3. Luke MacFarlane* 
Rank last year: N/A
Making the highest debut of anyone on the Hot 100 List is, 28-year-old Canadian
Luke MacFarlane rocketing into the third position. The secret to his stunning
success? Portraying Brothers & Sisters’ adorable Scotty Wandell, who
recently “wed” his partner Kevin Walker (Matthew Rhys) in television’s highest
profile same-sex commitment ceremony, certainly didn’t hurt; nor did MacFarlane’s
decision to come out to a Canadian newspaper last April. Throw in the fact that
the frequently stubble-faced thespian is not only smoking hot, but possesses an
innate sweetness that caused fans to fall hard for his portrayal of the
sometimes hapless Scotty, and you have his recipe for success.
MacFarlane’s profile will likely on increase this fall when Brothers &
Sisters returns to ABC and fans tune in to see what’s next for Kevin and Scotty. Additionally, in November, Canadian audiences can see MacFarlane play
James Nichol in Iron Road,
a TV mini-series set in 1882 about an immigrant Chinese woman who falls for the
son of a railroad tycoon. The role casts as MacFarlane as the heterosexual love
interest — adding yet another actor to the growing list who have proven being a
gay heartthrob doesn’t mean you can’t play a straight love interest.
2. John Barrowman*
Rank last year: 10
It’s theoretically possible that John Barrowman isn’t the busiest entertainer
in the world, but there is simply no way he isn’t the busiest gay entertainer zipping around the
planet. In the past twelve months, he has released an album, published an
autobiography (co-written with his sister), starred in the second season of
Torchwood, guest starred on three episodes of Doctor Who, one episode of Hotel
Babylon, served as a judge on I’d Do Anything, appeared on Any Dream Will Do,
and hosted the children’s program The Kids Are All Right. And those are just
the highlights. Okay, some of the highlights.
Additionally, John and his partner, Scott Gill, gave gay fans everywhere an
extra little thrill when they appeared together at last year’s London Pride.
John actually pulled Scott up on to the stage, giving his hubby (the two
entered into a civil partnership back in 2006) a kiss in front of a cheering
crowd. An outspoken advocate for gay rights, John has been out professionally
for years, and as his list of credits prove, his openness hasn’t held him back.
John moved from #10 on last year’s list all the way up to #2 where Jake
Gyllenhaal edged him out in a photo finish. AfterElton.com asked John how he
felt coming in second to the Brokeback
Mountain star. With his
usual cheekiness, John told us, “I’m thrilled with the results. Who wouldn’t
want to come in behind Jake Gyllenhaal?”
Is it any wonder gay men love him so much?
1. Jake Gyllenhaal 
Rank last year: 1
Given how little we’ve actually seen of Jake over the past twelve months –
two films that grossed only $43 million between them; his very low profile
since the death of friend and Brokeback
Mountain co-star Heath
Ledger – it truly is a testament to Gyllenhaal’s enduring appeal to gay men
that he topped our list for the second straight year. (It should be noted,
however, that he edged out John Barrowman by only the narrowest of margins.)
What accounts for Jake’s ongoing appeal to gay men? His doe-eyed, boy next
door (yet somehow smoldering) looks certainly don’t hurt, but we suspect what
really makes gay men go for him is that he doesn’t have an issue going for us.
From playing gay in Brokeback to appearing at a GLAAD award show to not feeling
the need to distance himself from his gay fans (remember the shout out to us
done in drag on Saturday Night Live?), Jake has done as much as any actor to
show straight guys there isn’t a good reason to be afraid of gay guys (or gay
roles).
Jake’s upcoming projects will showcase his range and willingness to tackle a
variety of roles. This December he’ll be starring in director Jim Sheridan’s
drama Brothers, then in 2009 moviegoers will see him tackle the romantic comedy
Nailed before playing Dastan in Prince of Persia (based on the video
game of the same name). Alas, none of his roles have him playing gay again, but we are curious to
see what he does with his upcoming role as Joe Namath.
wow...
I did not expect Jake to be #1 again. I actually expected him to be around 10 or something just because he's been pretty low profile-ish lately....
....with that said, i thought John Barrowman would be 1 and neil patrick harris would be at least 2 or 3.
