As you can well imagine, a site like this gets quite a lot of mail. Most of it's pretty favorable stuff coming from people who appreciate the site and what it's about. Some of it's requests for this or that celebrity to be featured. Once in a great while I still get proposals from guys who think that I'm the actress or model on the web page. But a good deal of it -- and I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone who's frequented this site -- runs a little hostile. Sometimes a lot hostile. And persistent. And to someone who doesn't have to answer it all, mildly amusing. So for the public's enjoyment I've decided to post all the hate mail still lingering in my mailbox, as well as my responses to them, and the protracted, silly correspondence that often followed. Some of it was representative enough of a particular complaint that it went on to be morphed into the FAQ, and some of the responses were later incorporated into the celebrity web pages themselves. Be sure to check back here from time to time, since no matter how much I contrive to head people off at the pass with my FAQ, this is one page on my site that never stops growing.

In any case, now you know how a web geek spends his time when he's not scanning pictures, eating, or sleeping.

Golem

DIE, GOLEM, DIE!

NICE SITE, BUT...

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

I KISS YOU!

FUCK PASSWORDS!

ROSANNA ARQUETTE

VALERIE BERTINELLI

BJÖRK

BRIGID BRANNAGH

CHINA CHOW

LANA CLARKSON

NIKKI COX

ELISHA CUTHBERT

TRACY DALI

SHANNON ELIZABETH

JANEANE GAROFALO

LORI JO HENDRIX

ANGELINA JOLIE

KERRI KENDALL

ALEX KINGSTON

JULIE McCULLOUGH

BECKIE MULLEN

BRITTANY MURPHY

LENA OLIN

NATALIE RAITANO

DENISE RICHARDS

WINONA RYDER

LEELEE SOBIESKI

MIRA SORVINO

UMA THURMAN

JENNIFER TILLY

LIZA WEIL

Big Orange

Thanks for the blunt but articulate comments, Big Orange.

Anyway, I think the source of your puzzlement over my "ideal female form" is this: there are the standards of beauty we reserved for "real", everyday people, and the standards reserved for the Beautiful People on TV, stage, or whatever. Any of the women featured on this site would easily be the most beautiful woman in the room if you had the fortune to meet them in real life. But on TV, where attractive people are a lot more common than in real life, you have to adjust your standards accordingly. To put it another way, imagine you're asked to pick your favorite of ten women randomly picked off the street. Naturally, you'll pick the one that comes closest to your "ideal woman". But then imagine that you're asked to pick your favorite of ten Playboy Playmates, and they all look like your ideal woman. Now you have you have to start getting pickier than you would normally be: this one's tits are too far apart, that one's forehead too big, and so on. So if I say that Michelle Williams is looking a wee chunky this season it's because, relative to everyone else on TV whose role it is to be the show's sexpot, she is. She's still a beautiful girl, and one of my favorites on TV, but she can stand to lose a few of those ten pounds the camera always adds just the same.

As for the hypocrisy of the site's title, I'll just say this: "Iconophile" means any lover of images; web shrines venerating a single celebrity's image tend to see their celebrity as the very definition of beauty; polytheistic sites like mine can afford to be more unbiased, since whether they mean to or not they invite the viewer to compare one beautiful celebrity with another, to discriminate between ten Playboy Playmates like in the example above. Besides, "show us your fuckin' celeb tits" is still asking for images, so "Iconophile" is neither inappropriate nor hypocritical.

And what right do I have to say anything if I myself am less than perfect? Imagine that I look like Jabba the Hutt and am violently misogynistic. What difference would it make? If I wrote that Calista Flockhart is looking a wee undernourished, would my own Jabba-like proportions make it any less true? Besides, whether I look like Jabba the Hutt or Pee Wee Herman, I don't get paid to look gorgeous; the women on this site do.

You write about women as though you were a seventy-year-old bachelor who never got laid

Swatek

Gosh, I didn't think it showed... ;)

By the way, I'll be 87 this November.

I just want to know where you get off saying the shit you do about people. You're a fucking hypocrite ogling these people's twats and tits and simultaneously saying that they're talentless, not that bright, and their careers are based on their bodies. What the hell do you do that is any better than these women's careers?

You must be a girlfriend-less, miserable, pathetic, fucker. You're probably the guy walking in the street that everyone pegs as a complete geekhole/asshole. Or you do have a girlfriend but she's some fat, ugly pathetic fuck herself that resents you wasting all your time looking at merchandise you'll never get your hands on. Either way, your personal life sounds like shit.

Don't be a pussy hypocrite.

Vanshay

Hello Vanshay.

Sorry you didn't much care for the site. However, I think you might be confusing admiring an actress' beauty with being a cheerleader for her career as a whole. Let's be honest -- as beautiful as the women featured on The Iconophile might be, there's a reason why most of them are still unknown to the general public. And I generally point out those actresses and models who have something going for them besides their looks. The point of the site is not to put everyone down, but simply to be honest and frank about their popularity.

As for my being a "girlfriendless, miserable, pathetic fucker", that may or may not be true, but what would it matter? If I said that Calista Flockhart is getting alarmingly thin, whether I myself am also stick thin or Orca fat shouldn't have any bearing on the truth of my observation. To say that someone is not a good actor doesn't mean that my own job has to be somehow loftier than an actor's, just as for you to say that someone's website sucks doesn't mean that your job has to be better than a web designer's.

In any case, this subject is dealt with more exhaustively here if you're interested.

I know that your MO is to inundate people with rhetoric and come up with some bullshit rational for the things that you put on your site. But think about it man, you put good looking girls on your site and suggest to all of them (whether they have been nude in something or not) that it's time to get nude all the time before they get old and fat. Some of these girls are old and nobodies and the others are famous and young (some even teenagers like Leelee Sobieski and Michelle Williams). According to you it doesn't matter what movie they were in (whether good or bad) as long as they are naked before they get ugly. And then you have no standards of beauty. Some of these girls are as fake and trashy as they come. Others are wholesome and you want to fuck up their budding self esteem (again referring to the teens) and to the insecure actresses who are getting over the hill. Which is another thing I got with you-- you need to be consistent man. If you gonna be sarcastic and be picky about the girls on your site then let it be. But if you're gonna be sarcastic and petty and then when one of the girls calls you on it you automatically kiss her ass. I don't understand your favortism towards the ones that bust your balls on the shit that you talk. You're destroying young womens' self esteem with your site and your critiques.

Van

You raised some interesting points:

Favoritism
You feel that I'm petty and sarcastic toward everyone except the ones that call me on it, whereupon I immediately turn tail and kiss their ass. I assume, of course, that you refer to the Julie McCullough page. Having looked over my comments there, all it says is that I had written that she looked "old and used up" the last time I saw her, which was on a short-lived TV show; Julie pointed out that this isn't true -- the last time I saw her was in one of the pictures on my site, and that if I didn't find her "old and used up" there, can I in all good conscience still declare her so? Conceding that maybe she isn't past her prime after all while still maintaining she looked awful in the show I saw her in is hardly kissing her ass.

Destroying young women's self-esteem
Actors and actresses are like beauty contestants -- part of their job is being judged for their looks, not just their acting abilities. If I get paid to design a web page for someone and they don't like it, it would behoove them the say so and not just accept whatever shit I care to give them. If Michelle Williams were a waitress and not an actress, I would never publicly declare her to be chunky because now it wouldn't be her job to be thin. But as long as it is her job, I, you, and everyone else is entitled to their opinion of her. And that's all I'm doing -- voicing my opinion, just as I would if I were sitting at home.

But perhaps you're suggesting that the self-esteem I'm destroying is not that of the actresses involved, but of other hapless young women who chance upon my site and are exposed to its toxic bile. That would be a rather ridiculous and condescending position to take, especially since most women I know are a lot more vicious about their comments than me or most other guys when they watch TV. The sort of criticism and occasional praise that I post on my site is the same sort of stuff most people -- and probably you as well -- say among themselves. It would be hypocritical to hide what I really think about this or that celebrity and simply post a lot of laudatory fluff.

I said "probably you as well" -- in fact you've been just as harshly and summarily judgmental in your own letter about the actresses you purport to defend as you accuse me of being. You begin by dividing them into "old and nobodies" and "famous and young", and later "fake and trashy" and "wholesome". How seriously should I take your grandstanding when you've dismissed so many women on this site as grotesque has-beens while insisting that the others are so fragile and unstable that they can't handle from me what they hear from other people every day anyway?

Bullshit rhetoric
If it isn't already obvious by now, just what is your letter if not self-righteous, grandstanding "bullshit rhetoric"? And not even very good rhetoric at that, since it basically reaffirms the very thing you purport to protest. And just what sort of answer could I offer to all your accusations that you wouldn't dismiss as bullshit? Since you've dismissed the answers I've given to other people who've taken your position, I can only assume that nothing I say will be satisfactory, which begs the question: Why did you even bother to write me (twice, no less!) if I'm such a bullshitter? More importantly, why do you even waste your time quibbling with a stranger about what he said on his website? And if I'm a "pathetic fuck" for doing what I do, where does that leave you, who spends his time analyzing the throw-away commentary on nudie sites? Do you fantasize that Michelle Williams feels better knowing that you're out there defending her honor in the backalleys of cyberspace? Do you picture some chance encounter with her where you casually let slip that you've been her secret, virtual bodyguard for some time now, fighting the good fight in her name, whereupon she's so filled with gratitude, so impressed with your virtual fearlessness, that she invites you to her house for a quiet dinner, her mouth innocently sounding the words but her eyes promising tantalizingly more...? No? Then maybe you need to analyze your own motives and figure out just what it is that prompts you to take time out of your day to accuse me of ultimately being no different from you when you could be off visiting other websites.

