Following on from today’s earlier post, the only thing hotter than men with books is men with dogs. Just as long as they demonstrate their love appropriately. Joel Monaghan, take note.
Related: Beauty & the Bestiality.
Elsewhere: [Men & Their Dogs] Homepage.
On Friday morning I got a text message from a friend saying I should blog about Joel Monaghan, the Canberra Raiders rugby player who was photographed “getting blown by a dog”.
I had Sunrise and The Morning Show on in the background, whilst blogging and being domesticated, and heard snippets of another rugby player behaving badly, but I had no idea until I Googled Monaghan’s name with “dog photo” and put two and two together. (If you wish to see the extremely NSFW picture with only a red dot protecting Monaghan’s modesty, head to Deadspin.)
It seems that we expect abhorrent behaviour from sportsmen; Matthew Johns and the group sex incident, rape allegations against Collingwood players after this year’s grand final (take two), and now this.
But is the fact that Monaghan is in talks with NRL officials about where to go from here a sign that we have become so desensitised to the repugnant actions of those with the money, fame and power to get away with them—sportsmen in particular? Is it just “boys behaving badly?” I feel like I, personally, have become so desensitised to the seemingly weekly sexual assault allegations brought against sports players, that I almost expect it (“Oh, he allegedly raped a woman? Well, he’s a footy player; what did you expect?”). But I certainly was not expecting this, and I think the NRL, RSPCA and the Australian public should come down on Monaghan like a tonne of bricks.
More to come on men who actually love dogs later today.
Related: Why Are Famous Men Forgiven for Their Wrongdoings, While Women Are Vilified for Much Less?
Bad Boys, Whatcha Gonna Do? Host a Seven Family Show.
Back to the Draw-ing Board: Australia’s Year of Indecision.
Elsewhere: [Deadspin] What We Talk About When We Talk About A Dog Blowing An Australian Rugby Player.
After the St. Kilda-Collingwood Grand Final draw on Saturday afternoon, I mentioned to a friend, “It’s been a year of draws.” And she was like, “What?” And I was like, “The Federal election, hello?!”
But her comment certainly summarises Australia’s reaction to our hung parliament as opposed to the Grand Final draw; we care far more about our sport than we do about our government.
While the Julia VS. Tony battle waged on for weeks after we went to the polls, it looks like we’re going to have to succumb to Grand Final festivities all over again next weekend. Joy.
Keep in mind I’m writing this on Sunday morning, before the new weekly gossip magazines come out on Monday, so I am prepared to eat my words if they contradict what I’m about to theorise: the Angelina Jolie sex and drugs scandal won’t hurt her career in the slightest. It probably won’t hurt her personal life, either, but only time will tell.
Sure, the first two weeks after the scandal broke, Jolie was all over the magazine covers and blogs, with “inside sources” claiming it could spell the end of her partnership with Brad Pitt.
And now, over a month later, the tabloids are reporting that Jolie dazzled on the red carpet for the premiere of Salt, in which she dressed up as a man (Who’s cover story this week), and how she stuck up for Jennifer Aniston regarding her comments about single motherhood. Not a mention anywhere about Andrew Morton’s tell all book, which spawned the lesbian bondage pictures and drug use revelations.
Jolie is not a stranger to shocking tabloid headlines, like making out with her brother, wearing a vial of ex Billy Bob Thornton’s blood around her neck and breaking up the marriage of America’s golden couple, Pitt and Aniston. Who’s to know how these indignities affected her personally, but publicly, she has taken them in her stride, just as she has the most recent exposé.
Everyone knows Jolie as the wild-child-makes-good; a juxtaposition of humanitarian with home wrecker; serious actress with sex and drug addict. This is just another chink in her armour that makes up the multifaceted enigma that is Angelina Jolie.
Earlier in the year, I wrote about (male) celebrities like Matthew Newton and Matthew Johns becoming hosts of television shows, despite their questionable behaviour in their private lives, which became very public.
It is no secret that I feel very strongly about the issue of famous men being rewarded for their indiscretions because “he’s such a nice guy” or “he plays that sport we like”, despite the fact that they are a known wife-beater and drug-addict (Newton) or have been implicated in a group sex scandal with their team-mates, which the woman involved later alleged wasn’t consensual (Johns).