I will say that the most shocking thing is luke being 3. as low key as jake has been recently, Luke is super garbo-esque. heck, he may even be garbo reincarnated. but eh...maybe his coming out stirred a heck of an interest. really expected him to be in the 40's or something. oh well. interesting list overall. :-)
No, the most shocking
heh...
a friend of mine who reads this site saw your comment and texted me with: "Ronnie and 69 is fine with me. I don't know what he's going on about..." - it actually took me like 3 minutes to get the joke....but once i got it...thought it was kind of amusing and he said it was ok for me to repeat it. ;-)
but yeah....in all seriousness, i am surprised he was 69...i thought he'd be at least in the top 15 or whatnot. he's pretty darn cute.
Liz, I edited your headline so it didn't reveal who is #1. I
ok
Luke MacFarlane
I have a better picture of Luke than that one. I'm surprised he hit #3. Mike, can you exchange the pic with the one I will send to you?
KC
Maintainer of Luke MacFarlane OnlineJo Weil...Yes!!
I am so pleased right now that Jo Weil, the most beautiful man on the planet as far as i'm concerned came in at number 29! I was just hopeful that he would crack the top 100 since VL is a German SOAP that just come out of nowhere these past few months to be a YouTube sensation. And he even commented on making it onto the list. That is so sweet!! I'm also really please for Thore who made it even higher at number 17. Not as gorgeous as Jo, but still very attractive
I'm really suprised that Luke MacFarlane is at number 3. Wow! now that is impressive. I would never have guessed he would be that high. And Jake making it to number 1... again. He really is a favorite since I don't think he's been in any movies yet this year. In fact he's been in hiding.
Sorry to see there are not more African American men on the list, since there are some beautiful black male actors out there.
Also interesting to see the drop in rank of so many of those on the list last year with plenty of newbies to take their place.
Great List
I agree with most of the rankings. I am happy that Luke MacFarlane is near the top. I didn't expect him to be that high, but he does play the sweetest guy on my favorite show. Love him. Glad Neil is up there and Barrowman isn't a surprise either. I wish Joseph Gordon-Levitt wasn't so low. He makes my heart skip a beat. (I know. Corny, but true.) He is so HAWT and he chooses excellent roles. The Lookout, Mysterious Skin, Stop-Loss, etc.
yay!!! ollian forever!!!!!
am so happy that thore (my no. 1 pick) made it high on the list ... i was hoping for a crack at the top ten but given the circumstances i guess the top 20 is quite a feat... and joe (my no. 2) is top 29!!! am so happy for our german boys!!!
am also quite shocked that jake would still be no. 1..... hmm.. i love the guy but still no. 1?!?! wow.. lots of us must really love him....
interesting to see no one from the movie "shelter" made the list since it was the best gay movie out there so far.... (although i myself did not vote for them)
i've never heard a lot of men on the list ... must be getting old....
now i hope with joe weil's comment we can have an extensive interview with our VL guys.... i love them!!!!! Ollian forever!!!!!!
I have to say it...please don't hate me...
Jake Gyllenhall does nothing for me. 4 of my picks are on there, but most of mine were offbeat, so i'm not surprised.
visit my personal blog!...NOW!
I'm right there with you
On Jake Gyllenhaal we can agree.
Delighted to see ATWT's Jake Silbermann and UK's James Sutton (played gay as John Paul on "Hollyoaks") on the list.
The reason why there are
The reason why there are few minorities on the list is b/c beauty is defined in terms of white/European features. This is true of mainstream (read: straight) society - look at the dearth of minorities in tv & the movies. And it is ESPECIALLY true of gay society - look at the dearth of minorities in gay magazines (Out, Instinct, etc.) & gay programming.
Representation in the media signifies importance & value, both by the media & to the viewer (the latter b/c we get brainwashed into thinking what is good & what isn't).
Until the media, BOTH gay & straight, becomes more inclusive of persons of color, minorities will always be left w/ table scraps.
Actually, beauty is defined...
...in terms of what appeals to each individual. Most (not all, but most) people are attracted to their own race primarily. It's simply a recognition of facial characteristics most familiar to oneself. Perhaps this list is primarily white/European because that represents the greatest number of voters. ALL the men on this list are beautiful and to suggest that it is somehow racist is sad. If, with each vote you had to state the colour of your own skin, maybe this observation would have merit.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
Yes, but...