Indulgently,

Golem

You freak! If you have a girlfriend why don't you go fuck the hell out of her for me knowing she'd like my shaft stoking her flame more than yours since you're so obsessed with other people's twats and tits while you're (doing a lame job) trying to please her. Do you lick your own cum off the screen instead of muffing a real live woman? Let me guess-- you must have a battery operated snatch hooked up to your computer. Man I pity any girl that ends up with your geekass (if you can even get a girl faggot). She'd have to compete for your juvenile attention span with the trashy, obscure pussy you have on your site. I told you before that your girlfriend is most likely fat, ugly, and desperate (so as not to distract you from your fantasy world of fake tits and rotten cunts, you don't want her competing with your cyber-whores). Or she has some major eating disorders and self esteem problems because of you. You wreck people's lives with your shit-- whether they're famous, or not, fat or thin, young or old. In any case you're probably fucking your pet ferret.

If all the women on your site had as many issues about being over the hill at 34 and time to obsess about it like Julie McCullough then would your site turn into one huge ass kissing fest? This bitch Julie has way too many insecurities to go around correcting all the sites that write less than glowing opinions about her, trying to prove that she's still in the competition. I've fucking never seen her in anything worthwhile and I fucking dont' care. (But I'm asking you these questions all the same.) So if any actress can be as desperate as Julie and write your equally desperate ass (acting like some god behind a computer screen) then you'll reward them by genuflecting and rewriting your opinions of them?! Is this some indirect way of attaching yourself to a celebrity-wannabe and being their friend? Are you indirectly trying to help promote their careers through your pussy site? Are they paying you? Is this shit staged like wrestling? There's reverse psychology at play-- you tear them down, the girl writes you, then you apologize and build them up again, and then everyone's happy and being promoted.

Van

I'm not sure why you bothered sending yet another one of your sad little rants to me, especially since most of your first paragraph was little more than weak, generic come backs, the whole premise of your second paragraph was already addressed and nullified in my last email, and the last few lines of your email were pathetically imitative of my bit with the Michelle Williams fantasy.

In any case, your obsessive need to make me your daily penpal has already become tedious and dull, so this will be my last response to you. Don't bother writing back, since my email program is now set to filter anything coming from you into the trash with the rest of the junk mail.

Bored,

Golem

Dear Creator of Inconphile,

I looked at your site briefly and I'm shocked that someone could have so much time on their hands. That's really sad, for each celebrity, you probably have about 100 women on your Inconphile site, and you have thousands of scanned pictures for each woman, links, every film they have ever been in, what films their naked in, and their playboy appearances, etc, etc. The list goes on..... So do you just spend your entire life, looking at magazine pictures of these women, scanning their pictures, and watching their nudey films? Is your life just one big cheap, B movie? That's what its sounding like. The only thing you talk about on your site are some girls breasts, their impants, and bodies, or if they haven't gotten naked, how they should. I can't believe someone could be so obsessed, you sound like someone with a very vapid social life. A computer isn't that good of a friend. Are you little webpages the only thing that can fulfill your life? Yeah, half of the women mentioned on your site are ignorant porn star, B movie types, but they probably are laughing their asses off that someone like you are trying to degrade them. Do you actually think they care what you say or how sickly OBSESSED you are with them? You are sick, maybe you should just take a little break from your computer. Here's a concept, ever hear about getting a job, a real life, and a woman. GAWD, you probably spend your entire life in a daze, how does it feel to be the biggest loser in the world? You must be bitter about something, who knows, maybe women, and past experiences you have had with girls. Look, you probably can't even get plain, average looking woman.. so why bother dedicating your time to your obsessive little shrines to women who probably wouldn't bother spending one moment thinking about you, or even caring about your stupid INCONPHILE. STOP whacking off at magazines, and your porn, when's the last time you had sex? Been awhile, forgotten what it feels like? YOU ARE sad. You can't really justify that, can you with your nonsense psycho babble? And the way you talk about Laetitia Casta, like she'd actually go for you, or even spend one minute looking at you in interest. HELLO? What don't you understand? Has anyone ever told you that you are a demented, weird computer geek who has ABSOLUTELY no life? Yeah, Golem you're sooooo cool, I bet you got a lot in highschool.....(*cough, cough*). People like you make me sick. Take a look at your life, is that they way you want to be remembered. As a pervert, a fiend, who made degrading sites towards women? If you ever have a daughter, maybe you will understand what it's like to be a female. You look at women like their some objects that you get excited about. What A FU******* INSENSITIVE BASTARD. You repulse me. GOOD BYE, asshole.

Samantha

Hello Samantha. I get the sense that you didn't much care for the site...

Near as I can tell from your email, though, it sounds like you take my little hobby a lot more seriously than I do. I'm not sure what I could possibly have written to have provoked such a hostile response, but the next time you find yourself on a site like mine, remember -- it's just a website. ;)

Regards,

Golem

Dude get a freakin' life.

Melanie

OK, Melanie. Thanks for the advice. :)

you know dude you really suck.

try to think more internationally than just being another dumbassed american

I hate just about everything mut that counts you to. but I at least can argue for my opinion

Lína
[from Iceland]

Hello Lína, and thanks much for your observations. Unfortunately, I'm a little unclear on how to carry them out:

you know dude you really suck.

try to think more internationally than just being another dumbassed american

By "thinking more internationally", do you mean I should include a more internationally recognizable stable of women on the site? That I should write from the perspective a hep Icelander instead of from the dumbassed American that I was born as? Should I write more of my little remarks in Esperanto? Does AdultCheck not accept euros? Or can it be that I made a less than flattering allusion to some country that you feel should be referred to with more reverence? If this last is the case, then my being American isn't really the problem, as the whole site is full of less than flattering allusions to just about everything.

I hate just about everything mut that counts you to

I must confess I was a little let down by this declaration, since a bad review from someone who hates everything isn't much of a criticism.

but I at least can argue for my opinion

Given that your opinion as presented is vague at best, and that you undermined it with the very next sentence, I'll have to take it on faith that when you have an opinion, you're able to argue for it and not against it.

Anyway, thanks again for the feedback.

Þinn einlægur,

Golem

Golem,

I have seen that you have already recieved many e-mails saying some of the things I am going to say. But I figured I would just send it anyway, eventhough (judging by your responses), it won't make a difference to you anyway.

I know you have already read things from people saying you shouldn't say a lot of the rude comments you say about the girls' weight & looks. (But mainly weight.) You always defend it by saying that their career is to look beautiful if in a sexpot role, and a lot of the girls you are making out to be overweight are skinny. Just because they are not as stick-shaped as many other models and actresses, are not as bony, doesn't mean they are big, or chunky, or "need to lay off the snacks," or that they eat too much. I hardly know why I'm bothering to send you this because I know it won't make a difference, and it's probably just wasting both of our's time. But I (for some reason) wanted to let you know that many of those things hurt me. Everyone has different ideas about waht is beautiful, and most of these actresses are too skinny for my taste, but I love them too death and think they are drop dead gorgeous becasue of their acting and just "them"...I guess that something that you can tell by looking at them for a bit....something that you can find that's beautiful; no matter their weight. And please don't defend it with that Hollywood bullshit again...that's Hollywood; not you. And Hollywood seems to be more accepting of women with some curves than you are. I feel so hurt that it's not just directors, actors, models, designers, and trend-setters that are setting standards for beauty: everyone is. And many of the people I know that were like that, change as they get much older and kind of grow out of setting standards for beauty sexiness. But I'm not saying that you will or anything; some people just remain ignorant and close-minded for their whole lives. Sometimes, that's just the way they are. I'm sorry for wasting your time. But it's hurts me so much too read such discouraging things from people OUTSIDE Hollywood that are equally - if not more - judgmental on what's beautiful and sexy. Please don't go on that whole "judgment" thing again - I already read that mssage of yours that went on to judging things that had nothing to do with what the person was talking about. I'm not even really looking for an argument. I love acting, and it will be my major in a couple of years...it's one of my favorite things and I will try to make it a career when I'm older (for independent films). And I'm much bigger than Jeneane and Rose; they're not even big at all! Janeane isn't skinny, but she's far from big. Rose is skinny with naturally large hips and breasts...no matter how skinny she got, her hips would still not be much straighter. I'm not trying to even disagree with you about the stuff you reported about things Jeneane has SAID...if they are true, I don't think ANYONE had the right to say the stuff that Janeane or Joan Rivers said; no matter how skinny or "beautiful" they were. And everyone always defends things things by saying everyone has their right to their opinion; and I completely agree. However, there is always a way to express one's negative eopinion without being rude. I usually just go by the saying about not saying anything if you don't have anything nice to say. If someone is talking about something that they love and I hate, I either don't say anything, or when they ask, i just simply say I don't particularly like whatever we were talking about. Just like if someone doesn't fit your idea of a good size or look, you can still get your point across by not being so rude. And I don't think you do, but you should care a little bit more and be more thoughtful to other people's feelings and emotions. You act as if that doesn't matter; but people like you with that attitude are just a couple of reasons why so many people don't get their own ideas about beauty until long after they've missed out on lots of great people and hurt lots of people because they grow up with what everyone else calls beautiful, and call anyone who's no a certain size fat. That's just the message they get their whole lives. No one sould ever be called fat; nobody is fat. If they were, they wouldn't be alive because they would hav eno bones or organs; because the would BE fat. It's hard enough to have to live in a world of rejection; and then having to change yourself for other people, which is one of the most horrible, pathetic things in the world. Sorry this came out so long, and that I've probably just wasted your time with my feelings.

Sincerely,

Sherry Lyn

Hello Sherry.

Sorry to see that the commentary on my site has depressed you so much -- and that my answers to similar mail may have depressed you even more. While it'll probably not be much consolation, there are a few things I should attempt to clarify about my little commentaries.

Just because a woman doesn't look like a stick figure, it doesn't mean she's fat. "Fat" is a relative term. In the everyday world, "fat" might mean a 5'4" person tipping the scales at 200 lbs. In a sumo wrestling training camp, where everyone weighs in at around 200 lbs., "Tubby-san" might be the 400 lb. guy with the extra rice bowl. On TV, though, where all the "hot chick" roles are filled by women seldom exceeding 120 lbs., an actress hefting around a whopping 130 lbs. might find herself playing the "bitter sidekick friend" (to quote Garofalo) a lot more than she'd like -- even if her weight seems perfectly "average" off-camera.

