 by Brian Juergens
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
NavigationWho's onlineThere are currently 14 members and 360 guests online.
|
We are Mitcham men!
We should just go ahead and rename this Matthew Mitcham Week here at AfterElton.com, seeing as how we just can't get enough of the history-making, record-breaking, heart-stealing Australian gold medal diver. Just when we thought we'd covered all the Matthew we could, gay-friendly Australian swimsuit company Aussiebum had to go and produce an adorkable tribute video to Matthew that is just the sweetest thing since Splenda. You can jot over here to check out the video and some cute pics of Matthew and his partner Lachlan eating ice cream and horsing around. And then be sure to come back here to OMGHESTHECUTESTLOLZZZZZ in the comments! We know we will. Submitted by on Fri, 2008-08-29 09:58. |
User login Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Mitcham and Aussiebum a natural match
Given Aussiebum's aggressive marketing to gay people Matthew's a perfect fit for them. Hopefully we'll be seeing him in some Aussiebum ads. This could enable them to officially supplant Speedo as they gay boy's bathing suit of choice. Greg Louganis could finally have the satisfaction of seeing Speedo get smacked...
*Cute, Fuzzy Bunnies*
Matthew and Lachlan are just such an adorable couple! I think that's what really adds to his appeal, but also what increased the insult from some of the media coverage. Matthew isn't waving a Pride flag and proclaiming he's gay. But he is proud that he has a wonderful and handsome partner and that they were able to get Lachlan to Beijing to see Matthew win a gold medal. That has less to do with "discussing sexual orientation" than with explaining what motivates Matthew.
Adorable...
Yes, they are.
He's become such an icon in
He's become such an icon in a few days, I'm really starting to idealize him. I don't think I can ever find anything bad about this kid. He and his partner are such a cute couple... I was crying while watching the video.
Another first for Matthew
afhickman
"The mountain has wings."
You aren't alone, Pantzini.
He's first in all our hearts.
Spend some time in his chat room
There are friends of Matt hat go to his chatroom. Some are friends of a friend.
But they seem pretty comfortable sharing links to pics they have of Matt outside diving.
great video
Lachlan, 36?
AHEM!
Don't assume...I hate that.
I think I read somewhere
Uhm, he's 20. Born in 1988.
Lachlan, not Matt
Oops! I meant Mitcham!
Oops! I meant Mitcham! Sorry about that. I don't know Lachlan's age.
That seems more accurate
How should...
Seriously?
You want to argue that ppl don't tend to look their age? That in general you can't tell what age range a person is in? Feel free to start a meaningless argument with another AE poster.
Cute as a button any age
Cute as a button any age he is.
A superficial way of looking at things
I went to high school with a kid whose hairline was already receding at age 18. Between that, being thickly-bearded and having a full chest of hair most people assumed he was in his 30's. Alone among us he could buy booze without getting carded.
By the same token, I know guys pushing 40 who lean so heavily on the skin cremes and work out so much that most people take them as being in their 20's.
So to make a statement like "he looks good for 36" is:
1) Insulting because it insinuates that it is unusual for someone to look good at the age 36. As if their looks should somehow be deterioriating by that age.
2) That age is easily defined based on appearance, which is generally a dubious assertion at best.
I guress 42 going on 80
There are also...
Age awareness isn't ageism
My point being that If you take a group of 40 random people together who are all the same age, 90% of us would be able to guess their common age give or take a few years. Looking your age is neither an insult or a blessing, Just like not looking your age is neither an insult or a blessing Noticing that and commenting on it is simply that. It might be dumb or irrelevant but it is just an observation unless someones comment on that is intend to be an insult.
To comment that someone doesn't look their age is an observation. I have remarked to myself that Matthew in several of his photos looks really white. By that I mean very fair skinned, I guess all that chlorine and being indoors will do that. Does that observation make me a racist? No. It makes me a fair skin fetishist.
That's what I meant.
Yes it is.
Why can't it just be said that "he looks good"? Why does it have to be "He looks good for 36"?
That is ageism. It implies that attractiveness is a function of youthfulness and that it is unusual for someone past a certain age to look good. Indeed, it's an expression of surprise that someone could look good at that age.
I generally find guys with salt and pepper or grey hair very attractive. This applies whether they're "prematurely" grey in their 30's or "legitimately" grey in their 50's. I'm often attracted to a lot of guys older than myself. I'm not exclusively attracted to older guys though so it isn't really a fetish.
However, in our society in general and in the gay community in particular there is often a really horrendous tendency to make judgements based on age. What if research turns up the fact that Lachlan is actually 25? Does that mean he still "looks good for 36"? What if it turns out he's 42?
If I see some beach boy with coarse skin from a lifestyle of beach living and it turns out he's only 25 am I supposed to say "wow, he looks really bad for 25"?
Why is age even linked to appearance at all? Especially in this age when Botox has frozen the faces of women like Madonna and Cher in time?
