Gotta tell ya, they had me at "totally bangable"

Genia | May 11, 05:41 CET

They had me at Jon Stewart, but yay Nathan! But if this is a list that equates sexy with smart, talented, eccentric, & a bit nerdy, how could they have overlooked James Marsters? And I have to say that the women on the list are a lot closer to those you'd see in People magazine, than the guys are.

Shey | May 11, 05:43 CET

I can't help but think that sort of celebrity blogging is what feeds the wackos in fandom out there, the ones who think it's A-OK to grope Nathan at an event. While some might think using the words bangable and Nathan Fillion in the same sentence is a harmless pursuit, I'm not one of them. In my mind, this crosses a line that if I were one of the actors reading here, would probably make me more than a tad hot under the collar. It's objectification, just like the David Boreanaz shirtless paparazzi photo, and I am not comfortable seeing these links here.

Tonya J | May 11, 06:00 CET

Shey, regarding the guys on that list vs. the girls, I thought the exact same thing.

Tonya J I don't see the diction of that blog being much different from that of People or Cosmo except that it's a wee bit cruder.

I liked it. Totally concur about Nathan and Jon Stewart.

I liked this line: "but this guy’s got scruples — he’s Canadian, for God’s sake."
Yes, we Canadians are a scrupulous bunch. And sexy too. :D

lorelei_frolick | May 11, 06:21 CET

That's pretty close to my own list. "He can be bluster and sarcasm, but underneath it all, you know he’s a softie" He's so great with the fans. He doesn't have to put up with us, but he does.

thatweirdgirl | May 11, 06:54 CET

Tonya J - While I get what you are saying, this is a list of the sexiest people, not the nicest, or cutest, or smartest. It's a list about sex appeal. So, sorry, but bangable was a legitimate description in this context.

Genia | May 11, 07:09 CET

I totally disagree. This is about respect, and I can assure you that if Jewel, Morena, Summer or Gina were in that list, I wouldn't be the only one in here objecting.

Tonya J | May 11, 07:21 CET

Ah, Tonya J, I see your point. But my brain parsed it this way: A new 'on the scene' young actor, someone who wants all the press he can get sees on this site that he's 'bangable'. He immediately calls all his friends, prints out the questionable honor and decorates his dinky apartment with all the 8.5 x 11s, then throws a party.

George Clooney sees the same thing said about himself, rolls his eyes, and redirects his attention to his femme du jour.

Nathan, beautiful Nathan, is somewhere between these two fellas, and - hmmm, I don't know. It could go either way I guess. It would probably hinge on what mood he was in. Or, how much drinking had transpired that evening. ;)

Willowy | May 11, 07:51 CET

I think I'm agreeing with Tonya J here in regards to word choice. Sexy doesn't really equate to 'most like to bang' for me. Considering Pajiba seems to be touting themselves as more cerebral (or, at the very least, more nerdy/geeky/etc), I'm wondering why they bothered peppering the piece with so many nose-wrinkling phrases. Personally, the one line that left a sour taste in my mouth was: "the others on the top 10 you may sleep with because of something besides sexual attraction, which is emotionally cheating, in a way." But I think that's the Christian in me. ;)

I did like the line about Fillion being "coolest motherf****r on the planet," though, and I definitely agree with his awesome genre-crossing tendencies.

LiLi | May 11, 08:00 CET

Let the church say "AMEN".

AmazonGirl | May 11, 08:20 CET

There was a warning on the heading of this thread about content that might be offensive to some. What *I'm* not comfortable with is the idea of enforcing political correctness and censorship on this (or any) forum. Also not comfortable with the inference that if this kind of harmless fluff is OK with you, you're the kind of wacko fan who would consider it OK to grope Nathan at an event.

And the "it's objectifaction" .... Tonya J, how about adding "to me" or "IMO". So Again I would point out the warning at the top of the thread and suggest that those who are easily offended by this kind of thing, just don't read it.

