Imaginary Boyfriends of 2012

Past Imaginary Boyfriends countdowns: 2011 2010 2009 2008

Justin Bieber

Somewhere between 2011 and 2012, The Biebz grew up and became the heir apparent to Justin Timberlake's throne as the King of Bringing SexyBack. His voice got deeper, his music grew up and his body...well, he's not the underage twink he was a mere twelve months ago.

Siwon Choi

While everyone was going nuts over Korean popstar PSY's crossover hit "Gangnam Style," the Korean who got my kimchee fermenting was actor/boyband member Siwon Choi. He's just pretty, isn't he?

Tom Daley

Somehow, even in the year that brought us Channing Tatum and company shaking their thong-covered asses in Magic Mike, Tom Daley managed to be the most gratuitously naked celebrity around. Not that I'm complaining, mind you. If I had a six-pack like that, I wouldn't wear a shirt either.

Drake

Nicki Minaj once rapped, obviously referring to Drake, "He just gotta give me that look, then the panties coming off, off." Put on his "Back That Thing Up"-sampling "Practice" in the background and not only will my panties be off, but I'll be on my back before you can say, "Mazel tov."

John Garfield

I've always known that John Garfield is sexy. I mean, I have eyes. But after a recent viewing spree of his movies--including the glorious boxing drama Body and Soul--it really hit home just how damn attractive he was. There's something about a guy who hates everyone and will probably openly sneer at you on your first meeting that speaks to me.

Jeremy Irvine

I sat through War Horse for this pretty, pretty man. And while that film wasn't as horrible as I imagined it would be, Jeremy was certainly reason enough to stick it through.

Logan Lerman

Let's just say that I wasn't mad when he briefly appeared in a gold bikini during one scene of Perks of Being a Wallflower.

Ryan Lochte

As Grace Adler said on an episode of Will & Grace about a gorgeous but not-so-bright date, "Not smart. Doesn't need to be."

Chris Messina

This tweet I wrote during an episode of The Mindy Project says it all:

One Direction

(Niall Horan, Zayn Malik, Liam Payne, Harry Styles & Louis Tomlinson)

Last year, Zayn Malik, with his beautiful face and all-around dreaminess, made it on this list by himself. This year, the year in which One Direction took over both America and my life, I must include all of My Boys here. Unlike any other boyband, past or present, I love each of them so much and for such completely different reasons. To quote my screenplay: "I'm waiting for a man who has all the best features of the One Direction boys: Louis's wit, Harry's dimples, Niall's innocence, Liam's seriousness and Zayn's dreaminess. Sigh."

Evan Peters

After a few episodes, I realized that American Horror Story: Asylum wasn't for me. But when, in the first few minutes I was acquainted with him, Evan Peters appeared completely nude, I knew that he was definitely for me.

Cody Rhodes

My dream is still to be the Miss Elizabeth to his Randy Savage.

Tim Tebow

Everyone's favorite virgin (we're giving up on the idea that Nick Jonas is still one, right?) finally gave us a reason to care about football. Straight guys hate him because apparently he's not a very good player. I could care less because who gives a shit about talent when he has muscles like that?

Teen Wolf Boys

(Colton Haynes, Tyler Hoechlin, Dylan O'Brien, Tyler Posey & Daniel Sharman)

As much as the One Direction boys, there is something for everyone among the cast of MTV's best show since Daria. You want a cute puppy dog who is the ideal boyfriend to most teen girls? Tyler Posey is your man. How about a rude, sneering jerk who is actually quite vulnerable underneath his standoffish exterior? Colton Haynes fits that bill. A ripped guy who doesn't like to cuddle and just wants to fuck? Calling Tyler Hoechlin. An adorable, emotionally damaged boy? I've got Daniel Sharman for you. Or, what about a cute guy who just happens to have a sarcastic sense of humor and a quip for every moment? Well, Dylan O'Brien is mine, so you're on your own with that one.

In What Direction Will One Direction Go?

I spend a lot of time thinking about One Direction. Too much, perhaps, if you talk to some people. Due to the fact that their second album--the winkingly-titled Take Me Home--was released a couple weeks ago, and the influx of promotion they've done for this album, I've spent a bit more time than usual obsessing over My Boys. I was extremely curious about how One Direction would follow up their mega successful debut album and reassert themselves as the best boyband in the world, but, if anything, Take Me Home left me with more far more questions than answers.

First, let's get this out of the way: Take Me Home isn't as good as Up All Night. Not by a long shot. To be fair, though, this was a nearly insurmountable task from day one. While Up All Night isn't an album I would openly recommend to people who aren't already pop music fans (and even with some fans I'd be leery), it certainly fulfilled any hopes and wishes I had for the album after hearing "What Makes You Beautiful." Aside from a couple of dud ballads (I'm looking at you "More Than This" and "Moments"), Up All Night was filled with top-notch tunes, brimming with exuberance, personality and catchy hooks galore. The music was nothing but pure, instantaneous joy, the group a happy respite from scores of popstars who appear to find the whole exercise a bore until they can make something "real."

Take Me Home isn't a bad album. Far from it, actually. While it lacks a lot of the dazzle and panache of Up All Night, a few of the tracks are immediate stand-outs. "I Would," written by three members of fellow British "boyband" (they play guitars, hence the quotes, but have a good sense of humor) McFly, is the album's highlight. Via clever wordplay, "I Would" is a track that matches the exaltation of the first album while simultaneously pushing them in a more mature direction. "She's Not Afraid" also pushes into my favorite subgenre of 2012: the upbeat pop track superficially masking deep melancholy. "She's not afraid of all the attention/She's not afraid of running wild/How come she's so afraid of falling in love?" the boys, in full-on crisis mode, wail over the chorus. Future third single "Kiss You" and "C'mon C'mon" are also great tracks, but I'm a bit more hesitant in my praise for them, mainly because of how generic they sound. Sure, they are catchy and bouncy, but could they really come up with nothing other than repeating "Yeah!" in the chorus of both songs?