I expressed my disdain for the situation at my workplace yesterday: “what does this guy have that makes beautiful, talented, successful women go after him when he is a known abuser?” One colleague replied that it’s not Rachael Taylor (his most recent ex-girlfriend who filed the claims) nor Brooke Satchwell’s (the first ex to cry assault) faults, which she thought I was insinuating, but let me make myself very clear, if I haven’t already: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS IT THE VICTIM’S FAULT. But seriously, I will ask the above question again: What does Newton have that makes beautiful, talented, successful women go after a known abuser? And what’s more, why would Seven hire him to host The X Factor, due to debut in less than a week, when he has expressed unreliability in the past.
I personally don’t think celebrities with addictions should be thrust back into work straight after attending rehab, or in the case of Lindsay Lohan, jail to boot. Addicts need time away from the stressors of everyday life and the entertainment industry, if that is their chosen field, in order to fully recuperate and overcome their demons.
Mia Freedman also commented on the incident, asking “what should Channel 7 do” with The X Factor’s already-filmed footage, which Newton is “all over”? “When will we stop enabling celebrities to behave in utterly unacceptable—and possibly criminal—ways? And rewarding them if we think they’ll bring ratings?” Freedman asks.
But is The X Factor really aimed at a family audience? With Newton, who was given the hosting gig around the time he was admitted to rehab earlier this year, Kyle Sandilands, a shock-jock who is constantly in hot-water for putting his foot in his mouth, and Ronan Keating, who was recently embroiled in a cheating scandal, the show’s stars aren’t exactly family friendly.
Related: Bad Boys, Whatcha Gonna Do? Host a Seven Family Show.
Why Are Forgiven for Their Wrongdoings, While Women Are Vilified for Much Less?
Elsewhere: [Musings of an Inappropriate Woman] Reblogged: No Words For What Hurts.
While The Hills has come to an end (more on that to come), its final season has been one marred with controversy.
First, Heidi Montag debuted her plastic (not-so-) fantastic look in the lead up to the premiere.
And in other Speidi news, the couple accused a producer of sexual harassment and left the show soon after.
Kristin Cavallari was suspected of having an eating disorder and a drug addiction, while Stephanie Pratt came clean in the tabloids about her past food and alcohol problems.
And finally, Heidi filed for divorce from Spencer, who demonstrated signs of drug dependence and anger management issues in his final episodes.
Phew!
A recent episode, aptly named “This is Goodbye” for Speidi’s last hurrah, was troubling, in that it showed just how distorted Spencer and Heidi’s perception of reality has become.
Kimberly, in a topical blog post on I Love Wildfox (a component of the brand Wildfox Couture), came to the defence of Kristin, Audrina et al, saying that with the seemingly low expectations the producers have of its cast, it’s no wonder Heidi, in particular, “has a warped perception of who she should be”:
“Maybe I need to watch the prior seasons to understand what MTV was really going for, but basing my opinion on this [one] episode I gathered this message from the astoundingly popular series: look pretty, gossip, sunbake, flirt, look pretty…
“The girls on the show are all incredibly physically beautiful. Looking good in every light at every camera angle is not normal. Most girls don’t look half as pretty on camera as they do in real life.
“It saddens me that MTV chose the easy suck-you-in route once again, telling all girls everywhere, ‘this is what you should talk about, this is what you should want to be,’ without showing (even once in an entire episode) what these girls actually struggle with, what they are good at, or what they dream of; even The Girls of the Playboy Mansion managed to do that!”
The buzz surrounding the final episode, which aired last week and featured Kristin leaving for Europe, with a saddened Brody Jenner (Kristin’s ex) watching as she drives away—only to have the Hollywood sign Brody’s standing in front of revealed as a green screen, and that the whole final scene was shot on a film lot, seems to be taking a stab at the “scripted” label, leaving audiences wondering whether the whole thing was a set-up or if it somehow morphed into one along the way.
Kristin has been quoted as saying that The Hills was just her job, and she would never put her real friends and the people she cares about on TV.
So why did “Heidi’s family appear on the show to discuss her surgery, further condoning the need for limelight on their daughter’s sad and massive insecurities”?