[ edited by Shey on 2007-05-11 06:31 ]

Shey | May 11, 08:32 CET

I have to say that I think this blog is harmless admiration, IMO. (And MySpace folks might know that I am usually very sensitive to comments that might be stepping over the line of respect.) To me, the article didn't spell out some fantasy or show paparazzi/inappropriate photos or suggest approaching Nathan if you see him. I think they meant bangable (and, c'mon, we know the much, much naughtier word for that!) as a way of saying not just sexy but also a person who is interesting, who you want to spend time with (like Jon Stewart) -- this is a list of people who are not just good-looking, but have great, fun personalities, too. So that's why I personally found this a nice tribute to Nathan, not a disrespectful one, IMO.

billz | May 11, 13:42 CET

I also don't really see the harm though I agree that more people would probably be up in arms if it was said about one of the Whedonverse ladies (i'd still disagree but would probably concede that a word like that used by a man of a woman might seem more predatory and aggressive, rightly or wrongly). The word 'bangable' after all actually appears thusly
i.e. in a sentence talking about his good character (albeit jokily) and saying almost the total opposite to 'Nathan Fillion is just a sexy body and nothing more' (which is what objectification means to me). The word by itself is arguably objectifying but, as with most situations, context is everything (the same article also calls him a 'motherfucker' for instance which, when taken out of the context of 'coolest' and 'on the planet', would be deeply insulting).

In fact, despite the frankness of the language, all the celebrity's blurbs talk much more about their talents and accomplishments than they do about their physical appearance.

Saje | May 11, 15:03 CET

I understand the objections, and I tend to think there would be mroe of them had this been said about a female 'verse cast member, however... unlike the Boreanaz pic, there is actual content here. Its not a single paparazzi photo with nothing to support it as a link. The content, while perhaps not entirely SFW (and occasionally crudely stated), is actually interesting and not just an excuse to objectify the subjects and post quasi-pr0n. Sure its objectification, but thats inescapable in a 10 Sexiest People list just by its very nature. As Saje says, context is extremely important given some of the words flying about.

zeitgeist | May 11, 18:49 CET

Bangable. Bangable. Bangable.
:P

Where is Chris Meloni? I can't believe he's not on this list. Talk about bangable uber hotness.

kerfuffle | May 11, 19:12 CET

Kerfuffle - please don't taunt people.

zeitgeist | May 11, 19:17 CET

Sorry. My bad. Just trying to keep things light. No offense meant, guys.

kerfuffle | May 11, 19:22 CET

I figured it was entirely tongue-in-cheek, just trying to head off any potential for this thread's flame index to rise.

zeitgeist | May 11, 19:25 CET

Here's the perfect rest of the paragraph Saje quoted:


/fans self ;)

barest_smidgen | May 11, 19:42 CET

Speaking as a newly minted husband - I object, your honor! ;)

zeitgeist | May 11, 19:45 CET

Sustained. /repents

barest_smidgen | May 11, 20:02 CET

No worries, zeitgeist and mrs. z., aka barest_smidgen (or is that barest_smidgen and mr. barest_smidgen?) -- I believe the cheatin' on your husband bit only applies if you are a pie-baking waitress. ;-)

billz | May 11, 20:50 CET

If we call our husbands "Nathan" later on this evening, is that cheating..?

barest_smidgen | May 11, 21:02 CET

Depends on if you bake them a pie ;) Or *cough* shortbread!

zeitgeist | May 11, 21:04 CET

In My Humble Opinion - (as always...)

Late to the party - that pesky RL - but didn't want to leave the folks that objected to "bangable" standing here unsupported...

Gotta agree with finding "bangable" offensive - but not surprising in an article entitled "The Celebrities You'd Most Like to Bang." Not the kind of article I tend to look for or read, and I don't equate the tone of the word "sexy" with the word "bangable." I don't find this to be quite on the same level as "DB Caught Shirtless By Paparazzi," but more of the adolescent "I'd hit that" - no matter how well-written.

It may not be exactly the same when applied to a female as to a male - given the history of women's treatment as compared to that of men's - but it's still offensive and an an approach to viewing humankind that I find depleting, and calling Nathan "bangable" doesn't seem to me that many steps short of grabbing his butt at Backup Flan. "Sexy" or "hot" generally seems to me to be an addition to someone's attributes, while "bangable" or "I'd hit that" seems to me to be reductive...

One thing I wish people would stop doing - and I wish it with all my heart - is automatically equating "I find this objectionable" with "politically correct" (a phrase I personally find almost as objectionable) and also with "I therefore need to see this censored."

They are not the same - you can register objections, and be uncomfortable or surprised at whedonesque posting something - without necessarily wishing it to be censored either here or in its original location. I frequently wish to call attention to some aspects of content going unremarked, without asking for its removable or alteration.

It's worth considering that there may be reasons folks call attention to stuff that fall way short of "my world must be politically correct in all ways" or "please ask Congress to enact laws calling for the immediate prosecution of all people saying this..."

