

Given how many plot holes and lens flares were in the reboot Star Trek, my hopes were not terribly high. Still, I'm a little bit of a Trekkie, so I had to give it a shot.

Verdict: A solid, shiny looking movie that is fun to watch, but not very memorable.

One thing that did bother me was the character of Khan (Noonien Singh).

Khan is one of my all-time favourite fictional characters, and Ricardo Montalban (RIP) absolutely owned the role. Montalban's Khan just oozed everything you'd expect out of a 'super-human': Power, Charisma, Confidence, Intelligence, Strength...

Benedict Cumberbatch, owner of the most Englishy name ever, is a tremendous actor. His portrayal of Sherlock (BBC Series) is sublime. That said, I take great issue with his casting in this role.

First off, notice anything different between the two? Yeah, somehow Khan became a white (Anglo-Saxon) guy *facepalm*.

Apart from that, Cumberbatch's Khan just comes off as a very generic bad guy. Khan owned the screen, and you could see why people who either follow him or fear him. Cumberbatch's Khan? Just your ordinary bad guy with powers. Cumberbatch did well with what he was given, though, and turned a generically written role into a good performance.

Into Darkness should have just had Cumberbatch as one of the other super-humans that were encapsulated, rather than Khan. I know they've taken the canon of Star Trek and totally refried it, but this was nerd-rage levels of travesty. Ugh.

---

On another nerdy note, it seems Magic: the Gathering has its first explicit portrayal of an openly-gay couple.

Read the flavour text, and then look at the statues.

It's an incredibly subtle, but bold statement from Wizards of the Coast. I like that they just slipped it in (That's what she said!), rather than making it a big "OMG, WE GOT GAYZ!!" fuss. It's just a normal relationship, after all.

Besides, knowing how the Greeks (especially SPARTA!!!!!) loved their buggery, it fits the mythos of the set perfectly!

---

It seems Magic Deck Vortex was hacked by Turkish nitwits, and the owner is MIA. I know the site was pretty dormant, these days, but it was nice to have a place to do reviews and writing about casual MTG. Most MTG sites cater to competitive players. Those with a casual place either already have a (better) writer, or focus on EDH/Commander.

I'll still blog about MTG topics, but I likely won't do any reviews of Theros cards like I was for Ravnica.

---

I'm one of the 'lucky' folks that was chosen to be a Compass Beta Tester for Translink. I got a compass card loaded with $100 of fake money, and I simply swipe in and out when I take the SkyTrain (or bus).

So far, I've had no issues with the card, itself. Obviously, the gates are always opened, so we haven't seen how quickly that transaction will take.

My biggest worry, all along, has been the number of gates at each station. Brentwood has only 3 gates for the entire station!

There is going to be a huge bottleneck of people during rush hour, so people will need to adjust their commutes and add a little extra time. Still, this card system was well overdue. The fact that they installed SkyTrain without fare gates is just baffling.

MTG: Thoughts on Theros

Before we go on vacation, I just wanted to share some thoughts on the cards for Theros (Magic: The Gathering's upcoming set) that have been spoiled.

Innistrad was a huge hit, and I have an even bigger flavour-boner over this Greek-inspired set. Despite my competitive nature, it's always been the art and flavour that brought me into the game.

What's got me excited? This dude!

There is usually one card in every set that makes me jump up and think, "I have to have that!"

Snapcaster Mage was one such card, and I identified it as a card that was going to be a huge player in all formats. Luckily, I jumped on a playset for about $10/apiece, before they doubled in price. Sarah and I also got Jace, the Wallet Sculptor, for about $17/card. We just wish we had ordered more!

*End bragging*

Purphoros gives me the same shivers, but I wasn't fortunate enough to get them for cheap. They sit at $25 each right now, and I can't justify spending $100 on four single cards for one of my many casual decks.

Given each of your creatures the ability to Shock the opponent is huge, and indestructibility is what pushes it over the edge. "Naturalize this, bitch!"

If/when I do get these, I've always got a very nasty deck to build around it.

The Bestow mechanic is genius! All too often, Enchantments and Auras are scary to play because of the risk of being two-for-oned. Enchantments should be more previlant than they are, and bestow helps solve this.

Even if the creature is nuked before this hits the battlefield, it'll simply revert into a creature. I like that kind of risk mitigation.

The other powerful god, this thing will also help you win games while never becoming a creature.

Scry 1 each upkeep? Gold.

Making your creatures unblockable? That wins games.

I'm not going to pay big bucks for this card, but will happily stick it into any creature-based deck with blue.

I'm know for loving me some Sign in Bloods, and this lets you not draw the two lands you don't want to.
Yes, it costs one more mana, but having a single black in the mana cost can make it easier on some of my decks. You can bet I'll be stocking up on these.