...assuming that people are "attracted to their own race primarily," is that a 'natural' inclination, or is it something that is conditioned by society, by the way certain races are portrayed in the media (or lack thereof)?
Unless I missed him, Taye Diggs tumbled from last year's top 10 to completely off the list. That's too bad, because he's a fine specimen--and a wonderful person, too.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
My bad
Taye Diggs is there at #51. Good. Should be higher, but good.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Well, good question Joseph...
...my initial response to that would be that from a biological standpoint, it would make sense for attractiveness to one's own ethnic origin be important for the future continuation of that race. (for me- a hairy red head in a kilt) Of course, speaking about the gay mind, we can only assume that the same inclinations apply, obviously not for procreation, but for sexuality. But your question got me thinking and I did a little more reading on the subject. What I discovered was that in some socio-pychological studies done, the biological advantage of genetic diversity is percieved as healthier. Most attractiveness scales have shown that health is an indicator of perseived beauty. These studies have shown that most often mixed race facial characteristics are chosen as more attractive.
So, taking that into account, the fact that the vast majority of the men on this list being fully caucasian would indicate that the preferences are due to exposure more so than a truly an "attractiveness only" vote. It may also indicate preference of personality and not only physical attributes. The fact that Luke McFarlane entered the list at number 3 would seem to be, as some others have mentioned, due to the fact that he recently came out as proud and gay.
(personally I think he's freaking hawt but I wasn't allowed to vote...so what do I know)
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
I think it's sad that you
I think it's sad that you don't think race has anything to do w/ it at all.
And I didn't say that the voters are "racist."
But I do think that racial biases have something to do w/ it. We can't but help be affected by images that we see...or don't see.
Just look at how the portrayal of gay characters & gay couples on tv have helped gays become more accepted in society. If you think there's no correlation there, then maybe you need to do a little more examination.
And Joey...
...I didn't say that race didn't have anything to do with it at all. I just don't think that voting for whom one finds instinctively attractive doesn't necessarily indicate racial bias. If everyone were careful to include an equal number of Black, Asian as well as white or European men in their list, THAT would indicate racial bias. I'm not saying this has anything to do with colour blind tv and movie casting. I agree with you that we are affected by images that we see but I don't think that it's a conscious choice of these voters to NOT include men of colour. You made it seem like they are doing it on purpose in your first post. I don't think that's a fair assessment. If I misunderstood what you meant, I apologize.
Should we have more diversity in the entertainment industry? Yes, of course.
Are they there for us to see and choose from? Not so much yet.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
The whole point is when
The whole point is when you're inundated w/ images that physical attractiveness = white/European, it is difficult if not impossible to not be affected into believing that that is true & to the exclusion of those who don't fit the definition. It becomes ingrained in your head & affects your choices, whether you're aware of them or not.
Okay, Joey...
....so my question to you is this: (and I am not being facetious- I sincerely want to know) How many images of black/Asian or "other" would have to be in the media for people to vote for who they are attracted to purely on natural instinct? Do you have some sort of gage? I see images of Black and Asian men (and woman) all the time, every day on the internet and on TV. There are many that I find very attractive. But that is neither here nor there. What you like is what you like. And I actually, to a certain extent, disagree with you. I'm not so sure that the people are not being given what they want. If you owned a major fashion magazine, you would keep track of the sales of each cover. If one type of model has an over-whelmingly higher sales record than another type, that is what you would go with. Case in point: the horribly skinny heroin chic model is falling out of favour with the people and the industry is beginning to reflect that. Models under a certain weight are being prevented from going on the runway. People are looking and not liking.
So, I guess the argument is- what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do people find whites more attractive because that is what they see or do they see more whites so are conditioned to find them more attractive?
This list would look very different if it was based in North Africa, India, or China.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
1. I'll answer your
1. I'll answer your question w/ a question: Are minorities being represented on tv & the movies anywhere near their percentage in the population, or are whites OVERWHELMINGLY the majority in the media?
