The ask@AAR: Scruffy or Suited?
A friend of mine just sent me this article. (Men are shaving less during the pandemic. Women are not.) My instant–and very personal–response, was “Great, just what we need, more unkempt men.” For me, there’s nothing more attractive than a well-groomed man in a suit. I mean, really, look at these guys:
Now I know my predilection for a sharp dressed man isn’t shared by all. And I can appreciate a five o’clock shadow and a torn pair of jeans just as much as the next person.
But, if I had to pick, it’s not my preference.
What’s yours?
Let’s be real. The photos above are all of young, gorgeous men for whom it is genetically impossible to look anything but fine not matter what they are wearing.
The average man looks like this when scruffy — at least on the planet that I live on. :-)
The average man tends to look better with a suit or at least when he extends considerable effort at the “scruffy” look. And the pix I’ve attached is actually of the actor Matthew Perry, not able to carry the scruffy look as he has aged and joined that land of average looks.
Poor Mr Perry has also had some very serious medical issues over the years which is hard on the body, too. I still love him though.
Didn’t realize he had health issues. Not trying to make fun of him. He looks like an average man to me, or maybe better than average.
The other men in the pix are extraordinarily above average, impossibly good looking. The kind of men who look good no matter if they are in a designer suit or in rags. My point was only that fantasy men look good wearing anything, whereas average men tend to look better when they are not scruffy.
I think men who are so good looking they are almost beautiful often look good with scruff or an extreme haircut. In Black Hawk Down, the very young and almost pretty Josh Hartnett is one of the few people who looks good with a military haircut.
Brad Pitt always seems to fall back on a scruffy or unkempt look either out of preference or because he knows it makes him look less picture perfect.
Sean Bean is my favourite bit of rough, especially during his Lord of the Rings time. Something about that bad boy that I love. And he is a bad boy. Can’t wait to see him in season 2 of Snow Piercer.
My reality is a husband who spends a lot of time in his garage doing his car guy stuff. But he cleans up really well for work and I love that look too.
That makes me think of the best quote about Viggo in those films. A friends of mine said, “Unshowered has never looked so hot.”
Viggo was so gorgeous as Aragorn! I also blame him (+ Karl Urban and Sean Bean) for my scruffy loving ways. Before the LOTR movies I didn’t like beards at all, but after them, I’d moved to the dark side for good. ;D
Totes understandable!
I love them all in LOTR and it’s also why I loved Kit Harrington as Jon Snow in Game Of Thrones but don’t bat an eyelash at him in his real world clothes and hairdo.
A ton of people have posted similarly about Henry Cavill in his role of “The Witcher”. People who didn’t care for him as squeaky clean Clark Kent or in his other roles are saying he should never clean up again.
This is an interesting phenomenon. Now that I think of it, it is rather common for me to find a character in a movie or a series attractive, but be indifferent about the actor as themself. I have a great appreciation for the work actors do and if I like an actor’s performance in one project for a reason or another it is highly likely that I’ll be interested in watching their other projects as well, but it is rare that my feelings for (or even drooling over, lol) a character transfers from the character to the actor. I don’t know why that is. Usually when someone says that actor this or that is hot, my comment is going to be about a role or roles of theirs. As themselves, they are usually just a bunch of pleasant looking people I recognize because of their work, but who don’t really cause much of a reaction in me otherwise.
I’m sometimes shocked when I see some actors out of their character’s costumes. There were many Game of Thrones actors that seemed much less substantial and more “pretty” when they didn’t have their hair, beards, scruff and leather. Without those things they couldn’t have pulled the roles off for sure. Someone like Jason Momoa, because he’s so imposing and has such an extreme everyday look, hardly needs anything to make me believe he’s the strongest guy around. Ian Glen was totally transformed by his costume and styling.
Its the same with Downton Abbey. Some of the people look 20 years younger without their wigs and corsets.
I think the great actors can transform themselves with a role. It’s why I have a problem accepting Keira Knightly in roles as she always looks the same to me while Lily James can transform her looks from historical to modern in her roles.