Harsher than Hollywood. If my comments seem too quick in their conclusions, it's because I see the underlying Darwinism at work on the Serenghetti of Hollywood, and the cruel formulas I'm forever citing, as simplistic as they might seem, seldom fail. It's not that I want my favorite actresses to find themselves barred from the set after a few donuts too many -- that would mean less movies for me to vidcap -- it's just that I've seen it happen too often to ignore it as the most probable outcome.

Discrimination not just for Hollywood anymore. I'm a little surprised at your surprise that the audience is as discriminating as Hollywood, since the reason Hollywood has to be so discriminating in the first place is because the audience is. Camryn Manheim didn't play the Pamela Anderson role in Baywatch not because Hollywood wasn't open-minded enough, after all, but because the audience in general wouldn't have accepted her in that role.

Beauty is more than skin deep. Good acting probably doesn't really count as "beauty", as you suggest, but charisma certainly goes a long way -- which is why Pamela Anderson continues to be a worldwide fascination while the rest of the Baywatch cast has mostly been forgotten, and why Janeane Garofalo remains on this site despite the utter bewilderment of most of my visitors.

Missing out in life. The people who raise this accusation are usually the ones who for some reason take my comments personally, as if my observations regarding the aesthetic requirements of a beauty-driven industry were a rule to measure all people by. If I were a sports caster and declared that the 4'11" basketball player was too short to play effectively, it doesn't follow that I would only date 7' tall women who play basketball. One has nothing to do with the other.

Changing to please others. How people live their personal life is one thing, but in their professional life they had better be prepared to change whatever they have to to please others or they'll quickly find themselves unemployed. Work of any kind, whether it's pest control, food preparation, or acting, depends on keeping the customer satisfied, not the other way around.

No one is fat, since even fat people have bones. The only way that makes sense is if you're using "fat" as a noun; "fat" as an adjective doesn't mean the same thing.

Even if you're right, do you have to be so rude? Absolutely. Part of the inspiration for this site (apart from my own kicks, of course) is the disparity between how celebrities are talked about in print (where Sophia Loren is still "the beautiful Sophia Loren") and how they're talked about in normal life, where no comment is too frank or too crude and women are usually twice as nasty as men. That's the sort of brutal honesty I wanted on my site, something that would cut through all the nonsense and look at the real reason why people like this actress while they've lost interest in that one. It's not that I'm trying to be rude, I'm just trying not to be hypocritical.

Anyway, like you, I've let my letter go on much longer than planned, and what's worse is that I've probably depressed you even more. Sorry about that. But know, at least, that there's method to the malice, that behind my online jerk persona stands a jerk with a point, however simple. And let me just say "don't take it personally" in advance -- just in case your own acting career should someday result in a place here on The Iconophile... ;)

Regards,

Golem

Greetings,

Was it your intention to produce a website that once again reduces women into instruments for male pleasure? Promotion of impossibly proportioned women, who have bottled tans and silicone breasts, not to mention being airbrushed retouched and PhotoShopped, can lead some young girls and women feel extreme depression, shame, and hatred of their bodies - which are in fact beautiful, sensual and healthy bodies. I wonder how you feel about this? You seem like a reasonable man. I will put aside my anger over the sexist and demeaning comments on your site in order to find out if you indeed did intend on contributing yet another humiliating website to the internet. Write to me at [sugarviolet84] If you abuse me in any way, the shame belongs to you, not me.

Linda

Hello Linda.

Every now and then, someone who's read my FAQ page or hate mail page gets cute and writes me a spoof hate mail, which I was sure your email was when I got it, what with it's suggesting that there's some sort of internet conspiracy to afflict women the world over with low self esteem. In case it isn't, then no, I did not create my site for the sinister purpose of upsetting you or the gender you feel you speak for -- any more than a museum celebrating the masters of impressionism sets out to make artists who are neither masters nor impressionists feel inadequate, or a basketball team owner sets out to depress short people by only hiring very tall men.

Moreover, it's a bit solipsistically childish to expect everyone to like a person as-is, especially if that person is not remarkable in any way. After all, it's the remarkable and exceptional that people want, not the ordinary and commonplace, which is why people who are exceptionally beautiful, strong, funny, talented, wealthy, hung, stacked, or whatever will always be in more demand than people whose assets are less pronounced.

So before you accuse another website like mine of membership in a vast, misogynistic cabal, first try to imagine you're assembling a football team -- do you recruit every average, out-of-shape guy who applies, or do you pack your team with the biggest, beefiest guys you can find? Then remember that the entertainment industry has the same choice -- they can offer ordinary people that the viewing public sees every day anyway, or they can offer uncommonly beautiful, funny, or otherwise talented people the likes of which few have seen in real life. Which would most people rather watch? Which would you rather watch? Do this, and I think you'll find that the world is a little less cartoonishly villainous than you suspect.

Regards,

Dr. Evil

Hello "Dr. Evil", (oh my, how cartoonishly villainous)

I can see where you are coming from in a lot of the things that you said in your reply to me, but I think it is to your detriment that you resorted to using words like "childish", and "solipsism" and to start the letter by saying that you thought my email was some sort of mock-feminist joke, well, what can I say, it does not endear me to you in the least. You may as well have written "Hooray, another execrable e-mail from some Bimbo who confuses me with someone who gives a shit" And I wonder why you didn't? Because you consider yourself too intelligent? Too articulate?

I have tried to listen to advice such as "Give back as good as you get" but in this instance I am not prepared to do that, seeing as I am a person who cares a great deal (too much) what a person might feel like if I am NASTY to them and so on. Maybe in my email I should have enlightened you on my situation a little, but I thought it would be wiser not to, because to let you into my world again would be yet another source of great amusement to you.

Also I would like to point out that I did not "accuse" you, or your website of anything, I merely posed some questions to you, which you evidently did not like to be asked, judging by your amusingly hostile email.

I am not a Femme-Nazi, nor am I a man-hating person. I only know that when I saw your website, I broke down in tears because of my own insecurities and rage. I cannot believe that I have given you the satisfaction of knowing these things, but for some reason I feast on the disdain of strangers on the internet.

Do me a favor and don't give me shit like that ever again.

Solipsistically yours,

Tai has now left the building

sugarviolet84

Well Tai (or Taryn, or Linda, or however you want to be known), I'm sorry to see that my site has caused you such distress, but let's get a few things straight:

Is this letter for real? You'd be surprised how many letters I get spoofing the endless hate mail I have posted on my site. Which is all well and good, but sometimes it's a little hard to tell the real ones from the spoofs. And because of the grand scale of your email's accusations, it was not unreasonable to assume that it was yet another wise-ass fan having some fun.

Solipsistic childishness. All children are solipsistic by nature -- they are the sole sun in their universe, and see everything only in terms of how it affects them. It's only after years of living among other people that they learn to empathize and take other perspectives into account. By suggesting that sites like mine exist for the sole purpose of oppressing you, that they have no agenda of their own but to make you upset, you demonstrate that same "it's all about me" style of thinking. The pretense of speaking on behalf of all women does not make your grievance with me any less about you, since, by presenting yourself as being of one mind with women everywhere, you in fact reduce them to a mere extension of you, a rhetorical posse to stand behind you in mute support of whatever you might care to say. And since it should be clear to anyone with any life experience that nobody sits down and thinks, "How can I make women everywhere feel really bad about themselves?", childish and solipsistic seem like two shoes very much in your size. (This may not be the most polite observation I can make, but as you must have gathered from my site, I'm not in the habit of making polite observations.)

Accusations. I was a little disappointed to see you backpedal on this, but look at your letter again. It flatly says (1) "There are many sites littering the net whose sole purpose is to belittle women"; (2) "The Iconophile is such a site." The only question you pose is, "Did you plan on becoming such a misogynist, or did you just grow into it naturally?" An accusation is still an accusation, whether or not it ends in a question mark. If you're going to make one, you should be prepared to own up to it; otherwise you simply waste everyone's time -- yours, mine, and that of anyone reading this correspondence later.

Insecurities and rage. That you have some unresolved issues to work out seemed evident from the start, but since you brought them up, I think you can concede that in a prickly world, your skin might be a little thin. You probably shouldn't take my site so seriously -- Lord knows I don't.

Don't ever give me shit like that again. Shit is where you find it, and I think you see it materializing much more than I do.

Regards,

Golem
The Scatophile

Hi, I just wanted to ask, how old are you? are you married/ have you ever been to California? Because, for a guy, you seem to almost not trust any pair of tits that are put in front of you. Why? I mean some you judge right, but there is a whole bunch-load of women you have labeled as "fake", and they're just hard to belive how neive you can be. Anyway, I just wanted to know where you live, cause you have to understand that some people just are naturally talented, don't be harsh and be so negative.

Ratapala4

Hi.

Unless I'm misreading your email, it seems I've given you the impression somewhere on my site that I feel that breast implants and talent are mutually exclusive. Of course, one has nothing to do with the other, and if I was unclear about that anywhere, then I obviously have some rewriting to do. And in any case, I don't have a problem with implants per se -- it's when they're so fake as to be a distraction that I'd rather not see them.

Oh, and to answer your main question: Yes, I've lived in California -- in Anaheim, Westwood (Los Angeles), and San Diego -- and still do.

Naively yours,

Golem

Your sites are contributing too the dumbing-down of the world. Please stop. Nobody cares. Or I should say, don't give people a chance to care about this crap. You speak as if you actually know anything about the people you write about. I know a good number of people on the list quite well, and what you write makes them out to be 1 dimentional. Your knowledge of their lives comes from the media, which is already a joke for credibility. All that aside, what good does it do to write this crap up for others to see and possibly leave their computers thinking that so and so is all washed up, or sucks at this or that? No good at all. Especially when you haven't a clue what you're really talking about. Do yourself a favor, and do something more constructive with your time, and less destructive. The world will be a better place.