2. You "see images of black & Asian men...all the time, every day"? Unless you have your tv set to BET, I don't see how your statement can be true, especialy w/ the major networks & media outlets.
3. Re: Your free market-ish theory for the lack of minorities in the media
Maybe if I offer an analogy in terms of gender, you'll understand.
Women are paid a fraction of what men are paid for doing similar work, correct?
And women hold a tiny percentage of executive & senior level positions, correct?
Is the free market to explain for those discrepancies? Do people just like men to be paid more or fill higher positions? People "like what they like," right?
Or do historical attitudes towards women - as compared to men, especially - explain why the wage gap & glass ceiling persist in society?
4. I'm not so sure that there wouldn't still be some biases in favor of whites/Europeans in other areas of the world. Hollywood & colonialism have done much to cement the attractiveness of whites/Europeans.
Last try...
...seriously, I did not intend for this to turn into a huge argument on race in America. I just didnt' think it was fair of you to say that the men that voted on this list were racially biased. However, I will respond to your response:
1. You did not answer my question. Just how much exposure would people have to have to vote with an unbiased, purely instinctual reaction? Of course you can't answer that because even if media exactly represented the population, it would be over whelmingly white. Whites are the majority in your country. 2006 census says whites: %80.1 blacks: 12.8 native 1.0 asian: 4.4 I don't know what the percentage is of actors of colour to whites but that brings me to...
2. I spoke the truth. My favourite tv shows have other than white actors- Law and Order, Criminal Minds, Ugly Betty, The L Word, Torchwood,...etc. (almost every show I watch has at least one person of colour- maybe not enough but they are there, and many are main characters such as in Criminal Minds and Law and Order) Every site of gorgeous men that I look at on the internet has men of colour.
3. Don't be condescending to me. I don't think that pointing out executive management positions of wage inequality has anything to do with media representation of sexual attractiveness. (unless those male bosses are hiring women on the cheap because they are attracted to them) Wage gaps are probably due to historical attitudes of men towards women who believe woman should not be taking these jobs from them, but should "be at home with the kids". I don't think this parallels what we are talking about.
4. Everyone complains about the offerings of Hollywood but few people are willing to take on the job themselves. Does every single dollar you spend on film exactly reflect your thoughts on inequality? Colonianlism is over and done with, can't do anything about that. But, Bollywood has wonderful Indian actors, gorgeous and talented, and if anyone should be reeling from the effects of colonialism, it is India.
I guess all I can say it that this is a *very* complex issue and can't be summed up in a few curt sentences. And not everything is about race.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
1. I didn't answer your
1. I didn't answer your question b/c it was a straw man. It would be like me asking you "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie roll pop?" & then turn around & slam you for not being able to come up w/ the correct number.
2. I can name plenty more network shows that don't have a single person of color in the cast.
3. You really didn't get the point I was trying to make. It was an ANALOGY. I thought since you're a woman, it would help you learn to empathize w/ the paucity of minorities in the media.
There are prevalent attitudes, beliefs, etc. - whether you're aware of them or not - that help explain why women have faced discrepancies in the workplace. I believe the same holds true for the lack of minorities in the media.
4A. How can anyone escape from the dominant culture? Going by your logic, I should avoid anything that has to do w/ straight people. Yeah, that's real possible.
4B. Do you agree that Hollywood's influence reaches outside the borders of the U.S.?
And dismissing the lingering effects of colonialism is like dismissing the effects of segregation.
4C. Bollywood's influence is limited to India & Indian expats.
5. No, not everything is about race. But I find it ignorant to dismiss the affects of race on culture.
And for someone to say that this is a very complex issue that can't be summed up in a few curt sentences is funny coming from someone who says that the disparity is due simply to people "liking what they like."
Reply To Joey
This is actually a reply to Joey's post, but if I replied directly to that my post would be about an inch wide!
I pretty much agree with everything you say, and I think Janet would too. The historical perspective of racism and sexism is undeniable. I guess what Janet and I are trying to say is that it's dangerous to take those historical biases and inequalities (in my opinion the greatest shame of this country's history by far), and extend them to where they really don't belong. Such as the media of today. I don't think it's accurate to ascribe biases to today's media. The PEOPLE of the country retain biases, and I still regrettably see that all the time. But the good news, like I said in another post, is that each successive generation is becoming less racist, less sexist, and less homophobic.