OK, I'm not really excited to play this, but if I do, I'll be sure to shout out: "FUCK THE POLIS!"

*giggle*


The Heroic mechanic is interesting, and I may consider a white-blue deck built around it.

Instead of going the enchantment route, I'd go for cheap flashback spells like Artful Dodge and Defy Gravity to get the heroic effects without card disadvantage.

So, those are my musings on the spoiled cards. I wonder what the rest of my group(s) think.

Slegr is Back (For good, this time!)

Readers of my old hockey blog know I had a weird man-crush on defenseman (and former Canuck) Jiri Slegr.(Here is my old tribute)

Slegr was an offensively talented defensemen that never quite got his due, yet remains one of the few players to have won gold at the Winter Olympics and World Champions, as well as a Stanley Cup.

In 2010, Slegr decided his playing days were behind him, and went into the 'wonderful' world of politics. He did play a few relegation games during his time in parliament, but never lost the itch to play.

With his term up, Slegr was sick of the corruption he dealt with, and decided to go back to 'The clean world of athletes'.

So, at 42 years of age, Slegr is back on the ice as a member of Litvinov: 
You can bet I'm pretty stoked, considering most of my old favourites are either retired or dead :(

It's Litvinov's 55th straight year in the top Czech hockey league, and it might as well represent the team's average age. With Martin Rucinsky back for another year, the Litvinov bench is going to need oxygen tanks. Slegr's back is, as he admits, pretty creaky and often sore. I wonder how many games he'll actually be able to play.


For my friend Camille, here are a couple of memories of Slegr in his younger years!

Please, Verizon, Come Back!

Yes, this is the day that I write about wanting a soulless American corporation, with crappy customer service and disdain for its own workers, to come to Canada.


Despite the fact that Canada is one of the most developed nations in the world, we have some of the highest cell phone costs.

Yes, even random African countries get a better rate on their data plans than we do. I pay about $70 for my fairly basic plan, which I had to lock in to for three years in order to get the phone for $0. Ugh.

As their failed "Fair for Canada" propaganda campaign highlighted to Canadians, ROBELLUS (Rogers, Bell, Telus) controls almost the entire Canadian market place. More consumers were alerted to the fact, though this campaign, of just how closed the system is.

Yes, 30+ million Canadians have just three real choices for cell phone coverage. Even these 'boutique' firms like Koodo and Fido are owned by ROBELLUS. Without any real choice (Wind Mobile is about it) of alternatives, we're basically forced to take it up the tailpipe.

It was with some anticipation that we heard of Verizon wanting to come to Canada, prompting ROBELLUS to crap their pants.

Sadly, for lack of a better word, Verizon has decided not to enter the Canadian marketplace.

Verizon’s decision to stay out of Canada deals a stinging blow to the government’s efforts to make the wireless market more competitive and consumer-friendly, say industry experts. 

“Without someone like Verizon, what will end up happening is the Big Three will win,” says Walid Hejazi, a professor at the Rotman School of Management.

The Big Three -- Bell, Rogers and Telus -- have a combined 90 per cent market share. They have spent much of the summer telling consumers through an ad campaign that Verizon’s entry into the wireless market would be “unfair” and cost Canadian jobs.

---

I had no real intention of joining up with Verizon (unless they gave me the best rate), but I was hoping they would make an impact. The only way we'll get reasonable rates is if we get some real competition. If Canadians firms can't do it, then let the Yanks in until ROBELLUS is scared straight.

 

Growling: "The Fruit of My Loins"

Although this litte rant is on a topic that doesn't affect me, personally, it's still something that rubs my rhubarb the wrong way.

Today's Topic: Narcissistic men who name their sons after themselves, like John Smith, John Smith Jr, John Smith III, etc.

Yes, I said men, because it rarely happens with women.

Ken Griffey Jr and Sr.

Now, if you belong to a royal/noble family, or were living in the 17th century, I could understand. In modern times, it's just plain vanity.

"What shall I name my son? Hmm, let me see...

Do I let my son forge his own identity, and find his own way in the world?

Naw, I'll just name him after me! That way, whenever they say his name, and add the junior, they'll always think of me ME ME ME!!!"

Yes, this is the "Fruit of My Loins" Syndrome.

These types of men want to establish their legacy, and their kids will forever be their contribution to the world. Their sperm must be celebrated, and their kids must forever be "Their father's son". Ugh.

I'm amazed so many of these kids continue the tradition, or simply don't change their names to something other than their fathers. I would have certainly changed mine, if that was the case.

Women, if your man wants to name their sons after themselves, take a hint and find somebody who isn't so self-absorbed.