QuoterGal | May 11, 23:26 CET

With you, QG, though in this case some of the objections specifically equated this with the paparazzi photo and expressed a desire for things of this nature not to be posted here. So I can see why people on the other side of this are equating it with a call to PC or censorship. Regardless people are a little quick to jump to that (much like Hitler comparisons ;)).

zeitgeist | May 11, 23:58 CET

I hear you, zeitgeist, and thanks - and I think it's is my point that people are quick to jump to that conclusion, regardless, but I also have to additionally note that the whedonesque "mission statement" - to the extent that there is one - includes this:

"Think of yourself as a filter. Only let the best stuff through."

and folks calling for removal of material have also this equally legitimate caveat for backing, as well as their own sensibilities... is an article sub-titled "The Celebrities You'd Most Like to Bang" really the "best stuff" that we've filtered through?

Again, just worth considering...

QuoterGal | May 12, 00:11 CET

Definitely worth considering. Cheers, QG. There are times that that filter allows through things that are silly or lowbrow (perhaps even crass) if they are of interest to folks. Gotta have a little controversy on a Friday, right? ;)

And as a sidenote, when discussing freedom of speech, its worth noting that no one's speech is being suppressed when a privately run website decides whether or not to link to something.

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2007-05-11 21:23 ]

zeitgeist | May 12, 00:18 CET

That is exactly the sort of thing Hitler might say.

...

What ? ;)

Have to say, the word maybe has unsavoury connotations but I tend to just see it as slightly crude slang for 'have sex with' (though I can understand the argument that it's actually more 'have sex at', maybe not in this context but mostly).

In the past we've had polls about 'sexiest' actor (ASH and NF have both been on some, so have some of the 'verse women) with, as far as I remember, no objections. Struggling to see how this is much different (except instead of just a list of names with a photo as other polls have featured, this one actually discusses the celebrity's work and character i.e. gives (often non-physical) reasons why they're attractive rather than just "Look, he/she has a nice arse/good cheekbones/curvy hips/etc. and here's the photo to prove it"). Everyone's line's in a different place of course.

And as a person that swears like a sailor IRL and is occasionally crude in pretty much every way folk here can think of and a few i'm sure they'd rather not, it seems worth saying that IMO calling someone 'bangable' or 'bonkable' or whatever else is only 'not that many steps' from groping them if you're already the sort of person that's happy to molest a complete stranger in the first place. How we use language is important but so is remembering that physical assault is at least an order of magnitude more serious than the verbal kind (especially when indirect, as this is) and though thinking of people as objects is definitely unhealthy, thinking of them as "people i'd like to bang/have sex with in a hypothetical 'freebie' situation" maybe not so much - also all just IMO ;).

Saje | May 12, 01:54 CET

On occasion it does no harm to see other points of view. But in in cases such as this I don't think we'll be making a habit of it. Personally I think the headline is a reflection of an over-sexualised society where actors are reduced to mere masterbatory fodder.

Simon | May 12, 01:55 CET

Saje: "In the past we've had polls about 'sexiest' actor (ASH and NF have both been on some, so have some of the 'verse women) with, as far as I remember, no objections."

The "no objections" doesn't really mean that much, Saje, don't know that I think it it is that way different, although, I make a distinction myself between "sexy" and "bangable." I'm not particularly into those polls, either.*shrugs*

I just can't go into this particular subject - male or female - more than once every quarter-year or so, don't have the energy... so gotta pick my "battles" and let a lot of 'em pass. It's possible that others feel the same.

BTW, in RL I swear like a trucker, myself, and am in many ways fairly crude, and always delighted to be in the company of hot, sexy people - again, not what I'm objecting to... ever.

Saje: "How we use language is important but so is remembering that physical assault is at least an order of magnitude more serious than the verbal kind."

Well, yeah, clearly, I think - but worth considering that since words are at the very least a significant part of how we think and perceive the world, it may always be worth looking at and evaluating the effect that repeated use of words and phrases has on our own and others' thinking, conversation and behavior...

Not even remotely interested in making any argument that words or verbal assaults are the same as physical abuse - to me, they are certainly not, and I'll let them fight that out over in Second Life, but not being even of the same magnitude can still mean "pretty bloody important."

Myself, I use this rule of thumb - if I can't imagine saying that to Nathan's face - "You are pretty darn bangable, sirrah," then I'm really gonna try hard not to say or support such things about him, or in essence - behind his back.

QuoterGal | May 12, 02:17 CET

... and always delighted to be in the company of hot, sexy people ...

Apparently you should really head to The Netherlands in that case ;-).

... it may always be worth looking at and evaluating the effect that repeated use of words and phrases has on our own and others' thinking, conversation and behavior...