Historically, I would agree that there has been a "standard of beauty" set that is based on white Europeans, and that standard was based partly on racism and partly on a type of narcissism. And I would think that there is a definite carryover of that today to some degree. What I was objecting to was what seemed like a bald faced assertion that today's media is intentionally biasing its presentations because of their own racism. Rather, it's a far more complex, multi-faceted situation. And I think one of the keys to reaching the "post-racial" society that people keep talking about is to get to the point where we don't reflexively yell "racism" in situations like these. Similarly, in a "post homophobic" world we can't be micro-analyzing every little thing in search of homophobia.
Race and Beauty
This whole issue is extraordinarily complex. If your theory is correct as stated, then the black voters on this site would vote overwhelmingly for whites just as the whites do, since the same "conditioned perception of beauty" would exist for both. But I suspect that's not the case. Also, if this were a 75% black country, and blacks dominated the media, would the white AfterElton voters pick all or mostly black men since that would be the media created standard of beauty? I don't know, of course, but I would guess not.
I think exposure in the media has something to do with things, but largely in regards to the number of people exposed in the media, thereby providing a larger pool of whites to pick from. It's not just a conditioned perception of beauty. The conditioned perception for men is a broad build with lots of muscles, and that's the overwhelming type seen, here on AE and everywhere else. But yet I personally prefer thin guys without the broad build, and I know other guys who feel the same. In fact, I tend to prefer guys fairly similar to myself. There's certainly nothing conscious about that, and it can't be a prejudice since it's an instant, purely physical reaction that has nothing to do with thought processes.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that something like this is so extraordinarily complex that it doesn't seem wise to try to boil it down to simplicities like bias or unconscious conditioning.
1. Why do whites
1. Why do whites OVERWHELMINGLY get exposure in the media in the first place?
Unless you're willing to concede that the media is outright racist, then there's no other conclusion other than a conditioned perception of beauty being white/European to explain for the HUGE discrepancy in representation.
2. You're not seeing the forest from the trees. You're obfuscating the general idea of racial biases in representation by delving into small details like musculature.
It's all about money and big business
You're looking for racist media or "conditioned perception" when the obvious and most likely explanation is right in front of you: target demographics.
Caucasians get the lion's share of main stream media exposure because the target audience is predominantly European white. When the target demo is African-American, persons from that segment of the population get the media attention.
Face it, media is big business. It's not racial bias as much as it's pecuniary bias. In a capitalist society, it's all about the Benjamins.
Answers
1. RJ answers the first question very well when he says "target demographics". If the media thought they could get bigger profits by exposing more black people that's what they'd do. Look at music, for example. Since black produced music is selling so well the black artists are getting huge exposure. If black TV shows generated more revenue than white shows we'd have more black shows than white shows. That happened to a small degree after the Cosby Show, when everyone thought they'd emulate that with their own black shows.
I'd add one more thing to what RJ said. To some degree it's pure numbers. If blacks constitute 10% of the population you would generally expect them to get about 10% of the exposure.
2. I see your point, but I don't think it's really valid. I wasn't attempting to directly equate race with musculature. Rather, the point was simply that if a media generated "ideal of beauty" existed that would determine what people were attracted to, then that same theory would apply to things like musculature. For gay guys, developed musculature as a standard is at least as prevalent in the media as is white skin. And yet lots of guys prefer thin guys, or bear types, or hairy types (another trait not seen in the media much).
Before you jump on me for the second point, I realize there are all sorts of issues to think about in that area, and it's not at all a simple thing.
One new point. There is no doubt in my mind that there is still a huge residue of racism in this country. I see and hear examples of it all the time. And THAT'S the racial bias that could be feeding into this whole thing somewhat. It's not CREATED by the media, but rather REFLECTED by the media in giving a somewhat racially biased audience what they want. Fortunately, each generation has become less racist, as well as less homophobic. The newest generation, in fact, seems to have made a huge leap in both of these regards.
Reply to both you & RJ
1. The "target demographics" theory
Let's apply this theory to gay representation.