-kris

Hello. Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you -- I had to erase my hard drive without a backup recently, and reconstructing it (along with all the mail) took a bit of time.

Anyway, sorry you didn't much care for the site. Like many people, you seem to feel the site owes its public a fuller picture of the celebrities it features, that it should discuss them as people instead of as transitory media phenomena. But as your need for a less crass approach is easily enough met at any of a number of other sites (to say nothing of TV and magazines), it would hardly profit anyone for me to imitate something already so ubiquitous. Instead, I've decided to discuss Hollywood's beautiful people on my site the same way I do at home -- the same way most people do at home -- which is with brutal frankness and directness, and seldom ventures beyond people's interest in them as media creatures and masturbatory skeet. (And let's be honest -- most of the people on my site are only of interest to the public insofar as they can get it off.) And as I seldom deal directly with celebrities themselves, I'm under no obligation to discuss them in terms of anything but their one-dimensional public personae and physical beauty. For you, this is "dumbing down"; for me, it's "cutting through the bullshit".

In any case, it's unlikely we'll ever see eye to eye on this subject, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and go about our own merry ways.

Regards,

Golem

The following exchange took place between a woman named "Tiger" and me as the webmaster of the now defunct "Used Tissues" site:

Hi. I guess you expect ordinary women to hang their heads in shame--after all, you've done a great job of picking apart celebrity women--to which noncelebrity women are mere peasants. I'd love to see your picture, young man--I'm sure I could make comments about your chin, forehead, eyebrows, nose, etc. Yes, you say that actresses are supposed to look good, but they're people just like everyone else. And most of the actresses in "used tissues" are beautiful. Oh, to be as beautiful as them. You seem to see actresses toward the end of taking off their clothes. Is that perhaps how you see women? You need to understand nudity in context, instead of expecting it at every turn. I understand your hormones are raging, but you need to grow up, little boy, and realize that women are not objects that you can pick at, dismember, and judge. Your body isn't perfect either, and I suspect that your judgements about normal women you see around you in life are closely aligned with those of female celebrities. You need to realize that the body is secondary--it contains the heart, soul, and mind. I understand that young men are very body-oriented, and tend toward corporeal nit-picking--like yourself. I live at a college, with the 18-22 male demographic. Bodies, their shape, structure, and appearance are important. Men are visual. But at some point you have to accept flaws, and you are the extreme case. Something's always wrong, isn't it? Her head's too big, her butt's too fat; her breasts aren't the right shape, she's too skinny, she's got a schnozz. No wonder the ladies of today torture themselves with plastic surgery and develop eating disorders. Hollywood directors and producers are just like you, honey--give or give a few years. This is why women have to struggle with their weight--in Hollywood and everywhere. Did you see the latest issue of People? "Body after Baby," with before and after pictures, suggesting that pregnant was "before." Never mind that the pregnant shape is beautiful, never mind that the body has done something amazing. No, it's all about weight. This is how these lovely ladies pay their bills and feed their kids. They'd BETTER get into shape quick, their livelihood depends on it.

Honey, when are you going to understand the body for what it really is. The body is nice, it's external, it's there to express the inner workings. Tears must fall from a physical eye to show the sadness within. A heart must pound, a real heart, to express desire, passion...the body is nothing more than the instument of the soul. Don't ever forget that.

Tiger

Thanks much for the comments. Most of the email I get is requests for this or that actress to be posted on the site, so to get mail like yours was rather refreshing.

Anyway, I'll try to keep this brief:

I guess you expect ordinary women to hang their heads in shame

Why would I expect such a thing? Used Tissues is about models and actresses of the T&A variety, not "ordinary" women; my comments about the former do not apply to the latter. B-movie starlets are very much like sumo wrestlers, after all, in that they're a rarefied group with unusual physical requirements. The average sumo wrestler tips the scales at 265 lbs. -- if a sportscaster expresses doubt about a hopeful 90 lb. wrestler, it would hardly be fair to accuse him of trying to make men under 265 lbs. feel bad about themselves. And while a 265 lb. woman may be more or less commonplace on the street (especially in the U.S.), she would make a very unpopular star in a latenight erotic thriller.

You need to understand nudity in context, instead of expecting it at every turn.

Anticipating (or recommending) nudity from actresses whose careers are built on titillation is hardly expecting it out of context. Just as it's not unreasonable to expect acrobatic fight sequences from a Bruce Lee movie, it's not out of line to expect nudity from a Jenna Jameson flick. Or even a Katie Holmes movie, now that she needs to shed her association with the soon-to-be-canceled Dawson's Creek.

Something's always wrong, isn't it? Her head's too big, her butt's too fat...

Actually, such criticisms are comparatively rare on my site, and some of my celebrity pages make no reference to the way they look at all.

you need to grow up, little boy, and realize that women are not objects that you can pick at, dismember, and judge

Of course they are, and so are men -- and everything else the senses can pick up. A photographer doesn't have to know you personally to decide what's your best angle and lighting; he breaks you down into light, shadow, color, etc., and proceeds from there. Similarly, a film critic doesn't need to know an actor personally to evaluate his or her performance, look, and charisma. You yourself pick at, dismember, and judge whenever you decide who you'd have sex with and who you wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

Your body isn't perfect either

Whether it is or isn't, it hardly matters, does it? If it did, only actors and other people in the entertainment industry would be entitled to say which movies are good and which ones aren't, political leaders alone would be qualified to declare their rule just or unjust, and only webmasters would have the credentials to criticize other websites.

Never mind that the pregnant shape is beautiful

Like most of the world, I won't. People like to say that pregnant is beautiful, but meanwhile Poppin' Mamas (a nudie magazine I once saw featuring pregnant women) is far from flying off the shelves.

They'd BETTER get into shape quick, their livelihood depends on it.

It's the law of supply and demand. If people want thin because fitness and health are their ideal of beauty, then actresses and models selling their beauty for a living had better look fit and healthy. Those that don't like it need to switch to an industry where what the customer wants is less important.

Honey, when are you going to understand the body for what it really is.

Lovemuffin, the body, like most things, is whatever one wants it to be.

Well, so much for keeping this brief.

Regards,

IdleHand

IdleHand, thank you so much for your reply. Just so you know, I do not pick at people the way you do. All you care about are women's breasts. The point of being an actress is not to be thin. Doesn't anyone see that acting is not modeling? What if someone is playing someone who's overweight?

Sorry if you never wanted to hear from me again, but your response got me interested. Why do you run a site called Used tissues, and why is it all women?

Tiger

I agree that the point of all actresses is not to be thin or otherwise attractive, nor have I ever suggested that on my site. Actresses have to be able to play different roles, after all, and not every role calls for a sexpot. But my site is not concerned with all actresses, just the ones who do habitually play the sexpot, who are, in effect, models with dialog. That's where my interest lies, and that's why I run this site.

For a more exhaustive discussion of this topic, you might want to see my marathon debate with actress/model Lori Jo Hendrix at <http://www.used-tissues.com/lotion/hendrixlorijo.html>.

Regards,

IdleHand

Tell me something, do you have any respect for women at all...? You would be an interesting page to tell ihatemen.com about. Yes, there is a website called I HATE MEN, and it's where we talk about people like you who have no respect for women or their bodies. Tell me, when you look at women, do you see a body? Nothing more? How frightfully disgusting. This is why women are afraid. It's scary, being a member of the gender disrespected and degraded. Why don't you focus on actors who make their living being "pretty boys"? I know your interest lies in actresses, but why so exclusive? I also have looked at the terms you used to describe Lori Jo: "cute, sensual, despite obvious breast implants." Ah, this is interesting, very interesting. Is that what women are to you? This is how not only actresses, but women in general are able to find their value, their self -worth, as it were. Your words sting.

Because you see women as objects, you use your website to narrow it down to a very small group of women: famous actresses. In reality, you see all women this way, you judge them based on body parts, appearance. You tell yourself Used Tissues is okay because it's about women you will never see. YOU SEE ALL WOMEN THAT WAY. You see all women as objects, works of art, as it were, that are either crafted to perfection or replete with flaws. As a woman, this disgusts and angers me. This is why I have had continuous problems with men and their attitudes. You are in good company; most men are excellent at taking women apart, picking them apart, piece by piece, and of course the painstaking evaluations. Men have this down to a science; in mere seconds they can evaluate a woman. It is repulsive. You have found an outlet for this male tendency...Used Tissues. You tell yourself that the objectification is acceptable as long as the object is a public figure, who you assume everyone (casting agents, directors, producers, people in general) sees as an object. The fact is, these people are qualified, highly skilled professionals who DO NOT see them as objects. They see them as actresses.

With regard to your statement that "sexpot actresses should be thin," that's a crock of shit and you know it. Actresses should not have potential roles closed off because of their weight or appearance. You think "sexiness" (whatever it means) is limited to only a certain body structure, face structure, chest size. You're a madman!

In closing: I should be very curious to know your age. You are probably in your twenties, right?

Ah, men in their twenties, who see women's bodies as objects of sexual gratification and little else.

If I am wrong, do let me know! If I am wrong in anything I have said!

Tiger

Your continued fascination with my site is flattering, to say the least.

do you have any respect for women at all...?

I don't respect or disrespect women simply because they're women any more than I respect or disrespect men simply because they're men. My contempt and admiration is reserved for individuals.

You would be an interesting page to tell ihatemen.com about.

You frequent a site called ihatemen.com and you accuse me of hating an entire gender?

Why don't you focus on actors who make their living being "pretty boys"? I know your interest lies in actresses, but why so exclusive?

Indeed, why don't I feature make-up artists on my site as well? And film directors? And mail carriers? And customer service representatives? And auto mechanics? Why not have a site about every facet of human civilization all at once?

Obviously, a site that tries to be about everything is a site that's about nothing in particular, a subject that doesn't much inspire me. My site's about female celebrities, a subject I'm familiar with and one of interest to more people than any site I might come up with featuring male celebrities. To wonder why my site doesn't feature anything but female celebrities is like wondering why a local dog show doesn't feature more Bauhaus architecture exhibits.