“I think the great actors can transform themselves with a role. It’s why I have a problem accepting Keira Knightly in roles as she always looks the same to me while Lily James can transform her looks from historical to modern in her roles.”
It goes both ways for me. Whereas I love actors who can blend into a role a la Meryl Streep, I also have an appreciation for the kinds of actors who always play themselves like David Spade. It really depends upon a number of factors such as correct casting, a great script, etc.
As for actors transforming themselves within a role, I’m afraid the current political climate is making that difficult. Not to start a row, but I am dismayed there’s a strong movement toward not letting actors play outside of their sexual orientation or ethnic group. I mean, sure. There are some very good reasons why you shouldn’t cast say, Samuel L. Jackson, as Elizabeth Bennet. But beyond reasons of blatant miscasting, the idea of being an actor is to create someone wholly different from yourself. Otherwise, it’s not really acting, is it?
I agree with you. I saw The Danish Girl for the first time a year or so ago, and I cannot imagine any actor, trans or otherwise, who could have done a better job. Eddie Redmayne has since said that he now feels such roles should be played by members of the given community, but I respectfully disagree. That is not always the best choice for a role, in my opinion. And how far do we take that? Must characters who have panic attacks be played by actors who have them? Can singing no longer be dubbed by another voice? Its important for Hollywood to be inclusive, yes, but its also important to tell a convincing story.
Yes, to all of this.
Continuing with the discussion of LGBT roles being set aside exclusively for queer actors, I think there’s another danger here that isn’t talked about. If these policies are adopted, whether formally or informally, will queer actors be forced to “out” themselves in order to be considered for roles? This may come as a shock to many based on media alone, but some people are more comfortable being closeted. (Yes, some of this has to do with fear, but there are also people out there firmly in the camp of “it’s none of your business who I go to bed with.”) On the other side of that coin, will struggling straight actors lie about their orientations in order to pursue a role? I just anticipate so many problems with all this. And what’s going to get lost in the shuffle is good writing and optimal casting.
Bill Maher did a New Rules segment about Hollywood’s troubling new Oscar Best Picture rules not too long ago where he expressed some of the same concerns I have about enforced diversity quotas in filmmaking killing storytelling. It’s on YouTube under the title, “Oscars, No White” if you’re interested. I think he sums up perfectly the problems in Hollywood today that are destroying art.
I think things are simultaneously getting broader and narrower. You have productions like Bridgerton (the series made from Julia Quinn’s novels) where they embrace a very diverse cast even though people would argue there were no people of color who were Dukes etc. in 19th century England. (In fact probably not even now). So roles that were traditionally closed to anyone who were not English or maybe French appearing are now open to people of all ethnicities. Similar to Hamilton’s casting.
On the other hand you have roles that used to be open to anyone are now defined by things like the sexual orientation of the actors etc. And the intent is a noble one, to give actors who were marginalized before, more opportunities. And I think it shows how far we have come when roles that were often considered “career killers” years ago are now sought after And we look down on putting the same requirements on “straight” roles (as we should). A reporter/reviewer rightly got put through the ringer years ago when he said Jonathan Groff couldn’t play a “straight character”. Which was nonsense if you have ever seen him act, he’s great in every role IMHO.
I do think it’s easy to stand here in 2020 and say that certain roles and opportunities should only be given to people who are actually living that life but I think many great movies that paved the way would not have been made if they didn’t have the star power of people like Jared Leto, Heath Ledger and others at the time.
I think the problem now is that the entertainment industry is trying to legislate change to correct wrongs of the past (in many ways) but whenever you try to put rules on what should be art it becomes incredibly complicated.