In the latest GLAAD report, gays make up only 1.3% of recurring characters on network tv. Using RJ's logic, this is due solely to the overwhelming majority of the target demographics being straight. Homophobia or, more importantly, a heteronormative perspective that colors a belief of what viewers want to see, aren't factors.
Do you honestly believe your theory is the answer? I'm sure you recall the problems/resistance to Brokeback Mountain, BOTH in terms of it getting made AND getting theaters to show it. Why do you think BM encountered such problems/resistance?
2. White privilege
Are you familiar w/ this theory? It's multi-faceted. Part of it means that our society is structured around white norms. Another part, which goes hand-in-hand w/ the first, entails that whites enjoy social, political, & cultural advantages in our society, often w/o recognizing it (see disparities in the justice system, employment, economics, etc.).
When you're a member of the dominant group, you see your traits reflected back at you, so you see them as normalized & take it as something that is established independently of race.
This doesn't mean that white people are bad. It just means there's a reality that isn't perceived by most whites.
That reality includes a media that, whether it is due to apathy or some level of antipathy, chooses not to include minorities. I read where Shonda Rhimes had to repeatedly tell her casting people to go for a diverse cast, since they had been bringing her only white actors/actresses. I don't think that was b/c of a simple matter of business or coincidence.
Another Reply To Joey
This post may be close to a record for the slimmest presentation box ever!
1. It's not valid to bring the gay issue into the "target demographics" reasoning. There very clearly is an overt fear among a lot of media people, fairly honestly expressed by many, that America as a whole isn't ready for full, honest gay representation in the media. I.e., the American populace retains a worrisome level of homophobia. (I hate using that word, since it's so often misused, but it's completely accurate here.) There are probably residues of genuine homophobia among some media executives. Blacks seem to have overcome that to a very large degree. As I said before, look at the huge black presence in the music industry - because it sells. And look at all the black based shows that came out after the Cosby Show - because of an expectation it would sell. Almost all media is owned by large corporations, and I assure you, those corporations care primarily about profits.
2. I agree with much of what you say about white privilege, which was VERY strong historically, and is still strong but gradually fading today. It's possible the newest generation will be the first one where white privilege, apart from any advantges caused by education levels and poverty levels, will have waned to nearly unimportant levels. (Yes, I know education and poverty levels are EXTREMELY important issues that have to be dealt with, but we're not dealing with those issues here.) I just don't see the leap from a white privilege situation to a biased media, when the media clearly will expose anything that sells. Yet again, I'll cite black music.
We have to wind this whole discussion up soon, so I'll go back to the starting point. I don't accept the idea that the nearly all-white makeup of the Hot 100 had much to do with racism of the voters, or bias on the part of the media. It's mostly exposure caused by target demographics, and sheer numbers, plus a subconsciously ingrained tribal instinct that TENDS to cause people to see attractiveness in members of their "extended families". As I said in another post, I'll bet the black voters had a much larger percentage of "their guys" on their lists than did white voters (even though they're exposed to the same "standard of beauty" as the white voters). And Asians voted for more Asians, Hispanics for more Hispanics, etc. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Latin v European
I see more and more white-Hispanics and white-Europeans together these days. There is something narcacistic about couples that look alike. There is also a difference between eye-candy and sex-appeal. Some of these guys are too pretty for me, but there is no denying there hotness. That said...That picture of Ricky Martin and the fact that I visit South Florida so often, makes me want to ask the Flying Monkey where the hell does Mr. Martin live/vacation? Stalking tendencies aside...Nice list; only surprise is the hotties that were new to the list. What were we thinking last year?
What's with the aestrick (*)?
Why did some people have an aestrick an aestrick against their name? Didnt see any note explaining...or did I miss it...
Anyway didnt see Jake coming #1 again...boy some gay boys must really love him...he's cute and all that but never really found him that hot.
yes, the asteriks....
Jake is cute, but that photo...
Not that I mean to be a
Not that I mean to be a stickler, but as he was the only person who I voted for that actually made it on the list, Henry Cavill has two 'l's. :)
I have no intelligent remarks to make about the list except thanks for putting so much effort into it, it must have taken a really long time...