You will notice that it’s really only the Pratt and Montag families who were caught up in the “drama” of the whole show, which bodes the questions: were Speidi’s marital woes all a set up? What is the extent of Heidi’s body dysmorphia and the necessity of her multiple surgeries? Did her family really express shame at her new look, or were they all in on the act, if it was an act, too?
Going back to “This is Goodbye”, there is a scene at a club that Heidi and Spencer rock up to, uninvited, during a fun night out with most of the other cast members. Spencer speaks of he and Heidi’s life together, saying, “I don’t let her go on [watch] TV, no computers. The only thing Heidi does is read and write poetry, and pray, and pet puppies…”, while Heidi sits there genuinely and enthusiastically nodding along, only interjecting to add, “and I read books”.
When Kristin confronts her about being isolated from her friends and family, Heidi says she’s just focussing on her love for Spencer and asks, “who am I without Spencer?” If she’s not an emotionally battered wife, I don’t know who is. As Holly said, “she’s brainwashed”.
Furthermore, Kristin and Audrina add that “there’s nothing going on behind those eyes anymore” and “there’s no emotion”, respectively.
I would tend to agree with these statements, however I don’t agree with what comes next.
When the girls discuss what to do about the abusive state of their friend and sister’s marriage, Lo asserts that “Heidi is guilty on all counts… she hides behind Spencer and plays the victim”.
If this was real life, I would say that Heidi’s alleged friends and family should have stuck by her a little harder, supporting her through her inevitable marriage breakdown.
But we don’t know how real The Hills really is, so I have to say that maybe Heidi did willingly become a victim to Spencer’s controlling ways or, to take it a step further, to Hollywood’s ideal of what a woman should be.
Kimberly declares that she hopes “those of you out there who criticise yourselves and your bodies, who look at thin girls all over the place in fashion, who watch outlandishly pretty young ladies on television, who admire movie stars and supermodels and yearn to be like them can know: That’s not what it looks like. Ever.”
It is also interesting to note that Heidi, and to a lesser extent Stephanie, Holly and Audrina, is the only one whose succumbed to this ideal.
Lauren Conrad, the original star of the show, got out when the going was good, and now leads a relatively quiet life as a fashion designer-cum-author slashie. Kristin, as her earlier comments illustrate, knows it’s only a job. Lo is fairly low-key and we really don’t know that much about her, which is probably the way she likes it. And while Audrina, Holly and Stephanie may have had surgical augmentations of some kind or another, they all remain fairly down-to-earth girls, or so it would seem.
Kimberly also notes that while almost everything on the show is fake, The Hills “is the realest account of female self-destruction I’ve ever seen on television”. This may be true, but this unravelling of Spencer and Heidi can be taken as an exercise in critical discourse about “reality” television, Hollywood and celebrity culture, which bodes the question: why can some people handle fame whilst others become the next Lindsay Lohan, trapped in a prison sentence, both literally and figuratively?
Recently, there has been a bit of a backlash against Megan Fox, who—the consensus seems to be—should keep her mouth shut and be grateful for her break in Transformers. Much the same could be said about Katherine Heigl, who left Grey’s Anatomy amidst a storm of controversy earlier this year, when she complained about 17 hour days, which were allegedly scheduled around her movie filming and new mum timetable.
New York magazine went as far to give a “definitive… analysis” on both women, and whether their stock in Hollywood amounts to “buy, sell or hold.”
While Heigl managed to escape with a “hold” verdict, due to her ability to “get a project green-lit just by signing on” (the other four actresses in this category are Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon, Sandra Bullock and Angelina Jolie, out of which “Heigl is the only one who will work in a young romantic comedy”), Fox’s future is cloudy (“sell”).
I actually like both ladies, who also happen to be two of the most beautiful women on the planet. But apparently being beautiful and outspoken do not a feminist heroine make.
New York notes that some see Heigl as “refreshingly outspoken”. Others? “A headstrong, self-immolating, gaffe-spewing, headache-inducing diva freak.” Or, perhaps, she’s both?