"cute, sensual, despite obvious breast implants." Is that what women are to you?

No, that's what Lori Jo was to me. Without knowing her personally, her physical appearance was all I had to work with. What I think of her now can be divined, I'm sure, from my posted correspondence with her.

This is how not only actresses, but women in general are able to find their value, their self -worth, as it were.

If your sense of self-worth is that dependent on what you believe men in general think of you, then -- no offense -- the problem isn't men, but you.

In reality, you see all women this way, you judge them based on body parts, appearance.

That's a rather bold assumption, don't you think? If I say President Bush is an idiot, I don't think it follows that I see all men as idiots, or that I judge all men by the same criteria I judge the president by. Similarly, it would be foolish to judge a porn actress' skill with dialog by the same standards one would judge a Shakespearian actress. Porn actresses, b-movie actresses, models, beauty pageant contestants -- professional sex objects all, and they should be evaluated accordingly. Which is why Kathy Bates will be theoretically employable until she dies, whereas Jenna Jameson will have to switch to producing or mainstream acting once she gets too old to hold the masturbating public's interest.

You tell yourself Used Tissues is okay because it's about women you will never see.

Again with the assumptions on my behalf. Used Tissues is okay, to use your word for it, because it frankly discusses professional sex objects in terms appropriate to the job. Whether I see them in person or not is irrelevant.

This is why I have had continuous problems with men and their attitudes.

Again, I get the sense that your esteem issues ultimately have little to do with men per se.

most men are excellent at taking women apart, picking them apart, piece by piece

As are most women I know. For all your victimologist grandstanding, the blunt commentary on my site often pales in comparison to the razor-tongued remarks I've heard from the mouths of women regarding men. And women, too. The art of dissection knows no gender.

The fact is, [casting agents, directors, producers] are qualified, highly skilled professionals who DO NOT see them as objects. They see them as actresses.

I can only assume you are neither a casting agent, director, nor producer.

Actresses should not have potential roles closed off because of their weight or appearance.

If an actress weighs 300 lbs, then "sex pot" is not a potential role for her. If an actress is white and has the face and body of a Playboy playmate, then playing Don King is probably not in the cards for her. If she's not particularly funny, then her potential roles in comedies, too, will be closed off. Unreasonable, maybe, but it's the way of the world: people who can't look or act the part often don't get the job.

You think "sexiness" (whatever it means) is limited to only a certain body structure, face structure, chest size. You're a madman!

Charisma goes a long way, too. Some actresses have it, some don't. Those that don't have to rely on their faces and bodies corresponding with the public's ideals of beauty. If this makes me mad, then the entire world is mad. Except you, of course.

I should be very curious to know your age.

Should you? You seem to believe that men in their twenties are guilty of the most war crimes in the battle of the sexes, but surely you feel men of all ages after puberty are guilty of mental gynocide.

If I am wrong, do let me know!

You are hereby duly informed.

Regards,

IdleHand

Let me start over. I can tell, from what you wrote that you don't think I am very smart. You know more than I do and therefore, you can come back with these remarks.

So, producers, casting agents, and directors DO see women as objects. Thanks, you taught me something. So you want to focus on actresses. Why don't you talk about their characters? Why do you have to talk about the body? When I asked, about your "cute, sensual, obvious fake tits" comment, if that was what women were to you, I meant, is that what you see women as...do you look at a woman and think, "Oh, cute, even though her head's too big for her body," or "Sexy, but too skinny," or these typical male comments. Nope, my self worth does not depend on how men think of me. Thank goodness for that. I agree with you that porn actresses are professional sex objects. As for the others, no. Beauty is something else. Actresses in normal movies should not be judged as you would judge actresses who make their living being naked.

Now, about you: are you in your twenties? It's ok if you are. It just means that you think you know a lot, like most men in this age group, and you are quick to put someone like me down. You probably hope I'll stop emailing you. Well guess what? We have something in common: no life. So I'll keep emailing as long as you keep being an ass. You think I'm wrong now, but you just wait.

Tiger

The following exchange took place between someone called "AlanRay" and me as the webmaster of the now defunct "Used Tissues" site:

Dear IdleHand,

I think that your comments about looks being a very important, if not the most important part of being an actress, are absurd. You obviously don't know anything about acting, because a true actress doesn't have to be insanely beautiful to be a good actress, she just needs to be able to act. Now just a small question for you, why are so bitter towards all of these girls who are at least semi-successful?

AlanRay

Hello AlanRay.

While acting may be about many things, the look of an actor is often most important -- not too many other jobs require a headshot just for an interview, after all, and few places have as many beautiful but glaringly unqualified people working as Hollywood. Whether an actor is easy or rough on the eyes, look is always paramount -- if a part calls for an old black woman, for example, Robert DeNiro probably won't get it no matter how good an actor he might be, since he really doesn't look the part. And if a part calls for a sexpot, there, too, the actor had better fit the bill.

The actresses featured on this site are not here because they're good actresses in the Meryl Streep sense of the word; they're here more in the Pamela Anderson sense. Not that there's anything wrong with either sense -- different actors have different fortes, and one forte isn't necessarily better than the other.

As for the bitterness, I wasn't aware that anything I've written on the site was especially bitter. Cynical, maybe, but I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Regards,

IdleHand

What do you look like anyway? Would any of your critics hush themselves if they knew?

Hello Les.

Glad that on the whole you like the site. And thanks for the refreshingly sober and non-hostile criticism -- and I am actually curious to hear your thoughts on the nature of judgement. The Iconophile may not be the first place that leaps to mind when one thinks "philosophical debate", but I'm much too lazy to start up a site that is.

But now to address some of the issues raised in your email. First on the list is the ever-popular perpetuation-of-sexism charge. The idea here is that sites like mine encourage people to demand beauty of actresses but only talent of actors. To me this is like accusing McDonalds of keeping America carnivorous. McDonalds may sell meat (or something like meat), and it may even be the biggest seller and promoter of it, but if people didn't already like meat, McDonalds would never have gotten as big as it has. So too with Hollywood and the web. The reason there are so many sites like mine out there is that most men are more interested in beauty and titillation when it comes to women than anything else. Not that most women aren't as well, but they're not obsessed with it as men are, i.e., they're not as willing to pay for it, or to take time out of their lives to maintain web shrines. And in an industry ruled by accountants, pollsters, and focus groups, it's what people are willing to pay for that makes it to the big screen, and since Australopithecus that's meant sex and beauty. This week's Entertainment Weekly declared that recent "chick flicks" like Girl, Interrupted, Tumbleweeds, and Anna and the King all bombed, which suggests that most women care about seeing actresses in strong roles that emphasize talent like people in general care about watching PBS -- they all say they want more PBS-like shows, but meanwhile they're all watching Baywatch. So the bell of chastising morality tolls not for the sexism of the entertainment industry, the fashion industry, or websites like mine -- it tolls for thee. ;)

And what about the actresses? Why, you ask, should women like Janeane Garofalo have to get naked or get out? Actually, as I've explained to more than one Garofalo fan, my rhetorical call for Janeane to "get naked in a film already" was meant more figuratively in the spirit of "play ball or get off the field" -- i.e., "you're in an image-driven industry; either work in it or don't, but stop complaining about it." Her career, I argued, is based more on her looks than on the appeal of her comedy, and when her looks go, suddenly all those die-hard fans will start to wonder what they thought was so funny. And from what I've heard, it looks like she might actually finally be willing to play ball and drop some of those extra pounds she's always talking about now that HBO's offered her a regular show.

The point is this: Most actresses owe the fact that they're working to their looks. They may have talent as well, but most ticket-holding men aren't terribly interested in that. And if looks are what's paying your rent, then looks are what you need to keep exploiting. It's a rare actress who has sex appeal and gets a shot to earn the public's respect as an artist.

"But there's more to a woman than tits!" you protest. Of course there is. But no one is paying to see those other parts. In showbiz, the response to your objection is "Yes, there's bush, too."

But enough of my pontificating. What else is in your email?

Ah, yes: Shannon Elizabeth. I actually do like her, just not in everything I see her in. I like her in American Pie and in Maxim, but not in Playboy and one or two other places I've seen her. So I go up and down on my stance on her. But as for the "shame management program" bit in my posted response to someone's protesting Shannon's admittance to The Iconophile, that was meant as an exercise in sarcasm, not in genuine contrition.

I'm none too familiar with Carla Gugino, so I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Oh, and as for whether the teeming throngs of my critics would hush themselves about my appearance if only they saw me ... well, they might, but where's the fun in that? ;)

Dear Golem;

If all men want to see is t and a then the flaw lies in men. Of course I must admit that I would see a movie if an actress like Nikki Cox were getting topless in it, but there are a number of actresses I would go to see whether or not they ever got naked. Personally, Rachel Liegh Cook or Claire Danes fully clothed can do more for me than either of Nikki Cox's udders.

The movie industry is image driven, yes but to say that and get behind it is much simpler for ones own predilictions than to challenge that isn't it? If the industry is a problem than "oh well what the hell" or "I'll just use that as an excuse" is a so-so argument at best unless you honestly don't believe the industry has problems which indicates a personal problem.

True enough, McDonald's is cashing in on peoples taste for meat, but the fact that they're there doesn't help.. If it is argued that whether or not they were there someone else would be is true but still indicates a larger problem for society at large. McDonald's is pretty sorry assed food I might add.

Actresses can be judged on different standards sometimes. Laetitia Casta can be judged by her looks because modeling is really all she does. But actresses should not have to undress just to maintain a career (although I don't mind if they do). "Bush?" Puh-lease! My long winded friend, you are a tas mussed. Everyone knows that ass comes beforehand.