This a problem that plagues a lot of Take Me Home. While they never reach the generic depths of The Saturdays' recent output or Rita "I'm Not Rihanna!" Ora, the songs are a lot less personality driven this go-around. "Rock Me," which, from the beginning sounds like a "We Will Rock You" ripoff, was written and produced by Dr. Luke, but you probably wouldn't be wrong in assuming that it only fell in One Direction's lap after Maroon 5 and Katy Perry turned it down. The ballads are even more dire, mediocre at their best, snoozeworthy at their worst, and full of tiresome declarations of love to nonexistent girls. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about Take Me Home is that you can hear the boys trying to mature their sound, whether through acoustic songs or darker, heavier stylization, but none of it really quite comes together.

All of this really leads to one more question: where will the third album take the boys? Album three is the typical time when teen popstars must begin their transition into adulthood. Miley Cyrus transitioned too suddenly and alienated her fan base, no matter how brilliant the material actually was. The Biebz did it well this year while scoring the biggest hits of his career. One fears that album three will be more Ed Sheeran crap like "Little Things" which has now become their second #1 in the UK. Sheeran is not terrible in and of himself--I think "You Need Me, I Don't Need You" is a nice tune--but what he represents makes my skin crawl: "real" music about "real" things like relationships and heartbreak, drowning in acoustic guitar soul and downbeatness as if that's the only way to make "authentic" music. "Little Things" is such utter shit, I can't believe that it not only hit #1 but that anyone on the planet thought this meandering fart of a tune that goes absolutely nowhere musically (seriously, does anyone know what dynamics are or does singing everything at the same middle-of-the-road dynamic make the song more authentic?) would be a great single choice. My fourth biggest fear in life now--after spiders, being sold into illegal slavery and being forced to move back in with my parents--is that One Direction will ditch their pop sound completely and become slaves to this awful acoustic sound. The group already has two boys for this: Harry is already practically dating Ed Sheeran at this point and Niall always has a guitar with him. Liam is a wild card; he could really go either way. Possibly in favor of a more poppy sound, howevver, we have Louis, who is too sassy for acoustic crap but I seem to recall him saying his favorite song on Up All Night was one of the crap ballads, and Zayn, who likes (ugh) Chris Brown and whose voice is more suited towards pop/R&B. Take Me Home tries to accommodate everyone but struggles to find a meaningful synthesis of all the boys' musical influences, preferences and stylings. Album three will have to try much harder in this regard. But, who knows. Maybe in two years the acoustic stuff will have evolved, to use Taylor Swift as an example, from "Teardrops on My Guitar" to "Back to December." Until then, the boys can take me home any day of the week. Oh, come on, you knew that pun was coming at some point.

Queer Anglo Films, Take #4: My Beautiful Laundrette

After a longer-than-we-intended haitus, Dave and I are back to discuss another film in our Queer Anglo Films series. We're looking at all things queer in British cinema, but today's entry, My Beautiful Laundrette, is perhaps more famous for another reason: the breakthrough performance from Daniel Day-Lewis, which, coupled with his turn in the same year's A Room With a View, showed him to be one of the most versatile actors around. But, as we discuss further, My Beautiful Laundrette is surprisingly complex and layered film, much more so than I recalled before this rewatch.

James: For 25 years, the gays have claimed Stephen Frears' My Beautiful Laundrette as one of "their" films. But I'm about to make a statement that will no doubt ruffle some feathers (and in case GLAAD becomes outraged, just remember that they publicly endorsed I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry): it's time to, if not outright give it back, then at least relinquish some of the control. Sure, on its surface, Laundrette acts and feels like a queer film, and it even takes some twists and turns that set it apart from many others in that genre made around the same time. For such a small film, however, My Beautiful Laundrette tackles some heavy themes--including racism, alienation and the class divide in Britain--in addition to the already taboo homosexuality issue. There's a lot to chew on here and not all of it relates to the main couple, a rarity among gay-themed films then AND now.

To me, My Beautiful Laundrette is a film about the divide between the old and the new generation, the working class and the college educated, British and Pakistani traditions, conservatism and radicalism, the immigrant dream and the disillusionment of the new land. Among these, though, the most obvious divide is that between Omar and Johnny. Looking at them, you'd never be able to tell that they were a couple and you'd be hard-pressed to come up with any commonalities in background, temperament, ambition or personality. So why are they 'd together? Like a lot of issues in My Beautiful Laundrette, it's probably a tad more complicated than the surface (opposites attract!) appears. There's an element of power in their relationship that mirrors and inverts what is going on around them culturally speaking. There's a scene in the film where, after a fight, Johnny leaves Omar and the laundrette to go to some party with his punk friends. When Omar goes to bring him back, he doesn't try to woo him back with declarations of love and how lost he be without him. Instead, he, rather cruelly, reiterates his superiority over Johnny, how he, as a Pakistani, is his boss and Johnny must listen to him. The fact that he uses this tactic is curious, but even more curious is the fact that this is what makes Johnny come back. What is it about Omar that makes the usually defiant Johnny submit so willfully? Is it only because he loves him or is he also atoning for his past sins as a radical, anti-immigrant punk? To director Stephen Frears' credit, he only hints at these possible motivations, shading what otherwise could have been a fairly typical love story.

There are a vast amount of topics we could cover with this film, so I'm curious where you want to take this, Dave. What else did you find unusual about the Omar/Johnny relationship?