She has stood up for her co-star T.R. Knight after fellow Grey’s Anatomy doc Isiah Washington dissed him with homophobic slurs. She also called her big-break film Knocked Up sexist, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Then there was the whole withdrawing-her-name-from-Emmy-contention debacle, due to insufficient storylines for her character, Izzie Stevens, on the show. Finally came her David Letterman rant about working seventeen hour days, and that the Grey’s producers should be “embarrassed”.
Some of these things perhaps weren’t the smartest, nor correct, things to say in the public arena, at the risk of coming off as a “diva freak”, but who the freak cares?! It takes a pretty gutsy woman to speak up about those kinds of things, as a lot of people would want to in any workplace; it just so happens that when Heigl does it, the world hears it.
Speaking of smart, Fox isn’t really known for espousing intelligent quid pro quos, but she is arguably Hollywood savvy, as “Fox’s appeal is all about simultaneously exaggerating her sexuality and then downplaying it as just Hollywood silliness.”
The exaggeration? Writhing around in denim cut-offs on a motorcycle in Transformers 2, girl-on-girl makeout sessions with Amanda Seyfried in Jennifer’s Body and lingerie ads, which is what she’s known for.
A recent Jezebel article asserts that “people really, really hate Megan Fox” (apparently, there’s a Tumblr hate-blog, “the description of which reads, ‘Fuck you, Megan Fox. No, really. Keep your trap shut’”) purely for the fact that she’s outspoken. (I’m a goner, then!)
When she criticised Transformers director Michael Bay for being a sexist “jerk”, he laughed it off, and this exchange of words carried on for the good part of a year, until she was let go from the franchise in May.
But in dismissing her from Transformers 3 and casting Victoria’s Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as her replacement (who’s “most notable acting role was as “Woman in Underpants” in Michael Bay’s own Victoria’s Secret commercial”), this should give Fox “a sense of how she’s viewed”, by Bay, at least.
This is further reiterated by the fact that Bay allegedly made her wash is car in her bikini in place of an audition (casting couch, much?), to which Jezebel says:
“Which she should apparently be really, really grateful for, since whenever people talk about her, they like to throw in the ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you’ admonishment. To which I say, what if that hand is also trying to grab your ass?”
(Perhaps she’s asking for it then, because of the way she looks? But that’s material for a whole different blog post.)
Unfortunately, though I think she’s awesome and has much more to offer, I see Fox going the way of so many sex-pots who are no longer relevant: Tara Reid, Carmen Electra, Denise Richards.
So it seems you can’t win either way. Either shut up, sit tight and look pretty. God forbid you speak your mind, as you run the risk of being labelled an outspoken, ungrateful harpy worthy of your own hate brigade.
Elsewhere: [Vulture] The Definitive Vulture Analysis of Divisive Rom-Com Queen Katherine Heigl.
[Vulture] What is Professional Provocateur Megan Fox’ Valuation in Hollywood?
[Jezebel] Women Who Want Attention.
[Musings of an Inappropriate Woman] Guest Post: Video, Consent & Kendra Wilkinson.
Some frequent readers of this blog asked my why I haven’t posted anything about our new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. Not only is she the first female leader of our country (our version of what Hillary Clinton could have been, if you will?), but it was a newsworthy event for the fact that Kevin Rudd was ousted during his first term, despite that it was by a woman.
There has been a lot of hoo-hah about Gillard apparently stabbing Rudd in the back and lying to him that she would never take his place. Sure, she may have lied, but who hasn’t? And when the fate of an entire country lies in incompetent hands (not all that incompetent, if you ask me), sometimes the ladies have gotta take matters into their own.
Other than this being a great step for womankind, it is also a great step for the unwed, childless, redheaded and faithless, with Gillard being the first unmarried, childless, redheaded and atheist PM.
However, that step doesn’t extend to the gays, as Gillard is just another (mostly) forward-thinking liberal (in the true sense of the word, not our country’s warped sense of what that means politically) who opposes gay marriage.
Apparently, it is her “personal view,” however my personal view is that she probably doesn’t want to ruffle more feathers than she already has within the first week of her appointment to PM, as opposed to truly believing “the marriage act being appropriate in its current form.”
It is also my personal view that opposing gay marriage is one big black mark against Gillard’s mostly positive repertoire.