“I think things are simultaneously getting broader and narrower.” That’s definitely a good point. But I think the current way things are getting broader and narrower are often a detriment to good art and storytelling. “So roles that were traditionally closed to anyone who were not English or maybe French appearing are now open to people of all ethnicities. Similar to Hamilton’s casting.” This is a perfect example of where I think current casting today is getting it “wrong.” Let me be clear. I have absolutely no problem with minorities as leads. But when you cast black actors in explicitly white roles, particularly when portraying people who actually existed- or vice versa, as the case historically has been- I don’t think it elevates the cinematic/theatrical arts in the long run. It rubs my fur the wrong way because all I can see is a production trying to virtue signal rather than casting the ideal and most convincing person for the part. And yes, race, sex, and other physical factors all play into that. (See my example of why we don’t cast Samuel L. Jackson as Elizabeth Bennet in an otherwise faithful production.) Sexual orientation, in contrast, is not apparent to the naked eye. It can be acted. But a six foot four linebacker cannot convincingly play a debutante any more than a petite wisp of a woman can convincingly play a bodyguard to a man nearly twice her size. No matter how good an actor or actress is, there are going to be some limitations in this regard. Exceptions, yes. For example, Seth MacFarlane’s science fiction sendup of Star Trek, The Orville, has a tiny woman as the head of security, one with the strength of any ten men, no less. But this only works because he has established that this character is an alien from a high-gravity planet, which gives her superhuman strength. So, yes. You can work around limitations of this nature, but they have to be justified within the context of the story. Getting back to race in casting, unless you’re willing to embrace pounds of makeup a la White Chicks or Tropic Thunder– which is considered a big no no now- I just can’t suspend disbelief enough to say, for example, “Okay, the real Alexander Hamilton was a white guy but I’m just going to pretend an actor who is obviously black and not putting on even a minimum of makeup to suggest otherwise is Alexander Hamilton.” Uh uh. It’s not working for me. In all fairness, I haven’t seen the production, but the idea of a hip hop version of American “history” makes my skin crawl. I mean, what would we think of an all-white cast of Porgy and Bess or Cabin in the Sky or Treemonisha? Does diversifying the cast in these cases serve the story and characters, or diminish them? I think a better solution is to have more writers and stories rather than forcing the audience to ignore head-scratching casting decisions that are not adequately justified within a given universe. Of course, a lot of this comes down to artistic tastes. I’m one of those people who can’t stand Shakespeare productions that retain the original Elizabethan English but think it’s bold or cutesy to change the time period and costumes with zero explanations as to why the language sounds like it’s from 1600. There are, of course, adaptations of classics that can “work” provided the jarring elements are altered or justified in a manner that is believable. For example, there is a fascinating 1950s movie I started watching the other day entitled Carmen Jones. It is essentially an all-black cast version of Bizet’s Carmen, but what little I saw of it works because of certain directorial decisions. Namely, the story now takes place in a WW2 parachute factory where the characters speak and sing in English, using lyrics that are appropriate for the chosen setting and time period. See, to me, something like that works because of the believable alterations as opposed to someone just saying willy-nilly, “Let’s pretend all the founding fathers were actually black without giving a reasonable alternative universe explanation for why that is.” I’m not saying any of this to pick on you, Chrisreader. I just thought some of this stuff bears mentioning since irritating over-compensatory behavior has been so prominent in the arts lately. Yes, of course, I want to see more varied roles, characters, and stories that give as many actors as possible the ability to shine… Read more »
Oh I don’t feel picked on at all, don’t worry. Unless someone says something personally mean I never take discussions or exchanges of ideas as a personal affront. I enjoy a good debate and I’m not sure I’m even debating with you on a number of points.
(I hit post too soon)
I understand that filmmakers and others are looking to increase opportunities and make things more diverse but I also have reservations about systems or rules that tell artists ‘thou shalt not”.
The big question is how do you legislate fairness in situations where things are really based on an artist’s taste or vision? Who gets selected for a role has always been subject to the biases of the casting people, Directors and/or producers. How many times has a director cast their ‘muse” because they were sexually attracted to them or gave or built a career for that person because they desired to have or were having a personal relationship? I can think of a million examples from same sex pairings like Jean Cocteau and Jean Marais to David O’Selznick and Jennifer Jones.