My point being, I don't mind if an actress/model, whatever gets naked on screen. I actually wouldn't mind if you did away with the limited access on your site. But if an actress complains that her career is hampered because she doesn't want to take off her kit, than it isn't enough to say "Oh well, rule of thumb. Shut up and get'em out." If men can't respect an actress or women in general, then the problem is the man or men who are more than slavering sex beasts who can't control themselves. Of course if Shannon Elizabeth wants to go topless in a movie, more power to her! But if she doesn't want to, same deal.

I would like to see Janeane Garofalo shut up for a bit, same with Andy Dick. Actually I'd like a giant mute button for the lot of them. Oh well.

Les

Sorry it took a while to get back to you. I've been dealing with transferring all my files to a new computer and a new operating system, and while I'm mostly done with it all now (I think), quite frankly I'm ready to hang myself with the mouse cord. :-/

But enough with trivial matters. On to the tits and ass... ;)

Here's the problem: Underlying your whole stance on my site is the notion that there's something inherently wrong with people's sexual urges, and that the silver screen should be a temple of talent unsullied by the baser cravings of the crude masses. If most men are more interested in seeing Nikki Cox strip than act, it's certainly not due to any "flaw" or deficit in their character -- it's how they're designed. No one blames a dog for trying to hump other dogs, fire hydrants, or people's legs. We might train them not to, but the instinct will still be there, and it's there for a reason. And as for the silver screen as the hallowed altar of talent, "talent" doesn't only come in the Lawrence Olivier variety. If I go to see a Meryl Streep movie, then I'll judge her performance based on her handling of drama and whatever accent she's using; in a Bruce Lee picture, screen presence and martial artistry are a lot more important; with Nikki Cox, comedy and cleavage. And so on. Obviously, one can't judge every actor by the same standards. Meryl Streep would probably make a lousy porn actress, just as Racquel Darrian probably wouldn't have been the most convincing actress to play the Lili Taylor character in I Shot Andy Warhol.

In other words, web sites like mine aren't "getting behind" and promoting the objectifying nature of Hollywood's object lens any more than shoe companies are "getting behind" and promoting the bipedal nature of people. Objectification isn't a movement or philosophy -- it's the way the mind works. It's seeing things in terms of what's relevant to the viewer. And what's relevant when watching actors on the screen is (1) how do they act and (2) how do they look. Unless you know them personally, that's all you have to work with.

So does every actress have to shed her clothes just to make it in Hollywood? No, of course not. But if they look like Nikki Cox, people are certainly going to want and even expect it, and the opportunity for them to showcase their other talents may never come. No one's seriously clamoring for Janeane Garofalo to whip off her T-shirt, but neither do they let her within gunshot of any auditions unless she drops some weight first. And where and actress decides to bare it all matters, too. Getting naked in anything with the word "bikini" in the title pretty much destroys whatever credibility you might have had as a "serious" dramatic actress, but getting naked in a mainstream or art film might actually help jumpstart your career. Either way, it's ridiculous for an actress (or actor) to complain that the world doesn't appreciate them in the way they want to be appreciated. The world is under no obligation to appreciate them for any reasons but its own.

(Billy Corgan once appeared on The Howard Stern Show a while back and bitterly complained that his fans had abandoned the Smashing Pumpkins now that it had taken a new musical direction. But while he certainly shouldn't have to play rock forever, neither should he be surprised or feel betrayed if all his rock fans don't want to follow him into the world of electronica. The same goes for actresses. If an actress' fan base is people who want to see her naked, she really can't be surprised if no one rushes out to see her in a remake of Othello.)

Preaching from the mountaintop,

Golem

Good God you can sing for your supper can't you. Of course there is nothing wrong with human sexuality. Actually, there's nothing really wrong with your site just your opinions on the subjects.

It would be nice if we could just pass all human behaviours off as natural and gleefully accept the popular notion that men are animals who can't control their sexual urges but the fact is that that is b.s. It would be easier if we could believe that and alleviate people of their culpability but it isn't true.

The bottom line: if an actress or actor really would like to be judged on their acting skills and not wish to disrobe, they should have that chance. If they do want to that's fine as well. If they suck, they should try to improve or find another line of work. However, if say, Laura San Giacomo doesn't want to disrobe on screen should that really hurt her career? She will probably be penalized for it as she appears to have been on Just Shoot Me. The status Quo isn't necessarily correct. If you want to appreciate her looks, that's fine, but to say "Oh well, that's how people are" and yack at them when some producer has said they're too fat?

To accept the world as sexist is alot easier than trying to alter it. As Morgan Freeman noted in "7", apathy is a Hell of alot easier than effort. If actresses are forced to extremes just to do something they want, like acting, I guess that's just easier than trying to erase sexism. If men don't get their way, I suppose Janeane's comedy should take second place just to uphold the status quo which keeps her in a lesser position based on the whims of hairy-handed producers who actually don't know what the public wants. If they did, would movies like "Gone Fishin" among others ever be made? Why the Hell do they keep making Saturday Night Live spinoffs if nobody likes them anyway?

I really wish Laura San Giacomo would do on screen nudity. I don't know how the Hell she got away with doing that scene in "Nina Takes a Lover." But nude or not, I will continue to see her films and tv shows. At least to a point, I might wait until some of them come to video rather than waste a day at thetheatre. "Stewart saves his family?" Ugh!

Les

P.s;

If motion man can get away with full access, why not you?

Methinks you might have missed my point -- and perhaps even your own...

You say on the one hand that there's nothing wrong with human sexuality. Fine. But then you also insist that it needs to be altered or restrained when it comes to one's tastes in movies so that we might all better appreciate actors and actresses who want us to look past their physical appearance. And then you go back to conceding that some actresses (eg. Laetitia Casta) should be judged on different standards than other actors on account of them also being models, that "every actress with a c-cup should have at least one required nude scene". If I'm singing for my supper, then I've been doing it as a duet, my crooning friend.

Forgive my back-alley psychology, but it sounds like your motivation for watching certain actresses is as down-to-earth as most people's -- and you've been convinced you should feel guilty for it. "Yes, Miss February is attractive," you'll observe with as much detachment as you can muster, "but I should like her more for her mind. Yes, I like it when she does her nude love scenes on cable, but it's not right of me to do that. I'm exploiting her with my male gaze. By wanting her to work naked I'm forcing her to. I'm willing her into sexual slavery. I'm perpetuating the oppressive male-female paradigm. I'm objectifying her ... mustn't objectify ... lust is bad ... lust is dirty ... must ... chop ... it ... off ... must ... must ... I'M SORRY I PEEKED AT YOU IN THE SHOWER, MOM!"

Corny, but you get the idea. This notion that the mind is infinitely malleable, that apparent instincts can be curbed or re-shaped, is an ancient one, but it's never really panned out for anyone. One case that leaps to mind is the doctor who cut off a male baby's schlong back in the 70s and instructed his gullible parents to raise him as a girl. The theory was that all gender psychology was learned, so if you raise a baby boy as a girl, he'll in fact be a girl. Of course, by the time this kid became a teenager he was so abysmally miserable and confused (despite his female upbringing and all the hormones he was being pumped with) that he ended up trying to kill himself.

The other point is this: The world doesn't owe anyone a living. If an actress's career suffers because she doesn't get nude or her looks start to go (to wit, I've read somewhere that Felicity's ratings have been swirling down the toilet ever since Keri Russell cut her hair), it's not her audience's fault for losing interest in her. It's not her fault either -- she's under no obligation to cater to her audience's wants -- but she also has to accept that she might not be able to make a living doing something that no one wants to see. (Similarly, if I want the world to love me for my line of toxic Esperanto fortune cookies and not the nudie pix on my site, chances are I'm in for some disappointment.)

Well, that's all the song this choir boy's got in him for now.

The unlicensed psychiatrist is in,

Golem

P.S.: Who or what is "motion man"? If it's another site like mine, then the answer to you question is in the "AdultCheck" section of my "director's cut" hate mail page.

I have admitted I do have certain wishes and people I would like to see but nevertheless I seem to think more highly of them than you. Laetitia Casta is not an actress an therefore has no expectation to be judged by anything but looks. Models are meant for looks while actresses don't have to be.

Your site isn't the problem so much as your responses and opinions on the subjects at hand. Your reasoning is that if the status quo is such, than actresses should just shut up and starve themselves and strip and that because men are sexually insatiable creatures who cannot be curbed, the status quo will never change.

By that logic, a white man could say to his daughter, "no. you can't marry that black man because he's less likely ever to succeed in life than a white man. He may be smart, qualified and more decent than most, but black people just don't do as well. That's not his fault, it's just the way the world is, it's racist." He's not a racist of course, he's just unwilling to bother challenging the "way things are" and as long as people like him never try to alter things, they aren't likely to change. The man simply feels he's justified because that's what the status quo is wrong or right. If you missed the analogy, I suggest reading that over. Simplified version: If you know things are unfair, what good are you doing by telling anyone to shut up and accept it. It's much easier to be apathetic and uphold the status quo and so many will, especially if it alleviates responsibility or guilt.

I would like it if every actress with a c-cup or above had nude scenes written in their contracts, but I would never force that. That's really more of a comedic line and an example of why I should never be in power, I'd probably become hideously corrupt and the bodies of my enemies would surface in the river. If an actress wants to do nude scenes, so be it but she should not have to however, or have to worry about her career being at a standstill because the people in power are horny and think they can do whatever they want. That is THE point.

On a side note, who the Hell would watch a comedy just to ogle Janeane? That's a pathetic reason to watch, especially if the show isn't funny. If the show should fail, it should be becaue the show is unfunny, not because Janeane wieghs 140 lbs which is average for women in the U.S.

Don't lose your composure now.

Les

Les

Welly welly well, Les.

Again, as long as you yourself still wave the "different standards for different types of actresses" flag, then we're marching in the same army. The only difference between us, really, is that you see in your brand of thespian apartheid some sort of moral superiority and insist that "I think more highly of them than thou" even as you oblige actresses, models, singers, and anyone else performing in a movie to drink out of separate fountains.