Katy Perry burst onto our airwaves and TV screens in a blur of same-sex kisses and “cherry Chapstick” around the same time as Lady Gaga made her mark on the world with “Just Dance”. I had a preference for the former song at the time, however Gaga has proved she’s much more than a flash in the pan and has become one of my favourite artists, in pretty much every sense of the word.
Perry, on the other hand, is talked about more for her engagement to controversial comedian Russell Brand and star turn as Smurfette in the new Smurfs movie than for her singing talent.
No doubt she has a great voice, but her “Calfornia Gurls” video clip didn’t really live up to the hype, and it feels a bit forced.
Gaga’s clip for “Alejandro”, however, was more than I could’ve ever imagined it to be. Considering the song has an almost calypso vibe to it, I was expecting something more along the lines of her mediocre clip for the equally mediocre “Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say).” Granted, it was only her third single, and her record label was trying to push a mainstream image of her as opposed to the eccentric megastar we know her as today.
The highly sexualised and borderline blasphemous video evokes tones of Madonna’s “Like a Prayer”, “Rain”, “Vogue” and “Human Nature” as well as her film Evita. There are also references to Cabaret and Joan of Arc, in the red and white habit she wears. While I think it is an awesome and quite moving video that will stand the test of time, I admit Gaga has drawn a lot of her material for it from the one she is so often compared to, Madonna. I’ve never really noticed it before now…
It is certainly “like an 8+ minute homage to Madonna… with some gay Nazis thrown in for good measure”, according to the National Post, and even though director Steven Klein defended the video from religious groups, saying, “The religious symbolism is not meant to denote anything negative, but represents the character’s battle between the dark forces of this world and spiritual salvation of the Soul. Thus at the end of the film, she chooses to be a nun… she is withdrawing her senses from the world of evil and going inward towards prayer and contemplation.”
But when Gaga herself says that the video is about “a celebration of my love and appreciation for the gay community,” which, to me, signals the “dark forces of this world” could perhaps be the views of the Church towards gays and that “withdrawing… from the world of evil” is moving away from the Church.
So is Katy Perry right when she Tweets, “Using blasphemy as entertainment is as cheap as a comedian telling a fart joke”? It may be right (in some peoples’ eyes; certainly not mine. I’m all for a bit of religious imagery to spice up a music video or two), but it’s also hypocritical.
Perry comes from a religious background, but surely that background should be null and void when she releases “I Kissed A Girl”, gets engaged to a former sex and drug addict, and whose latest video features her naked on a cloud of fairy floss, and then tries to comment on religious good taste. To borrow another quote from the National Post, “I’m not sure if the girl who’s lactating whipped cream in her latest video should be judging other people’s lack of taste.”
In her defence, Perry did take to the radio in response to the controversy, saying “sexuality [as per her videos] is not the same as spirituality [as in Gaga’s videos].”
As Celebitchy notes, Perry released her “California Gurls” video on the same day the “Alejandro” clip came out. Jealous, much?
Here is a juxtaposition of both lady’s clips, so you can decide who should win this war. Vote one, Lady Gaga!
The Debut: I Kissed a Girl VS. Just Dance.
Hot N Cold VS. Poker Face.
The Love Interest Cameo: Waking Up in Vegas with Joel Moore VS. Paparazzi with Alexander Skarsgard.
The Collaboration: If We Ever Meet Again with Timbaland VS. Telephone with Beyonce.
California Gurls VS. Alejandro.
Elsewhere: [National Post] Scandal Sheet: Lady Gaga’s “Alejandro” Debuts.
[MTV] Lady Gaga’s “Alejandro” Director Defends Video’s Religious Symbolism.
[MTV] Lady Gaga Offers “Alejandro” Video Sneak Peek on Larry King Live.
[Celebitchy] Katy Perry Says Lady Gaga’s “Alejandro” Video is “Blasphemy”.
In Perez Hilton’s words, “2010 has really been the year of the cheater”. First we had Tiger Woods’ cheating scandal, which broke late last year but has continued to be a headline grabbing story, then Jesse James’ spiral of shame, and now David Boreanaz, who went public a few weeks ago with news that he cheated on his wife of almost nine years, Jaime Bergman.
And last year was the year of the sports scandal, you might say, with the Matthew Johns group sex story coming to light in May.
