- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
- More
- Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
- Click to print (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
I hate to say this but … they all look much the same to me. Are muscles a positive *requirement* to masculine beauty? Seems so these days.
Paul, I seem to recall ‘Elvis’ being considered quite desirable as late as the 1990s – at least when compared to most other politicians. But that was before Aaron Shock.
Indecent Exposure! How quaint! Funnily enough some commentators over here want to bring that law back – apparently male semi nudity represents an ‘implicit threat of violence’.
My dear! I always thought that was the whole appeal of rough trade….
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100267722/theme-park-bans-male-nudity-finally-the-backlash-against-moobs-begins/
Mark, you realize that a century ago Bill Clinton would have been considered a most desirable man. “Hale and hearty” (no pun intended), i.e. least likely to die of consumption.
Another tid-bit you might be interested to know is that until the 1920s, a shirtless man could be charged with Indecent Exposure. Thankfully sun exposure was (mistakenly) considered protective against consumption (actually it was just the fresh air). Good thing they didn’t know about melanoma!
Comments are closed.