To me that seems like a rather procrustean caste system of little practical use. You feel justified in judging Laetitia Casta's acting abilities by her looks more than her talent for drama because you know her to be a model. But what about, say, Uma Thurman? She started as a model as well (for Victoria's Secret, no less), but she also got an Oscar nomination. In fact, a lot of the more beautiful actresses of the silver screen started as models. Under your philosophy, shouldn't we judge Uma -- and the rest of Hollywood that has posed for the camera -- primarily for her looks, not her acting craft? And what about actresses that began as singers? If "proper" actresses should be judged for their acting, model-actresses for their looks, should singer-actresses be judged for their voices when they deliver dialogue? Surely every type of actress must have a place in your struggle for celeb-site correctness, your kampf.

All my site is saying is that if any actress is particularly attractive, then that attractiveness is likely to overshadow their other attributes unless those attributes are exceptional. "Models are meant for looks", as you say, but so are a lot of actresses who haven't necessarily worked as models. If it's morally permissible to focus on the looks of the former, then it's equally permissible to do likewise for the latter. After all, people are known by their strengths. If someone's more beautiful than convincing as an actor, then obviously it's their beauty that will get most of the attention. Sexual discrimination has nothing to do with it (remember that it was a while before anyone took pretty-boy Johnny Depp seriously as an actor). Which is why, at its core, praising Angelina Jolie for her dramatic performances while calling for another actress to get over herself and get naked already isn't inherently sexist, and your racism analogy doesn't really work. Nor does all the grandstanding about "if you know things are unfair, do something to change them" apply here, because there's nothing unfair about evaluating people according to their strong points.

A rather strange notion in your email is the insistence that the philosophy of my site is somehow denying actresses and models the chance to be taken seriously. "If [a playmate] wants to act, she deserves a chance," you write. First of all, no one "deserves" anything; Hollywood is a business, not a God-given right or welfare state. Second of all, who isn't giving Playboy playmates a chance in Hollywood? Look at their resumes and you'll find that most of them have film credits. Or perhaps you feel that I'm somehow not giving the other actresses on my site a chance -- but that, too, doesn't make much sense, since all those actresses are or were working, and therefore have already had or are still having their shot at greatness. My prescribing a shortcut for some of them through selective nudity is hardly denying them the opportunity to work fully clothed (which they're obviously already doing; otherwise, I wouldn't have to recommend that they get naked). "But they shouldn't have to if they don't want to," you keep repeating, to which I have to keep repeating, "Who says they have to? I'm just advising that they do."

And censorship? It's a rather peculiar First Amendment poster boy who demands free and full access to nudity on the one hand while on the other urges me to alter my opinion about celebrities to something he feels is more politically consonant with the times.

Oh, and to answer your question of "who the hell would watch a [bad] comedy just to ogle Janeane Garofalo", I'll go out on a limb and suggest "Janeane Garofalo fans". And I'll bet that most of the 50 people who saw We're No Angels were probably hard-core DeNiro fans. If that's a pathetic reason to watch, well, tell that to them.

Anyway, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, since I feel like you've been repeatedly missing the point and challenging positions I've never taken -- and I'm sure you feel that I'm doing the same. If it helps you to enjoy the site any more, I suggest you browse through it like most people browse through Playboy -- just go straight to the pictures and avoid the articles. ;)

Golem;

I'll write this as. slowly. as. possible. for.you. Since when is Laetitia Casta an actress? If she were, she could be judged against other actresses ut as long as she's a model, she is only evaluated on looks. She can be both as are many although this seems a tough one for you. If Uma or someone is both, they can be evaluated as both but not necesarrily at the same time. If she's modeling, then judge against other models. If acting, then against other actresses. Same deal with Courteny Love. She could be a bad singer and a good actress, but generally she isn't doing both at once. Artists should be judged in the medium they are working in and against those in the same medium.

Very.Slowly.Once.Again. You personally are denying no one work. But like the father in my prior example, you are supporting a status quo that you know is tacitly unfair and sexist. You say "get off the playing field" if you don't like the way they play ball when at the same time you realize the field is rigged and the game unfairly played. Michelle Williams' job is not to "look thin" but to act. Cathy Bates, Kate Winslet and Camryn Manhiem among, are good actresses regardless of weight. Michelle Williams may not be as good an actress, but a good actress need not be rail thin obviously. Just because Michelle Williams is pretty should not be used against her in an acting medium. Modeling, yes. Acting, no. There is a difference. But rule of thumb says her looks do matter you say? Again, you know that's not right. Because the status quo is one way does not make it right. The status quo once held that slavery was right and it was wrong then. Why can't you judge an actress as an actress as good or bad?

Point of interest, I'm usually harrassing people who actually do deny women work in some field among other folks. It's always fun if I can rope someone like you into e-mail converse.

I'm probably more attractive than you (Who knows, actually) But I'm no poster boy. I support free speech and expression because they protect us from dictatorial, pendantic people like Newt Gingrich who somehow reach power points. Even the KKK is protected because if the situation was reversed and someone like Newt was in power, people like Martin Luther King could be denied free speech. So I defend the right although you, like the KKK, may have no good opinions. I can still try to make people see reason. You don't have to listen.

Finally, you put me under "hate mail?" I'm hurt. I actually enjoy this recurring tete e tete (I hope I spelled that right). I was dissapointed when you turned out to be such a smug, sarcastic jerk, but I still looked foreward to this each morning. And after I praised the way you typically and calmly responded to people.

I'm usually having e-mail debates with someone, usually people who actually do deny women jobs, creationists and so on. Sometimes I bother people with attitudes that support these people. For me this is at least part game. with you more than others. I can keep going as long as you can if for no other reason than it amuses me. But since you seem to be wearying, you can stop the madness by not responding to this letter. Too bad, it was fun.

Les

Having just woke up a few minutes ago, I haven't yet cleared all the gunk out of my eyes, so parts of your letter haven't come into focus yet. Let's see what I can make out.

Laetitia. Since our little debate has been primarily about the plight of the actress and how I contribute to it in the larger scheme of things, and since it was you who had brought Laetitia up, I assumed you were aware that she has been in a movie (with Gerard Depardieu) and that you were trying to argue that she can and should be evaluated according to different criteria than "normal" actresses. It certainly didn't seem out of step with your earlier, half-joking assertion that any actress with a C-cup ought to be required to to at least one nude scene. In any case, it looks like I misunderstood your bringing Laetitia up. My bad.

The Evil Status Quo. Central to your whole gripe with me is the notion that I'm an enthusiastic philosophical supporter of the oppressive System that's been ruling Hollywood with a mailed, sexist fist for lo these many decades. Sure, I may not be pushing the hapless actresses into the ovens myself, you concede, but I gleefully and publicly use the belts, soap, lampshades and gold fillings that are the end products of their career genocide. I am therefore, you take pains to explain, no different in kind from armchair racists who in the big picture are every bit as guilty of the crimes they claim not to personally commit as the most avid Klansmen.

But as I've said many times now, your understanding of Hollywood is very different from mine. To me it seems a wee simplistic to imagine that the sole function of an actor is to "act" in the traditional sense. Actors are also hired for the way they look, and sometimes for the offscreen associations they bring to the part. If it was only about acting talent, then there's no reason why Dennis Hopper shouldn't be allowed to play the Michelle Williams character in Dawson's Creek. But obviously, for the sake of realism, an actor's look matters; if the part calls for an old Chinese man, then the actor had better look like one; if it calls for a young sexpot, then there, too, the actor had better fit the bill. So while acting talent is important to consider when evaluating an actor's merits, so too are his or her look and anything else he brings to the table. Which is why it's ridiculous to insist that there's something latently sinister and unfair in my public analysis of these things. Nor is there anything wrong or unfair about the public's fascination with an actor's image. Comparing it to the acceptance of slavery, as you seem fond of doing, is simplistically absurd and misleading.

How dare you put me on your hate mail page? My "From Cyberspace with Love" page is reserved for all manner of public criticism, not just the angry ejaculations of crackpots.

Why such a smug, sarcastic jerk? Some say nature, some nurture, but I believe you've made your position clear that it's never simply one or the other. ;)

Actually, briefly looking over our correspondence, I don't think I've been deliberately sarcastic except for the bit with analyzing your motives for watching certain actresses (the "peeking-at-Mom" thing). Possibly also the "skip the articles and just look at the pictures" advice. And these were motivated by the line "God you can sing for your supper can't you". I read this and thought, "If he feels my half of the correspondence is just so much self-rationalizing bullshit, why does he keep engaging me in this dialog?" That -- combined with the fact every other day I have to defend myself to somebody on the same, unchanging charge -- tends to leave me more of a sprinter than a distance runner when it comes to detached responses to my critics. As for our correspondence, while it had its charm, I think it's run its course. You've given me your position on my attitude in as many ways as you can conjure, and I've done the same. To pursue this one issue of ours would be beating a dead actress.

Nostalgic for our fling but knowing that it had to end,

Golem

I enjoyed your site, though I would never talk that way about people myself. The thing I appreciated most was finally seeing some appropriate critiquing of the hideous awfulness of so many hollywood boob jobs. I really like some of the terms you used in describing them... "rubbermaid rack", "corking her bat", "stuffing with confederate money". A few months ago I put up an anti-boob-job page myself:

http://home.pacbell.net/kie/no-implants.html

(A real domain name is in the works.) I recently updated it a bit, and made use of one picture from your site -- I had found the same image elsewhere, but yours was clearer.

I do have some disagreements with you... You sometimes rag on people for gaining a few pounds, but I would be as likely to disparage your typical celebrity body for being too skinny as for being too fat. I disagree with the negative things you say about feminists. I think some of the careers you ascribe to looks really do have more basis in talent than you give them credit for.