Dave: I don’t really think that anyone need relinquish anything – as you go on to suggest, the claims to the themes this film deals with are multitudinous, but surely it speaks of the immense, lasting quality of the film that several groups of marginalised people would want to have some sort of ownership over it. At the time of its release, I imagine the homosexual aspect was so revolutionary that it overrode the interests of heterosexual Pakistanis; nowadays, I’d hope they view it with a similar fondness for its depiction of their existence in urban Britain during the ‘80s. A few years ago, I read a novel by Hanif Kureishi, who wrote the screenplay here, and its mixture of racial and sexual complications was strikingly similar. So I think there was a certain underground culture, not merely comprised of gays, who would have appreciated and ‘claimed’ this film as representing their lives. The remarkably blasé depiction of an interracial homosexual relationship always suggested to me that the film was playing to a more general audience who were opposed to the Thatcherite political scene at the time.

But, given the series we’re looking at this as part of, we should indeed focus on the homosexual aspects – while having recognised the value of the other aspects of the film. I’d definitely agree that there’s a strange power dynamic between the two of them. I think that moment speaks of the strange friction in the wider society between Thatcher’s ideals and the general racism of the time – the fact that Pakistani immigrants were the major group flourishing under her rule is a wonderfully ironic fact. Johnny should be the more powerful of the two – and he certainly seems to be the one who takes the initiative in their sexual relationship – but the system has undone him. But I also think that, for Johnny, work isn’t something he particularly values at all. He does want to get his life back ‘on track’ and knows that to do so, he has to work. But, as he suggests when he says, “Just to get us through, Omo,” it’s so that, in some not impossible world where he and Omar can be together, they’ll need money. So he’s happy and willing to do grunt work not because it will bring him money, but because it’ll help the business grow and support them.

I think this optimism is a huge part of what keeps My Beautiful Laundrette feeling so fresh even today. It’s strangely ahead of its time, because it’s not utopian or naïve at all – there is obvious homophobia in the community, from the punks and from the older generation, but from Omar and Johnny’s perspective, these are minor concerns. They constantly tease other people with veiled references to their relationship – “In my experience, it’s always worth waitin’ for Omo” – and then there’s wonderful little moments like Johnny licking Omar’s neck in broad daylight. When Tania leaves, I think it’s because she’s disappointed in herself for expecting such a conventional union as that between her and Omar. (Tania is also part of an aspect we’ve not touched on yet – the marginalisation of females. Where does acceptance of homosexuality leave the already oppressed females?) What do you make of the thin boundaries between Omar and Johnny’s homosexual and homosocial relationships? It’s a dangerous game they play, but it also seems rather fun.

James: I was impressed with the way Omar and Johnny's relationship was presented in Laundrette. Obviously, they couldn't be as open with their homosexuality as two West Hollywood gays can be now. But there were many instances where they felt winkingly defiant towards their oppressors. My favorite is when Omar invites Johnny over to his uncle's house. Tania is at the door greeting them when Omar suddenly reaches for Johnny's face. He reveals that he's only removing an eyelash, laughing at both Johnny's slight wince and Tania's surprise expression. Omar does this with such flourish and, for lack of a better word, swagger, he's almost begging for Tania to say something. Framed in a three shot, we can see that Tania is slowly understanding Johnny and Omar's relationship, even if she doesn't want to come out and admit it. And this is what so great about their relationship: they hint and tease it to nearly everyone in the film but only enough so eyebrows that are raised, not so anyone actually comes out and asks them. They have fun making others squirm, yet they know their limitations. One wrong move could kill their laundrette and any dreams they have for it.

Speaking of Tania, I found her to be one of the most fascinating characters in the entire film. As a woman in Pakistani culture, she is as oppressed, if not more so, than the homosexual Omar. At least he has the luxury of being able to "hide" his "condition" whenever he wants (or needs to). But Tania has a bit of a rebellious streak in her, as evidenced by her going topless outside the window where Omar is trying to have a serious conversation with his uncle. Branching off from what you said, and this may be me reading way too much into the film, I felt like Tania was at first elated that Omar wasn't a "conventional" suitor. Perhaps she felt that having a homosexual as a husband would give her the freedom to break away from the woman's traditional role in Pakistani culture. She clearly wants her independence, and Omar is probably the first guy she has met who may be able to offer it. But, as she sees Omar becoming more and more like an American yuppie, concerned mostly with making a good impression and being a professional, we start to see her rebelliousness act up even more. She starts to see that whatever benefits she thought she would get by marrying Omar may not happen. And she'll be damned if she'll end up like her own mother, an oppressed housewife stuck with a husband who openly has an affair with another (white!) woman.

When you ask where the acceptance of homosexuality leaves oppressed females, my mind quickly went to how homosexuals of each gender are presented "in the media." Even among homosexuals, who are supposed to be all in this together (yes, I just quoted High School Musical), men's issues about coming out, finding relationships, staying in relationships are given far more weight in films and TV than women's. And in terms of exposure, forget about it. Turn on nearly any TV show and you'll see a gay man (the fact that he's often playing the sassy friend to the straight, white female lead is for another conversation). Off the top of my head, I can think of only two American shows that feature a lesbian character at all (Pretty Little Liars and Glee). It may be even worse in film, where gay films about gay men are always the Talk of the Town, while films with lesbians are either straight male fantasies (Johansson and Cruz making out in Vicky Cristina Barcelona) or condescending looks at women who are "turned" straight (The Kids Are All Right). Contrary to what Beyonce claims, men still run the world and we can still feel it in 2012. So it's not just a problem in the world of My Beautiful Laundrette; women are marginalized everyday, even in an "accepting" gay culture.

