A Second Case Study in "Hotness"
Introduction and Purpose
Last month we, the Scientific Community, brought you “A Case Study in Hotness” in which we examined the magazine photo shoots of two of today’s most dreamiest leading men. “More!” you cried. “Hit us with that steamy science!” (We’re paraphrasing. Obviously you guys would never say “steamy” outside of the sauna.) We rubbed our hands together with glee, donned our lab coats and goggles and perused the magazine racks for some tasty specimens. Our hopes were truly sky high because these editions would be for February. Valentine’s Day! L’amour! Imagine our shock and dismay, Junior Scientists, at the Condé Nasty surprise the glossies had in store for us. So with deep regret we present to you “A Case Study in ‘Hotness’” of the only two coverlads for February 2011.
Our hypothesis is the same as last time: “A side by side comparison of two radically different specimens of male beauty will yield concrete and empirical conclusions about aesthetics.” This time, however, one of those specimens was created the same year the film Speed was made, so we’re going to try to skirt any actual objectification as it is grossing the Scientific Community out.
1. The February 2011 copy of “Vanity Fair” featuring Justin “The Haircut” Bieber
2. The February 2011 copy of “Details” featuring Andrew “The Hairstyle” Garfield
In Fig. 1 our first specimen, young master Bieber, causer of fevers, beams at you blandly while he and his neckwear are rather violently accosted. Either “Vanity Fair” has a series of lipmark rubber stamps, or some unfortunate intern was made to wear a spectrum of lipstick shades (from “Underage Orange” to “This Makes Me Very Uncomfortable Magenta”) and rain kisses upon Young Master Bieber from shoulder to chin. We in the Scientific Community would like to express our genuine concern for Young Master Bieber’s right eyebrow which appears to have been prematurely lopped off, lest it compete with the amber waves of grain that are his meticulously constructed bangs.
In Fig. 2, the comparatively aged Mr. Garfield, tie unmolested by clutching females, attempts to…scratch his chin? Hide a hickey? Show off his unusual jacket cuff patch? Regardless, Mr. Garfield need not wrinkle his forehead but should be content in the knowledge that his eyebrows will remain unlopped as they are in no way competing with the magnificent upswept crest that are his bangs.
What Mr. Garfield loses in coat-and-tie respectability in Fig. 3, he gains in plenty o’ hipster points (“plenty o’” is a highly technical unit of measurement). The Scientific Community awards Mr. Garfield these points based on a) the palpable Eau de American Apparel Ad 2) the deft execution of the meta photograph and iii) the twee and whimsical ye olde timey polaroid camera. Please make note in your lab books, Junior Scientists, that the bang waves are still cresting. May they never break.
Upon examining Fig. 4, the Scientific Community breathes a huge sigh of relief for the fate of Young Master Bieber’s right eyebrow. Much like the noble earthworm, the Bieber Brow, when bise-WAIT A SECOND. BUBBLES? BUBBLES?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING US? YOU WENT WITH BUBBLES? Well that’s it, “Vanity Fair,” you’ve broken science. We hope you’re happy now.
In conclusion we, the Scientific Community, would like to hear no further complaints about the slim-hipped Mr. Garfield as your new Peter Parker/Spiderman. We are confident that if you think about it, Junior Scientists, things could be far, far worse.
Joanna Robinson spared you the one where the kid is nearly shirtless and the one where he’s being molested by the United Colors of Handsetton. You’re welcome.