Tag Archives: Esquire

I like The Good Men Project Magazine. It bills itself as the anti-Esquire/GQ, not because the creators don’t appreciate women (they make sure you know that they do), but because they treat their male readers as multi-dimensional human beings with complex feelings, emotions, opinions and interests. Ms. Magazine called them “what enlightened masculinity might look like in the 20th century.”

In that vein, writer Tom Matlack has skewered Esquire for limiting their list of “Women We Love” to what boils down to a list of “Women We’d Love to Bang.” That’s a fine list to have, I suppose, but call it what it is.

Although women may be able to claim a slight upper hand in the objectification-of-the-opposite-sex game, ladymags are frequently guilty of choosing abs and pecs over substance.  Taylor Lautner looks good without a shirt, but is that really where we want to set the bar? (He’s also 18….women objectify youth too!)

So I’m taking a cue from Mr. Matlack. Who do I find both attractive and interesting enough that I’d want to spend an hour getting to know him? I’ll give you a hint, the Matthew McConaugheys of the world don’t make the cut.

Here’s Matlack’s list, and mine, of people who are actually “fascinating, cool, and lovable” (and also attractive in a myriad of ways):

*I like that Matlack included a lesbian woman, suggesting that likelihood-of-someday-fucking is not the top priority. Consequently, I have allowed myself to include two gay men who I find fascinating and lovable.

There are many more folks that could make both lists, obviously. But it’s a fun mental exercise, and worthwhile, I think, to spend some time pondering who you want to know, instead who you want to do.

Related Post: Sam Kass spends some quality time with Elmo.

Related Post: Why I’m okay rooting for Michael Vick (even though I am not nor ever will be an Eagles fan… Go Bears!)

Related Posts: Dreamboats: Damon and company make me drool… with their words.