Dave: I think you're right about to some extent about Tania. She certainly disparages the idea of the family unit, and the silent ghost of her own mother moving around in the background of shots is hardly an ideal to look up to. But the (only?) other model of womanhood around is Rachel - a woman with some nice coats, sure, but also willingly entrapping herself within an affair that can never develop beyond that - and Tania dislikes her because of the pain her mother quietly suffers. "Everything is waiting for you," Rachel tells Tania at one point, but with these options of womanhood, what is waiting for Tania? I didn't really sense any of that elation, because Omar and Johnny's homosexuality is another door shutting on Tania's escape attempt. Finally, she takes her leave in plain sight, on one of the trains winding through the city. Tania definitely reflects the continued neglect of women that you went on to describe - their spaces are still off-screen, undefined, and unexplored. Tania doesn't even leave so much as simply vanish.

So I don't think My Beautiful Laundrette is eschewing presenting the ongoing problems and oppressions in this society, but in such a troubled, politically violent time, the winsome note of optimism it ends on was obviously carefully chosen and hits the right note without being naive or inappropriate. The feeling of an innocent childishness to the moment is clearly fleeting, something that can only exist behind closed doors; so perhaps the playful erotic edge to it is fleeting too, and maybe there's a tinge of sadness as the door closes, with the recognition that the door has to close on this lovely scene. With the faded intellectual glories of Omar's father, the hollow business ventures of Nasser, and the oppressive mutedness of Tania's mother, the purest happiness seems to remain in childhood, and I think the ending captures that bittersweet realisation. My Beautiful Laundrette never makes Jonny's Nazi-punk figures of real terror in the narrative, and I think that more optimistic approach makes the film more distinct because it can express a genuine homosexual entanglement without it being defined by its wrongness. And that's surely an argument for keeping the queer claim on the film.

Rants on The Perks of Being a Wallflower

The long awaited film adaptation of The Perks of Being a Wallflower--written and directed by the novel's author Stephen Chbosky--is a lot like an ABBA greatest hits collection. Sure, you're getting all the highlights of a fantastic career which includes the massive moments like "Dancing Queen" and "The Winner Takes It All" that made them the best pop group of all time. With a greatest hits package, however, you're only getting brief snippets of what made them so special in the first place. The highs may indeed be high, but you're missing all the subtleties and so-called "minor" moments ("As Good As New" or "Disillusion" in ABBA's case) that complete the portrait.

This is the problem that plagues Perks (and most adaptations of beloved books, actually). How do you condense a great novel into 100 minutes while retaining the tone and idiosyncrasies that made the novel work in the first place? Perks introduces a lot of the novel's various subplots but they fail to cohere, sometimes landing with a thud but mostly reeking with the feeling that it could have been handled better. One of my favorite scenes in the book is the Christmas party where the group finds out who their Secret Santas are. Charlie has bought additional gifts for everyone, gifts so thoughtful and spot on, the others realize just how much Charlie absorbs and understands about them. It's a moving moment in a book, one that deepens and solidifies what they all saw in Charlie in the first place. In the movie, though, the moment makes an appearance but doesn't hit the emotional level it could have. A lot of what is ultimately transferred from the novel are the typical, almost pandering, themes that fill most high school dramas ("Why don't I fit in?", "Who am I really?", "I can't wait to live life in the real world," "What is love?", etc.), encapsulated in almost infuriatingly simplistic catchphrases about the sadness and pain of falling in and out of love.

Thanks heavens, then, for Logan Lerman in the role of Charlie. I have heard a lot about Lerman over the past few years, but I've never had the occasion to see him in anything. Obviously, I've been missing out. First of all, his voice sounds exactly like my beloved Zac Efron's, so that was a wonderfully superficial introduction to him. Unlike Zefron in a superficially similar film like Charlie St. Cloud, however, Lerman pushes hard to make his Charlie an awkward kid with genuine social issues instead of a lovable misfit who just can't seem to connect with people. He colors in the broadly-drawn lines of the film with an emotional depth and clarity the rest of Perks lacks. Lerman's warm, expressive face has the ability to suggest both emotional tragedy and comedic lightness, often times simultaneously, without overselling either of them. He captures the opposite-sounding warm melancholic tone that is the film's strongest selling point, only punctuating the fact that 95 percent of the time Charlie is a regular fourteen year old kid with sharp pain.

Without Lerman, I suspect that the emotional impact of Perks of Being a Wallflower would lessen exponentially. One has to wonder if allowing Chbosky to write the screenplay and direct his own property worked against the film. A third party who hasn't lived with this story for nearly two decades might have brought something new to the proceedings instead of relying on voiceovers which, I'm sure, were adapted word-for-word from the novel. Chbosky's vision isn't terrible, and he does manage to make a fine, above-average film. Yet I can't help feeling that this film should have been something more than "above average." B

100 Hot Men and a Dame: #67 John Cena

67. John Cena

Occupation: Wrestler

Nationality: American

Age: 35

Best Known For: Rising through the ranks of the WWE, winning countless championships and becoming the company's figurehead: the Hulk Hogan of 2000s, if you will.

You may have noticed on my Twitter feed that I've been going through a wrestling phase of late, so what better time to whip out this conversation with my friend and fellow wrestling-watcher Jakey (follow him on Twitter and read his hilarious blog) about wrestler John Cena.

Dame James: When did you first encounter John and, if it wasn't love at first sight, when did you fall in love with him?

 

Jakey: I was first introduced to John Cena the way many wrestling fans were -- on an June 2002 episode of WWF Smackdown, he made his debut as an earnest wrestler accepting an open challenge by Kurt Angle, citing his motivation as "ruthless aggression" (a phrase that Vince McMahon had uttered on the previous episode of Monday Night Raw). At the risk of being defensive, I would like to add that I knew this from the top of my head and did not look anything up. I had also seen his picture in Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine when he was in developmental wrestling under the name Prototype.