Because he does look good for 36
I'm not saying he "looks good" I'm not talking about his over all physical features. If I was I'd just say he's hot...which he is. I'm talking about how old he appears...he looks good for 36. He looks way younger than 36. The same way in your examples above you pretty much said your one friend looked older than his age and the other one looked younger. Lachlan looks good for 36.
I make no apology at all for saying it...I have no problem with it, it's a compliment. He looks younger than his years. It's not a statement of peaking at a certain age, or being ugly after a certain age or being less desirable after a certain age.
He looks younger than 36. Which it turns out, he is.
Jesus...find a hobby other than picking powder-puff fights online.
For someone who gets off insulting people...
..you really ought not throw stones.
Lachlan looks good period. We don't actually know how old he really is. He could be anywhere from 20-45 looking at him. But that's just a number. The real point is that he's a handsome man, and apparently a very fun and affectionate one. Matthew's own apparent age seems to vary greatly depending on whether he's shaved or not. When clean-shaven he looks like a teenager. When he has some scruff he looks older than his 20 years. But he's the same person regardless.
The need to assign a point of reference based on age is one of the biggest problems in the gay community. We have 20 somethings who heap scorn on anyone over 30. We have over-30's who dismiss anyone under 30 as "twinkies". I've literally seen and experienced people express interest in someone they find attractive, ask their age and then abruptly lose interest.
This is hardly a cultural behavior we ought uphold.
Gay communtiy?
Ummm, how is the thing you're crying about a "gay issue"? People always compliment people for looking well for their age. Paul Newman looks good for his age. Michael Jackson...not so good for his age. She looks good for her age. He's aged well. She's aged gracefully.
Lachlan is a handsome man...period. I was talking about his appearance in age...period. Matt, shaved or unshaved looks his age. He doesn't look 30 with scruff and 16 without...either way he looks like a guy in his early 20's. Lachlan does not look like he's in his mid-30's.
Heap your own issues on it all you like.
Still love the gray, myself.
Original comment:
Even though you have articulated a very good point, I feel bad that it may have been lost now but between you and me. You wrote: "Why does it have to be "He looks good for 36"
The rest of this has been yours and my opinion. I distain that. Okay, attractiveness is objective. That's all I can say. Much of our language to describe beauty is youth orientated and that can and will undoubtedly change.
Like GayTVluver has said, he looks good. Good enough to propell an Olympic Gold Medal Winner. That's sexy to me at any age, because I know I wouldn't have been able to do that at 20, 26 or even 36, no matter how young I looked. I mean I wouldn't have been able to support Matthew.
But yeah, I think I've been on the other side.
We all know what propelled Matthew to the Gold, because he has said as much, can we move on?
I wonder
Interviews coming...in Oct
According to the guys that run Matt's site he will be doning interviews when he returns in Mid Oct.
I have to believe that Matt would be very willing to do an interview with AE...they've been very supportive. I don't doubt for a second that the guys here have been on his PR people like speedos on a diver to get an interview.
We're working on it, but if you're in the chatrooms
http://mattmitcham.com/ Ac
http://mattmitcham.com/
According to his website Matt is taking a break until October." He will not be available for comment or contact until that time."Sigh.But some rest & a vacation is what he really deserves so I`m not gonna complain.
C'est Manufique Matt
Ok, so he's young, cute, famous and probably about to be very rich, with a hot boyfriend, a loving mother, supportive friends, and the world's attention. Please remind me again why I am comletely bonkers over him.
Golden Gaytime
How do I get me some o' them "Golden Gaytime" ice creams?? (cha-chingggggg!)
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."
Too bad it's not a new video
Brian, when I saw the headline and read your write-up, I thought aussieBum had put up a new video of Matthew Mitcham. So I was mildly disappointed to find out it's the same video (albeit a really good one) that I (and probably many others) had already posted about earlier in the week in the blog entry discussing NBC's statement that they can't cover everything.
Unfortunately, virtually all Olympics related clips of Mitcham have been systematically scrubbed from YouTube by the zealots jealously guarding their broadcast rights.
The Olympics seem to have been scrubbed from all of cyberspace
Unfortunately, virtually all Olympics related clips of Mitcham have been systematically scrubbed from YouTube by the zealots jealously guarding their broadcast rights.
I found it hard to find any clips from the Olympics (whether Matthew was in them or not) even while the Olympics were in progress.
I didn't get to see the opening ceremonies and (at first) I thought, "No biggie - I'll just YouTube them". Not an option. In less than 24 hours of posting, every single video had been removed (although the links remained). Within 48 hours, if you googled anything similar to '2008 Olympics', you'd come up completely empty - save for a Wikipedia article or the most generic description of what the Olympics were.
If you wanted to watch NBC's coverage online, you had to first prove that you had a cable subscription and identify your local carrier. (Even though NBC should be considered 'local broadcast television' and not require a cable subscription.)
There's something wrong with that. Coverage of historical events should not be allowed to be copyrighted.
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."