What do all these men, with, perhaps, the exception of James, have in common? Their shady pasts have virtually been forgotten in favour of their more positive talents. Boreanaz plays the lead in hit TV series Bones, Johns now hosts his own self-titled show, and Tiger is back on the Masters tour.
While the wrongdoings of the Australian underworld are being glorified on Underbelly no one bats an eyelid. To take it even further, O.J. Simpson, although acquitted of double murder, was held up as a hero amongst African Americans in Los Angeles following his trial, despite being thought of as guilty in the court of public opinion.
Perhaps this is just a sign of the times changing; that our society has become so desensitised to notions of war, violence, drugs and sexual depravity that they are not longer taboo. I would argue that this is true to some extent it is not reflected on the other end of the spectrum.
For example, a recently refurbished Heidi Montag admitted to undergoing 10 cosmetic surgical procedures in one day because she wasn’t happy with the way she looked. She obviously has deep-rooted body dysmorphic issues, however instead of helping and supporting her, the public has turned on her.
The same could be said of the Britney Spears’ and Lindsay Lohans’ of the world. A recent Jezebel article, “In Defence of Lindsay Lohan”, was in support of the former child star everyone loves to hate.
Sure, Lindsay has a father who “is a nightmare… and her mother is more of a friend than a parental figure. So perhaps she is lacking in guidance and role models. But who among us, in some way, is not? Her experience [of growing up in the spotlight]… is not one many people can relate to, anyway.”
The author surmises that the public’s fascination with Lindsay and their “build-you-up-to-take-you-down” mentality is much simpler: “She’s 23-years-old and being ripped to shreds in the press mostly because she goes out at night.”
Right. Someone like Colin Farrell has had a sex tape released, sexual misconduct allegations brought against him and has battled substance abuse problems, however he is still held up as a Golden Globe-winning actor. We all know Lindsay has the acting chops, it’s just a matter of her getting out of her own way. Double standard? In the words of Sarah Palin, you betcha!
The beautifully tragic Marilyn Monroe and Anna Nicole Smith were, and still are, vilified for being just that. Even in death, the girls can’t catch a break.
So that brings us back to the question, why do men get away with so much more than women can? Or, more to the point, why are men almost celebrated for their wrongdoings while women are banished into social oblivion?
I think, in a nation that celebrates sport as the highest level of achievement, especially, we want to give our sportsmen the benefit of the doubt. While I do think we focus too much on sport as the be all and end all of success in Australia, and the very nature of being “Australian”, it can be seen as admirable to offer someone a second chance. Johns, for example, could be seen as brave for coming forward and being the only one of his Cronulla Sharks teammates to own up to his mistake. But I do think it’s a bit soon to be running a television show off his back.
However, we also like to kick people when they’re down. Britney Spears, for example, was heralded as the princess of pop in her golden days, but when she started donning pink wigs, speaking to herself in a British accent in the gutter, and being carted off to the looney bin, we wanted nothing to do with her. Oh, I’m sorry, only to denigrate her on the cover of tabloid magazines.
Then last year she launched her comeback tour, and everyone was back on her side. That is, until, she lip synched (come on, it’s Britney! When has she ever not lip synched?) her way through Australia and out of our collective consciousness.
But how many second chances are we going to give these men, in particular? Charlie Sheen was embroiled in his latest domestic dispute over Christmas last year. But what of his past child pornography, prostitute and drug allegations? Not to mention the shooting of ex-girlfriend Kelly Preston in a domestic dispute. Do we just sweep them under the rug too so that Sheen can keep the $1.2 million per episode of Two & a Half Men coming?
When these mistakes are hurting people other than themselves, maybe it’s time to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Do we really care if Lindsay, Britney or Mischa are off to rehab again? And shouldn’t we be caring that Jesse James allegedly ran dog fights out of his West Coast Choppers headquarters and is apparently a white supremacist? Or that Sheen is essentially being rewarded by the cash cow that is Hollywood for his reprehensible behaviour? Or that Tiger slept—and somehow found time to golf—his way across the country in a narcissistic bubble of admiration from his countrymenand women?
Related: All Eyes on Marilyn.
Elsewhere: [Jezebel] In Defence of Lindsay Lohan.
The Scarlett Woman 