This all being said, he didn't immediately pique my interest. Obviously he was good-looking -- fresh-faced and impossibly chiseled -- but he didn't strike my fancy the way that another debut that year (Randy Orton) would. The quintessential pretty boy, Orton later worked very hard to destroy that image, maybe even too hard -- his in-ring work spoke for itself, but he has since coated his entire upper body in tattoos.

I think I first felt tingly feelings for Cena when I saw him live for the first time, at a September 2002 taping of Smackdown (which is a somewhat famous episode as it is known for the night that Brock Lesnar broke Hardcore Holly's neck, and when the Billy and Chuck wedding never happened. Nothing like being a 16-year-old gay boy in an audience shouting "FA****!"). While Cena would later segue into his "thug" gimmick, at the time he was a generic babyface, but he would always do a special thing to spice up his outfit: His trunks would always match the local sports team. For example, in North Carolina he would always wear baby blue (ADORABLE). In Minnesota, he wore purple and gold.

This all being said, I really don't think that I became a fan of his until further along in his run. The more I read about him, the more I admired his work ethic, and there were few times in the past decade more facinating than the era in which he was booked as a babyface ("good guy" for those of you not familiar with the lingo), but constantly booed by the audience (often with Cena, the dynamic is that women and children cheer him but men boo him). Honestly, most of the time when I watch him wrestle, it's still the work that impresses me, not the ridiculous musculature.

Your knowledge of wrestling always surprises me, so when did you first come accustomed to Cena?

DJ: In high school, I was a casual watcher of wrestling, meaning I would watch Raw or Smackdown for a couple weeks in a row and then not at all for months. Honestly, I would mainly watch for the hot guys as it was the closest thing to porn I had. I have no idea the exact date I first encountered John Cena, but I believe he was involved in some tournament to get a shot at the WWE Championship. He was the heel (aka the villain) at this point, cheating his way into the match for the belt, which was a huge turn-on for me. I think I've mentioned this before, but I've always had a soft spot for the villains, particularly in cartoons and wrestling. When I was growing up, I was probably the only person who preferred Scar and Jafar over Simba and Aladdin. It was the same with wrestling: growing up, instead of cheering on Hulk Hogan or Bret Hart (barf), I always liked Shawn Michaels, who, at that point, was a vain, self-centered wrestler who had awesome entrance music and the amazing Sensational Sherri as his valet. So, when I saw the gorgeous, incredibly well built Cena being a major asshole, my heart went a-flutter.

It's interesting that you mention Randy Orton because they both appear, to this casual observer, like the face of the company but they represent such wildly different ends of the personality spectrum. Randy is kind of like the dark, dangerous bad boy, with his tatted up body and sarcastic sneer. John, on the other hand, is the golden child, the eternal hero we're supposed to cheer on no matter what. Who would have guessed that back in 2004 or so when he was still a heel?

Confession time: I don't know if I've ever admitted this, but I have a soft spot for attractive wiggers, or white people who dress "black." There's something about it that I've never been able to put my finger on, but a built guy like John Cena wearing throwback jerseys and baggy shorts really turned me on. And how could I forget the freestyle raps! I doubt he does this anymore, but he used to come out and do these dumb little raps to insult whatever wrestler he was in a feud with. They were hit or miss, but the assholian-ness of them really spoke to me.

J: John unfortunately doesn't do the raps anymore, and his promos (save for his most recent battle with C.M. Punk) are often overly scripted and cutesy, especially once WWE switched to a more "PG" feel. That being said, his gangsta-rapping is what saved his career -- he was on a bus doing it for Stephanie McMahon and she brought it to the writers' attention. Before that he was a bland heel with no angle or charisma and was probably going to be released.

I do think I realized his sex appeal once he started doing the "gangsta" gimmick. The white muscle-shirt! the silver chain! His fearlessness on the mike!

What has your opinion been of him as a wrestler?

DJ: I've heard for years of people complaining that John is a limited wrestler because he only knows how to do five moves. Um, what? Have they ever watched him in the ring? I think people confuse using the same moves in every match to not having a large repertoire. Would these same people accuse Ric Flair or Bret Hart, both of whom had well known routines they used in nearly ever single match of their careers, of being limited? Probably not. I won't argue that not-so-good wrestlers can be famous for periods of time; it's the same thing that happens with certain actors who are in high demand for a short period of time. But eventually their lack of talent shows and they fade away. You don't stay at the top for as long as John has without having any ability.

Here's the caveat about Cena's in-ring ability: He's not an aerial wrestler, he's not a great technician in the vein of Malenko, Jericho, Bret Hart, et al. But he understands the showmanship of wrestling. He's 100% genuine every time he goes out there, and he's stayed on top mainly because of his outstanding work ethic. Guy works every house show, is always on the main event, does all the promotional work as well as his own charity work, the latter of which he's humbly modest about it and usually doesn't like it addressed on television. He was much sexier as a heel, but WWE will never turn him heel because he's their top merchandise seller.

DJ: Leave it to the WWE, like Hollywood, to take an angle that worked so well and then completely water it down for the sake of appealing to the kiddies. I understand why they do it, but it's always so disappointing. Hopefully, one day in the future they'll need to reinvigorate his image and they will turn him bad again. You can't stay the good guy forever.

Showmanship is a rare gift that not ever wrestler possesses. Many people who complain about John don't understand how vital it is. You can be the greatest technician ever, but if the audience isn't interested in you, you won't get very far. I tend to equate wrestlers with movie actors because not only is it a more familiar concept to my readers, but they also have a surprisingly lot in common. John Cena is a lot like Julia Roberts. You'd never argue that Julia Roberts is a technical actress in the same way that Cate Blanchett is. But Julia Roberts possesses the ability to light the up the screen whenever she's on camera. Whether or not she's any good doesn't matter; she has that certain "it" factor very few people are born with. It's the same with John. He may not be able to compete at a technical level, but he always radiates star power whenever he steps into the ring.