I notice you talk a lot about Janeane Garofalo and Uma Thurman. So I'll just throw this bit in: When "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" came out, every guy I know was talking about the "Uma or Janeane?" question. Just like the "Ginger or Mary Anne" question in the old days. And you know what? Every single guy I had this conversation with, except me, picked Janeane -- again, just like Ginger vs. Mary Anne. (The terrible secret of Gilligan's Island is that Ginger actually could not get laid, since every single guy in the universe prefers Mary Anne.) Now I thought this was bogus, since the movie was set up to present Janeane as the fake underdog (like Mary Anne) but in fact, given that bias, Uma was the real underdog. Hardly anyone I talked to actually found Uma attractive... and indeed, in that role, she looked gaunt and unhealthy, which I suppose is realistic since she was playing a model. But with all underdoggery aside, I think she not only came across as more attractive and more likeable than Janeane... she was also FUNNIER.

If I ever meet Uma, I will tell her so.

Janeane was cool in "Mystery Men", though.

My suggested minor celebrity, kind of outdated but worth looking back to: Patricia Charbonneau. Made me physically squirm in my theater seat... I've never had that intense a reaction to any other actress.

Paul

Hi. Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

Anyway, I finally got around to visiting your Anti-Implant page, which was pretty amusing. I have a link to it now in the "Other Stuff" section on my "More Celebs" page.

As for the weighty issue of actresses walking the tightrope between Delta Burke and Calista Flockhart, personally I don't usually care if this or that actress is a few pounds over or under their ideal camera weight; when I mention that an actress is getting a little too chubby for primetime, it's because, regardless of my own tastes, their proportions have entered a zone that could cost them their careers. In any case, I've also pointed out where a celeb's being too thin was probably a hinderance (eg. Kata Karkkainen), and have posted rejections for proposed celeb additions on the grounds that the celeb in question is just too damned thin for me.

On the issue of feminists, I don't recall anything specific I've said about them (whatever it was, I'm sure it probably had to do with Janeane Garofalo), so I'll offer this blanket criticism: Feminism, like all philosophical movements, started off with good ideas and noble intentions but eventually devolved into a kind of cult as it sacrificed its common sense for the illusion of solidarity and continued purpose. What began as a struggle for political, economic, and social equality has in many quarters been reduced to a mantra of female supremacy, creative history and etymology, frivolous harassment lawsuits, Goddess cults, and, as with most movements rooted in civil rights issues, an over-reliance on scapegoats.

Regarding the "looks vs. talent" issue, certainly a lot of people have felt that I bet too heavily on looks when it comes to predicting a celebrity's commercial success, a criticism which, in a world where there are thousands of Pamela Anderson sites and only one Kathy Bates site (assuming it's still up), is always surprising to me. An actress might be very talented, but the general rule is that unless she can be marketed as attractive as well, more often than not she won't get as much time in the spotlight as someone else with talent and beauty. Critics of this world order tend to forget that acting is as much a beauty contest as a talent show.

(When people argue to me that "it shouldn't be that way" or that "it doesn't have to be that way", I'm reminded of an Albert Brooks film where a desperate, lonely Albert Brooks asks something like "Wouldn't the world be great if loneliness and desperation were attractive qualities?" Obviously, to expect people to appreciate you on your terms and not their own is a little silly and solipsistic.)

I agree that The Truth About Cats & Dogs was rigged at Uma's expense: In the film's effort to hit us over the head with the "see the inner beauty, see the outer beauty" message, it tended to dress Uma down a bit (she looked gaunt and unhealthy, as you say). I'll have to watch the movie again to see if I agree that Uma's the real reason to watch it, but I wonder if your enchantment with Uma in the movie isn't more a reaction to the film's built-in prejudice against her than to her actual performance. (The movie counts on you rooting for the underdog, after all; perhaps you were just rooting for the "real" underdog, regardless of that underdog's merits.)

It took me a while to track down some Patricia Charbonneau pix (I don't remember ever seeing her before), and while I appreciate the suggestion, she didn't have quite the same effect on me as she apparently did on you. ;)

Regards,

Golem

Your nudity theory doesn't make sense. I have no problem with it otherwise than it just not being true to reality.

Take Julia Roberts, for example. Or Michelle Pfieffer. Or Alicia Silverstone. Or Helen Hunt. Ashley Judd. Cameron Diaz. Jodi Foster. Jennifer Lopez. Jennifer Connelly. Etc. Etc.

Some of the most successful actresses of recent times, in terms of being in movies that made money, and in terms of power to bankroll the roles they want.

They didn't get that way by being naked. Sex appeal plays a big part, sure. But it's not the same thing as showing cracks or nips (not that that's a bad thing). Mystique goes a very long way.

Julia Roberts seems the best example: Among the most popular and powerful of actresses, but she's never done a nude scene.

Neither has Cameron Diaz. Or Alicia (yeah, her career's not so hot right now, but she was hot for about as long as any actress ever is).

I love naked actresses, too. I love actresses who will get nude, like Julianne Moore, and Demi, and Ashley, and Jennifer Connelly. But all this really does is increase their notoriety.

What helps their careers is being in good roles in good movies, roles that bring out sides of their personalities that appeal to a lot of people, including their sexuality...but not necessarily their nude ass; roles in movies that make money, and win them awards, like Connelly's turn in A Beautiful Mind.

If your theory is just a satirical sorta joke or somethin made up for your website, well, then my bad.

There's not much of a need for a reply, since I doubt you could say anything in support of your theory that you haven't already said on your website.

But, man, thanks for such great sites. Really are some superior picture archives.

Take 'er easy, J

Hello Jack. Glad you like my little site.

And for the record, I agree that the "nudity theory" seems a little unrealistic and simplistic.

However...

As you wrote, popular movies with roles that showcase an actress' most appealing strengths are what keeps her career alive and well, but in most cases, an actress' most appealing strengths lie in her beauty and sexuality, which is why the most successful actresses tend to be the ones that everyone wants to nail. As good as Kathy Bates and Lili Taylor are, there's a limit to how far they can climb the upward path to Hollywood immortality. And as successful as Jennifer Connelly has become, all anyone could remark on when she appeared at the Academy Awards was that she looked horrible now that she lost all that weight and her breasts have shriveled up.

(On one of those E! True Hollywood Stories, a producer was said to have explained to Ally Sheedy that the reason she wasn't a bigger actress was that no one in the country wanted to have sex with her.)

Of course, sex appeal doesn't always mean screen nudity, as you point out. But it does have a lot to do with expectation. If an actress relies primarily on her charisma for her sex appeal, like Julia Roberts, then that's what her fans will expect of her, though the rest of the world may still judge her by her physical beauty. If an actress' appeal lies more in her chest -- whether in tight shirts or no shirt at all -- then fans and non-fans alike will expect to see it, and will get bored with her if they don't.

(To put it another way, to stay famous, you have to keep doing the thing that made you famous in the first place, as no one is usually interested in seeing you do anything else. The "Wassup" guy has to say "wassup" when he goes on tour -- and he does tour, believe it or not -- and when people get bored of "wassup", that's the last we'll ever hear of him. And unless she's very lucky, Shannon Elizabeth will probably always be the naked chick from American Pie, and will have to be naked again if she wants us to pay $10 to see her in another film.)

Bear in mind, too, that many an actress not content with her present level of fame has gotten naked on screen or posed nude for Playboy to revitalize her career. And some, like pre-Charmed Rose McGowan, have maintained a cult following despite a lack of mainstream success by frequently appearing nude in straight-to-video flicks.

In short, screen nudity may not be the career panacea it might appear to be on parts of my site, but it does a lot more than many movie-goers are willing to admit.

Bristling with pompous theories and platitudes,

Golem
The Iconophile

P.S.: By the way, although it was very brief, Julia Roberts has indeed appeared topless on screen according to The Bare Facts Guide.

Dear Golem,

I am a big fan of Rosario Dawson and have an appreciation for the effort you put into this wesite and for your taste.

I am also an Arab and have serious reservations about your comment about Arabs and bombs and synagogues. I think your analogy, although innocent in nature I'm sure, is completley out of line. The geo-political reference that you are making is a very serious one and is the source of much suffereing on both sides. Using it in such a trivial manner trivializes the pain of many.

Plus I don't think Rosario would approve of such a statement made in connection with her.

Peace to you.

Tamer

Hello Tamir.

I'm glad you like my little site, and appreciate your concern regarding my off-color remarks. Referencing Arab suicide bombers in trivial contexts may seem, well, trivial, but not making reference to them, especially in this political climate where speaking of "Arab terrorists" is considered racial profiling and "Saudi Arabia" is scratched out by sharpie ink, seems spineless. Not that I'm in the business of making political observations or anything -- I just write online like I (and most people) talk at home, where no subject is too taboo and no analogy too trivial.

Regards,

Golem

Hi Golem,

You hit the nail right on the head. You are in fact racially profiling. The fact of the matter is not every Arab, strike that 99.999% of Arabs, do not walk around with 'bombs under their belts' and yet it can be inferred from your statement that this is the norm. Also, speaking in the privacy of your home is one thing and posting a statement on a website for everyone to see is another. What this does is propagate a myth that I'm sure if you thought about for more than one second would realize is completely absurd. So not only are you believer in something that is completely false, you are helping to feed a stereotype that is really busting my balls.

Best

Tamir

The fact of the matter is not every Arab, strike that 99.999% of Arabs, do not walk around with 'bombs under their belts' and yet it can be inferred from your statement that this is the norm.

What this does is propagate a myth that I'm sure if you thought about for more than one second would realize is completely absurd.

Of course not every Arab is packing a bomb -- just as not every black guy in Compton is a gangster and not every white guy in Alabama a klansman. But enough of them are -- or support those who are -- to make travel in the Middle East, Compton, or the American South a risky proposition for some groups of people. If my comment seems to unfairly stereotype Arabs, keep in mind that the Arab track record in terrorism is pretty hefty reading compared to, say, the Eskimo track record, and that it's a rare clip in the evening news showing jubilant Japanese dancing in the streets to celebrate the exploits of yet another suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.

Also, speaking in the privacy of your home is one thing and posting a statement on a website for everyone to see is another.

Believing one thing at home but saying another in public is precisely the sort of thing I'd like to avoid on my site.

Regards,

Golem