Yep, totally agree (seems like you don't like the phrase, BTW, but that is exactly what I used to think of when I thought 'politically correct' i.e. examining how the words we 'think with' affect our attitudes. This is before all the daft straw-men about renaming 'darkness' or 'black-bag' muddied the waters of course). Reckon I have thought about it and just come down on the other "side" in this instance. Horses are variously spicey or something ;).

Myself, I use this rule of thumb - if I can't imagine saying that to Nathan's face - "You are pretty darn bangable, sirrah," ...

Well, that's a fair point but then, can you imagine yourself going up to him and saying "I would really like to have sex with you" ? I'm assuming you don't have issues with that wording in context but it's surely still not appropriate to say to him (the point being that something doesn't have to be insulting to be unimaginable). Personally, i'd have trouble calling him 'Nathan' to his face unless specifically invited, I don't know him and to me that's overly familiar for a stranger but I say it on here (kinda behind his back ;) all the time.

I think we're basically agreeing though, seems we just happen to have fallen on either side of one of those wacky arbitrary lines. All your points about considering our words are entirely valid to me though.

Saje | May 12, 02:43 CET

I believe I'd have trouble calling Nathan "sirrah" to his face, but maybe that's just me. ;-)

billz | May 12, 03:50 CET

What Saje said, plus it would be rude to call him Nathan, so... I suggest, "Mr. Fillion, you sir, are totally bangable, sir!". Ahem. "Erm, even though you aren't Dutch!".

zeitgeist | May 12, 03:51 CET

Was reading the (admirably civil) back-n-forth between QG and Saje, and just wondering if shades of slang connotations between nations could also be at play. Thinking of how the word "shag" used to seem so innocent, soft and even polite to me as a kid until I really got to know some Brits who informed me that I was oh, so mistaken. (Then Austin Powers came along... but you know what I mean.)

Though careful selection of the word any group of strangers might use to describe my "fuckability" or lack thereof probably wouldn't make me feel any better about it, it's still true that there are degrees. I'll have to concur with QG and say that "bang" is a fairly cringe-worthy term in all its forms where I'm from. It hits the sweet spot between crass and tacky, and I've honestly only heard it from anyone I know in jest, when they're trying to imitate someone particularly grotesque.

I've got a mouth on me like you wouldn't believe, and am often found muttering "Ah, shit. Did I say that out loud?" Nearly always the last one to take offense and I can't say I necessarily did here. I actually really liked the descriptions about each of these more indie-type performers, but I did kinda end up wishing they had skipped over the ick banging talk on these cool talents in favor of more sharp-witted observations about their general kool-assed appeal.

[ edited by barest_smidgen on 2007-05-12 12:09 ]

barest_smidgen | May 12, 04:07 CET

billz: "I believe I'd have trouble calling Nathan "sirrah" to his face, but maybe that's just me. ;-)"

Um... maybe if I bumped into Nathan at a Ren Faire, and we were talking at a Ren Faire, or if I'd ever even been to a Ren Faire - which I haven't. I don't even know what a Ren Faire is.

*red-faced, mutters to self*

barest_smidgen: " '...Ah, shit. Did I say that out loud?' "

I was actually just muttering that very thing to myself about "sirrah."

QuoterGal | May 12, 04:26 CET

Prithee and forsooth but thine thighs are goodly muscled fine sirrah. Any chance of a bang ? ;)

... and just wondering if shades of slang connotations between nations could also be at play.

Could well be barest (e.g. it doesn't offend me but it still takes me aback a bit when i'm watching a US family show and the word 'wanker' pops up - that's not gonna make it on a pre-watershed programme over here. Nor is 'fanny' for that matter ;). I mentioned 'bonkable' above and though it still has 'at' rather than 'with' connotations it sounds to me to be a much lighter word (in all contexts e.g. a 'bonk on the head' - yep, you can kinda-sorta use it like that too, though be prepared for the odd smirk ;) - sounds less painful than a 'bang on the head' which makes me think it might even just be the sound of the words).

Of all the words in the article I actually find 'doable' to be a bit off, maybe because the implied 'at' connotation is made explicit with that word (you're doing it to them not with). And yeah, though 'bangable' doesn't particularly offend me the article could easily have worked without those words. It's like reading an article about the biology of reproduction which has 'fuck' sprinkled throughout.

(and slang wise it even changes over time within countries. Growing up my Mum always wanted 'shag-pile carpets' and my Dad might buy a 'quarter of shag' from the tobacconists. You don't hear that so much anymore ;)

Saje | May 12, 13:10 CET

Or Harry Potter slashfic... shiver

zeitgeist | May 12, 18:32 CET