J: And now for some shallow talk: Are you necessarily a fan of muscles? I feel like we're in that scene from Clueless when Dionne says the waiter is "puny, I like 'em big", Cher says "Ew, I hate muscles" and Tai says "I don't mind either way, as long as their you-know-what isn't crooked." Are you a Cher or a Dionne in this scenario? This is hard to talk about without sounding like we're on some muscle-worship fetish site, but being a very svelte man and having gone to college in Wisconsin surrounded by farm boys, I do consider myself weak in the knees for a pair of big biceps. I don't watch wrestling for the homoertocism of it, but damn if I don't think something when John Cena counters a cross-body by hurling his opponent up over his shoulders with one arm.

DJ: I'm more of a Dionne. When it comes to muscles, I'm mainly about if it looks right on a man's body. Like, the typical "juicehead gorillas" the girls from Jersey Shore fall in love with are often too big and that just doesn't look right or appeal to me. But John has the right proportion of muscles and it works (boy, does it work!). If he can pick up some of those 500 pound monsters with no problem, think of how much he could toss me around! Sigh, a boy can dream.

100 Hot Men and a Dame: #72 Dean Stockwell

72. Dean Stockwell

Occupation: Actor

Nationality: American

Peak of Hotness: The late 1950s through the mid-1960s

Best Known For: Child actor at MGM who made the transition into adulthood with Long Day's Journey Into Night then into a character actor in Paris, Texas and Blue Velvet.

Will, a fellow Stockwell enthusiast, joins me once again to help me discuss this rarely discussed acting legend.

Dame James: When did you first encounter Dean and, if it wasn't love at first sight, when did you fall in love with him?

Will: I'm sure I saw him guesting on some television show in the '90s, but the first time I remember him making an impression was in Paris, Texas. I think he's a pretty fantastic, under appreciated character actor (which you can also see in something like his WEIRD turn in Blue Velvet), but I wouldn't say I fell in love with him until I saw him in Long Day's Journey Into Night. He's not a horrible looking older guy, but he pretty much checks every box in Long Day's Journey. He's sad and thin and romantic in a tragic sense.

It's like Simon Amstell says, "Thin and ill looking is my type. I like the idea I could go on a date with him and it could be his last."

Plus, it must be said, he-like me-has a strong brow line, and I love that. The only person we have today who comes close in that department is Dave Franco.

I wanted to weigh in on him basically based on my love of him in Long Day's Journey. I'm a little embarrassed to say I haven't seen a ton else of the movies he made when he was younger, so I was curious about his other roles. I know you have an affection for him doing a more rakish character in Sons and Lovers. You seem to have more of an appetite for 1950s melodrama than I, which is what he worked in a lot back then.

DJ: Make that another for Long Day's Journey Into Night. I'm pretty sure I saw that early on in my movie infancy, but Dean's prettiness made quite a vivid impression on me. I love that Simon Amstell quote you use because it's so true, and Dean fits that bill so well in Long Day's Journey. With each terrible cough, he becomes that much more pathetic, and that, for whatever reason, only makes him that much more attractive. Plus, we can't discount the fact that he's playing an Emotionally Damaged Boy, another strange turn-on in my world. With a drug addict mother and a cold, uncaring father, Dean's character is screwed up only in a way I could love.

I haven't seen much of his early work either, actually. He was a child actor in the late 40s and 50s who was one of the lucky ones to transition into adult roles. Apparently, I've seen him in Gentleman's Agreement, where, I'm guessing, he played Gregory Peck's son. Yeah, that one left a vivid impression. Sons and Lovers was great because it played up his sexiness without turning him into a dumbass beefcake, which he clearly wasn't. He plays an intelligent, sensitive guy, who just happens to be really, really horny. Clearly, this was an ideal movie for me as he was not only working his sexiness but he was also at the peak of his prettiness.

Stockwell in heat in Sons and Lovers

I saw Compulsion years ago and I remember liking him a lot in that. He plays one half of a Loepold & Loeb-esque duo who are on trial for murder. I remember lots of homoeroticism, especially on Dean's part, which is always a plus for me. Even if you aren't as into 1950s melodrama as I am, you may want to check it out for that. And this leads me to my next question: Dean Stockwell (and his eyebrows) asks you to help him murder someone. In exchange, he'll have sex with you just one glorious time. Do you do it?

W: A pretty, young, AND evil Dean Stockwell? Be still my heart. What else could I say to that proposition but yes?

I had never heard of Compulsion, but all the clips I just looked up from it seem to indicate his character is the bottom in that relationship. Also, it looks like there are extremely long sequences of a halfway-to-Paul-Masson-champagne-commercials Orson Welles delivering court room speeches. I'll have to look it up. Thanks for the recommendation!

DJ: What can I say, I'm a giver.

W: It's a little weird to be talking about the hotness of an actor who is now, like, 75 years old, I must admit. But, If I can bring it up for a second, I wanted to touch on what a strange and interesting career he's managed to carve out for himself. As he got older, he didn't exactly age into a conventionally attractive leading man. That's sad for us, but I think it might have served his career a lot better. He became, ostensibly, a character actor (or as close as you can really be with two Cannes Best Actor prizes under your belt). Rather than getting left behind when the type of actor Hollywood became interested in changed in the late 60s, it seems like he got more and more comfortable subverting audience expectations of a former contracted kid actor from the old studio system. I mean, how many of the hot pieces of unattainable ass you're profiling in this series ever had the balls to go as weird as Stockwell did in something like, say, Blue Velvet?