Good Year for Fans of the Whoverse
Not only did Barrowman #2 and David-Lloyd #11 make the top twenty , but Tennant hit a respectable #33 especially awesome since its his first time making the list.
I certainly think its especially awesome that they all ranked above the likes of Clooney and Damon, people who are usually frontrunners in the annual People competitions..
Thats right John, Gareth, and David.. Gay men think your hotter than Matt Damon and George Clooney ;-)
whoverse
you can add russel tovey to that list - who by the way would have been much MUCH higher on that list, if i would've been allowed to vote ;-)
Yes, great list
I am also suprised Jake is No. 1. Dont get me wrong he is great, but I really wonder why he is so high?
Its also very interesting the hit some of the usual suspects took this year. And of course, the hold Queer as Folk still has in peoples minds. And its great to see new blood, especially such hot ones.
Most of my picks are on the list, most on the Top 20, so Im glad about that.
Thanks guys for doing the work, its great to get a glimpse of what we think is hot in a man.
a little typo.... (under luke)
i think you meant to say in your second paragraph about fans tuning in to see what's next for kevin and Matthew....i think you meant Scotty.
;-)
Nice catch, Liz! Thanks and
Just thought I'd point out,
Just thought I'd point out, on the first page you credited Gareth David-Lloyd as David Gareth-Lloyd. Having a name comprising of three first names must get confusing.
That aside, not a bad list!
Surprising list
Does Jake qualify as a "gay icon" now?
A few years ago, Jake Gyllenhaal and Chris Evans would have topped my personal list as well. And while they're still hot, a number of others have overtaken them in my heart. I'm thrilled to see 5 of my 10 picks make the list, with two in the top 5 and Ollian making the top 30. In fact, if I had a top 20, the majority of those would have made the list.
Some of not-so-random thoughts:
* Some enterprising producer should get John Barrowman, Neil Patrick Harris and Cheyenne Jackson to do a musical together. Hey, let's add Gareth David-Lloyd, Jo Weil and Thore Schölermann, all of whom are reportedly good singers as well.
* At the very least Graham Norton should invite JB and NPH onto his show at the same time. What a riot that would be!
* Some significant "couples" made the list:
CHeck Beckham's sponsorship...
Yay, but also...WAH!
I'm so happy to see several of my picks make it this year: Nicolas Gob, Colin Farrell, Thore Scholermann--and, wow, how impressive that Thore made the top 20! Sweet!
But, once again, my beloved Jeremie Renier is left off the list. Maybe next year, after The Vintner's Luck comes out....
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
OLLIAN HOT!
Whatever you say, Thore and Jo belong on that list … ;o))
I'm really happy for them and even a bit proud. I hope they'll get the news quickly!
Oh and didn't Jo made 29th place?
-----------------------------------------------------
R.I.P. - Heath Ledger [1979 - 2008]
I like this list!
I dig it
I'm glad Colin Farrell made the list this year, although I stupidly forgot to vote for him until it was too late.
Some others that I would have voted for had I seen them again (or for the first time in Marcus' case) before voting:
Marcus Patrick (that man is f-o-i-n-e). Yes, with an "o". Shame he didn't make it.
Eddie Cibrian
Shia LaBeouf
+ some that I, apparently, am forgetting about yet again. haha
P.S. I'm glad some of my favorites got picked, like Andypants, Ronnie K., + Van Hansis. I didn't vote for all of them, but I dig them, nonetheless. Btw, is that not the hottest shot of Van? The way those pants fit him makes my own feel all that much tighter.
Bravo to Jo, Thore & James S!
So glad Thore, Jo and James Sutton made the list. Very surprised Jake is still #1 given his low profile this year.
We definitely need a pic of Jo Weil's hairy legs (I think this would have gotten him more votes!).
Jo Weil & hairy legs...
That was my thought too! Maybe he would have cracked the top 20 if we'd gotten a gander at those hairy legs! :P
YAY...but NAY......
Jake G. is so over in my book. John Barrowman SHOULD have been #1.
And Gareth should have been top 10, Yay for Bobby Gant & Peter Paige being on the list,big ol' boo for Gale Harold & Randy Harrison for being on the list.
And how the hell did i forget Jensen Atwood? Silly me.
Overall,a fine list.