Can you imagine a current kid actor in transition like Logan Lerman running towards the camera while screaming The Lord's Prayer in Pig Latin for David Lynch in 30 years? I'm sure we can both imagine Logan Lerman doing many things, but I'm not sure about that one.

DJ: His career was certainly a wild ride, starting at MGM and ending up with Wim Wenders and David Lynch. I think it was to his benefit that his period of sexiness was so brief and so early in his career. Hollywood doesn't like pretty character actors and he never would have gotten a chance to thrive as one if he had remained a pretty boy into his 40s. And I say good on him for taking advantage of this. Look, as you have seen and will see in this countdown, prettiness doesn't last forever. It's great to take advantage of it while you have it, but you can't bank on it forever. Dean was one of the smart ones who said, "I won't be a leading anymore. Fuck it. Now is the time to do whatever I want." Looking through my list, the only other actor who even comes close to Dean's career trajectory is Jean-Pierre Leaud, but his auteurial works were "weird" and unexpected in a far different way than Dean's.

See, I can actually imagine Logan Lerman doing oddball stuff later in his career. Granted, I don't know much about him, but from reading interviews with him, he seems like he has a genuine respect for the cinema and could surprise us one day. But I could be totally wrong (as I have been in the past) and your point is a valid one. There are very few child actors I can see doing Lynchian films at any point in the future. Then again, would anyone have predicted in the 1940s that cute lil' Dean Stockwell would be in a film as (amazingly) perverse as Blue Velvet?

100 Hot Men and a Dame: #79 Ryan Phillippe

79. Ryan Phillippe

Occupation: Actor

Nationality: American

Age: 37

Best Known For: Late 90s teenage heartthrob who grew up to become Mr. Reese Witherspoon for a time and a pretty decent actor (Stop-Loss).

The first of the Lost Entries of the 100 Hot Men and a Dame series makes its debut today! Perennial contributor Dave helps me out again to discuss DILF Ryan Phillippe. I'm presenting the post as it was originally written months ago, but it should be noted that I have now seen Cruel Intentions properly and not only is Ryan's ass damn fine but it's probably the crowning achievement of his acting career. Severely underrated.

Dame James: When did you first encounter Ryan and, if it wasn't love at first sight, when did you fall in love with him?

Dave: I first saw Ryan in Cruel Intentions. I was only 10 or 11 when it was actually released, but thankfully for my lustful hormones, I didn't see it until a few years later, which meant I FULLY appreciated him in it. I mean, that butt shot is still the talk of the gays over twelve years later! I mean, it may actually be the most perfect bum of them all, and you know I was going on about Rafa's when we discussed Andy Roddick (who also has a nice bum. OH GOOD LORD.). I know we're going into more cerebral reasons behind attractiveness here, or at least less shallow, but pure horny attraction to physicality is undeniably the driving force behind this countdown and well, with Ryan, it mostly is about the robust, muscular curves of his bottom and arms and chest and oh I'll be back in a moment...

ANYWAY. Looking at Ryan's filmography, he hasn't actually been in that many films of much interest - when The Lincoln Lawyer is your most prominent credit of the last three years, you can see he's lost interest in acting. But he was superb in Stop-Loss - finally proving that he has a vulnerability and depth to him, which was rather a revelation, although I'd wager that his cruel game-playing with Sarah Michelle Gellar in Cruel Intentions was almost as much of an acting coup, because not everyone can do it with such panache.

I'd also like to note how, despite the perfection of the arse circa-1999, Ryan seems to have really found his sweet spot around recent years. The behind might have been fine, but I always found him a bit off somehow - perhaps it was the Justin Timberlake hair. But photos in the past few years have just shown, to me, human perfection - a sculpted, relaxed face, strong shoulders, and a musculature that's not overdeveloped but still screams "MAN!"

DJ: I'm pretty sure I first saw him in Cruel Intentions in the severely edited version they show on TV, and I was never that into him. He was rather frail with features that were perhaps a touch feminine; in other words, he was a true teenage heartthrob. He also had that late 90's vibe around him which is great for nostalgia but maybe not the sexiest look ever. But perhaps if I had gotten a VHS copy and saw the butt scene for myself, maybe I would have come around on him sooner. I've still never seen the scene for myself, but I have seen stills, and Holy Jesus what a glorious ass! I love how it stands out and makes a statement against his (then) skinny frame. It's not ridiculously large but it's big enough that it makes you go "Dayummmm" every time you look at it.

It wasn't until the time of Stop-Loss that I realized I was attracted to Ryan. You talk about how this countdown is designed to discuss attractive men and what makes them so desirable beyond their surface features, and for the most part that's true. But when it comes to Ryan, there are no cerebral reasons why I'm attracted to him: it's pure, animalistic lust. He was fine in Stop-Loss and I'd wager as well he's probably a lot better than we ever gave him credit for in Cruel Intentions. But besides Igby Goes Down, where he really turns up the preppie rich boy machismo, there's really not much of note in his filmography. It's mostly a lot of mediocre rolls in would-be prestige pictures. Without the work to back him up, it's all about that ass. But I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It is better to be famous for something superficial than to not be famous at all.

D: That photo is absolutely transfixing. Yes, let's abandon pretense - I'm going to focus on the physical details. The nipples there are just so small and alive! The six-pack that isn't outrageously defined but enough that you know you could probably punch it and your hand would hurt. The vague stubble. And he's clearly in the middle of a 'fuck you' walk where he ignores everyone in his path. (I do those a lot. Sadly I never look like this while doing them.)

Looking at other photos, I think he really needs the stubble - he looks too small without it, a bit meek. I think it really gives him that extra swagger. I'm glad he figured out that the curls in his hair really don't suit as well - short back and sides really work here (hence the perfection of being cast as a soldier).

DJ: I believe that it was after he divorced Reese Witherspoon that he got super hot. I'm really starting to think she is the Devil in human form because she not only held him back from reaching his full hotness potential, but she also stunted Jake Gyllenhaal there for awhile. What is her problem, exactly? Do you think she doesn't get enough satisfaction from her millions and resorts to taunting us little people to pass the time?

D: Ryan and Reese were kind of a nice normal couple to look at while they were together, but I never really thought about them at all. And you're right, it really was once they split that he came to proper fruition. Almost as though she was holding him back in those teenage roles, so only when he broke away from that did he figure out he was all grown up. I don't know what it is about her, there must be something in that chin...

DJ: Once he ditched his late 90's pretty boy look, I think he truly discovered his sexiness. Which is a rarity, as only a select few men find their hotness peak as late in their career as Ryan did. I guess fatherhood and ditching the Pointy Chined One (seriously, her chin must have been named in the divorce suit as one of the causes for irreconcilable differences) really suited him in the looks department.

D: I see Ryan's going to be making a move usually reserved for prolific actresses and heading for TV - a guest spot on Damages! It probably would've be a better move if the show hadn't been forced to move channels, but I hear they can swear on DirecTV? So maybe he'll take off some clothing. I may have to catch up.

DJ: I had not heard he was appearing on Damages! How positively exciting! I haven't seen the fourth season yet, due to it moving to a channel I don't get, but I was absolutely enthralled with the first three seasons. And the show has a great track record with late 90's teen stars transitioning into sexy maturity, particularly in the second season when they had Matthew Davis and Timothy Olyphant (sigh) on the show. He's actually a brilliant choice for the show, as his penchant for preppie upper class snobs is a perfect fit for Damages. And if he's even half as sexy as Olyphant was on that show--and trust me, Damages objectified Olyphant brilliantly--then watching it will be time well spent.

Crazy 80's Project: Fame

"I'm gonna live forever!" cries a euphoric troupe of artistic high school kids during the chorus of Fame's legendary title song. Who would have guessed that 30 years later, even after an audience-pandering, dumbed-down, sanitized remake that this original easily takes a diarrhea dump on, Fame still feels as alive and relevant as it ever did? Starting with a ballsy script focusing evenly on a good dozen character, which, in its best moments, feels Altmanesque, Fame feels far more mature than nearly every high school film made before or after it. From the way the film lends credibility and urgency to the problems facing these teenagers, it's easy to see Fame's influence on the Brat Pack movies (most notably The Breakfast Club) later on in the 80's. But this maturity also contributes to the film's biggest weakness. Unlike The Breakfast Club, the problems plaguing these teens, revealed in long, dramatic monologues, are decidedly situations most teens will find hard to relate to. And to make things even more unrelatable, director Alan Parker films these monologues in highly self-conscious long takes, trying to make them High Art. Sure, this may make Fame more intriguing to adult audience members who aren't interested in the "petty" concerns of teens, but it takes the film out of its natural environment. A shame, really, as Fame thrives in this environment, appearing against all odds to live forever. B+

Best Actress Bar Crawl

If Twitter is good for nothing else, it's a fantastic place to share silly ideas with people and watch them blossom into something completely different and unexpected. After watching her on a talk show being her fabulous, charismatic, over-the-top self, I innocently commented on Twitter that my dream in life was to go out drinking with Gabourey Sidibe. My birthday twin Will jokingly responded that we were free to meet him and Jennifer Lawrence for happy hour. This spawned its own conversation as we imagined this outing which somehow grew to include a party bus and Zayn and Harry from One Direction stopping by at some point. During this fun, however, a wonderful hypothetical question came to my mind: which recent Best Actress nominees would I like to go with on a one night bar crawl? In its own way, this is a great way to get to know people, whether they are your oldest friends or a complete stranger. You can certainly tell a lot about a person who would pick Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet over Catalina Sandino Moreno and Samantha Morton (anyone who picks Renée Zellweger is certainly not to be trusted). So, in the spirit of getting to know me better--as if my life isn't already an open book--here are the five Best Actress nominees since 2000 I'd love to have a drink with:

Gabourey Sidibe

If you've ever seen Gabby on a talk show, particularly the fast and loose Chelsea Lately, you will understand where I'm coming from on this one. This girl knows how to have a good time. Plus, she's admitted that she loves to drink and she's an endless fountain of 90s trivia. What can possibly happen with her except the best damn night of drinking ever?

Jennifer Lawrence

Yes, I'm stealing this answer from Will, but once he mentioned her, I knew she had to come along as well. Jennifer may seem like an odd choice as she usually appears to be Ms. Serious Actress after Winter Bone and The Hunger Games. As with Gabby, though, if you have seen her on a talk show, you will know that this girl knows how to have fun. Besides, how can you say no to a woman who will photo bomb her own boyfriend:

I rest my case.

Anne Hathaway

As one of the only three women I would switch teams for (Penelope Cruz and Christina Hendricks being the other two), it's only fitting that I invite Anne along so that maybe we can drunkenly make out a little bit. And, unlike Penelope, there won't be any language barrier, so she'll get to be her fun, witty self all night long (Although I like to imagine that Penelope speaks better English when she's drunk).

Helen Mirren

This bitch may be 67 years old, but you know she would be able to drink everyone in the bar under the table and still be classy/sexy enough to make out with someone a third her age without looking like a desperate, pathetic cougar. God bless this Dame.

Sandy Bullock

Who else besides Sandy, with her trademarked deadpan sense of humor, is going to make fun of the losers all around us at the bar with me? If we go to the gay bar in my town, we will definitely more than enough targets to launch our barbs on.

Now, more importantly, which lovely ladies would you pick?