“but I also have reservations about systems or rules that tell artists ‘thou shalt not”.”
Same here.
“The big question is how do you legislate fairness in situations where things are really based on an artist’s taste or vision?”
As far as I’m concerned, you don’t. A huge problem with our society today is over-legislation. I find excessive regulations especially irksome in the creative fields. If an artist has a vision that’s totally anachronistic, pretentious, and heaven knows what else, fine. I would certainly never advocate for legislating accuracy or better taste. Let the market decide whether or not their creative production is worth watching.
I do get concerned, however, when extremely influential groups in a field- such as the Academy- start making rules that tamper with artists implementing their creative visions for the sake of virtue signaling or whatever else. True, no one is technically forced to be part of the Academy. But let’s be honest here. You won’t get anywhere without them. We unfortunately don’t live in a cinematic world full of lots of influential indie competition. It’s there and growing, but not nearly enough to prove a real threat to the status quo. As far as awards go, winning an Oscar is really the only one that matters. Sorry, but almost no one with any influence really cares if you won a Heartland Moving Picture Award or a Golden Globe.
So, given the influence of the Academy and the Oscars, it’s devastating they are starting to implement eligibility requirements based on diversity quotas rather than markers of artistic quality. True, what makes a “Best Picture” is entirely subjective. But if you demand X amount of Y character, filmmakers are essentially being encouraged to be superficially inclusive just for the sake of eligibility rather than telling the stories they want to tell. And does anybody really want to watch a movie that is clearly ticking off required boxes rather than one that treats its story and characters organically? As Bill Maher pointed out in that video I mentioned, under the new rules of the Academy, Schindler’s List wouldn’t have qualified for Best Picture. Does anyone see the irony there? Moreover, many classic filmmakers fled communist countries in Europe because they wanted to make films in accordance with their own creative visions rather than in alignment with some other organization’s (or government’s) declared values.
Again, the Academy can’t force filmmakers to follow their new rules. It’s not legal censorship. But when an organization is big and powerful enough to decide whether or not your work can reach a mainstream audience, isn’t that a type of censorship? And considering the major studios are circling the drain, they really ought to set aside their anti-art rules in favor of cranking out movies audiences actually want to watch.
In short, I think there needs to be way more competition like there is now with self-publishing and indie presses. And definitely bring back the system where freelance writers could pitch scripts. Now that camera equipment is cheaper than ever, I hope some enterprising young people start putting up studios and figure out cost effective ways to create indie films that don’t look hopelessly indie because of understandably low budgets. There could be a renaissance like a lot of unique 1970s B-films, but for some reason, it hasn’t really happened yet.
I stopped watching Game of Thrones during the 2nd second season, so it’s been a while since I’ve thought about most of the actors. Which probably sounds weird considering how popular the show became, but I follow entertainment news only sporadically and I’m not on any social media. But I do remember that when I saw a picture of Richard Madden clean shaven and in a suit for the first time I didn’t even recognize him. He looked so young and fresh-faced, and I was shocked to realize that I was looking at the same guy who played Robb Stark.
To me, it’s incredibly distracting if you feel like an actor can’t ”disappear” into a role. Obviously the character design team, costume design team, make up artists etc. have a lot to do with that process as well, but it is the actor who has to bring the character to life and if they can’t do their part for a reason or another it all falls apart. Not that it’s always the actor’s fault – actors get miscast, sometimes it’s just me being out of step with the performance or the whole production and sometimes something that has nothing to do with the actual performance interferes. Like at one point Tom Cruise’s public self/image got so ”loud” that while I highly doubt his acting got any worse or better as a result of it, all I could see when I saw him in a movie was Tom Cruise.
There seems to be actors whose ability to pull off vastly different roles seems to know no limits and actors who end up playing essentially the same role over and over again throughout their careers (perhaps by choice, perhaps by lack of range, perhaps they’re being typecast) and actors who operate somewhere between those two extremities – which is probably the majority of actors. And I think there’s room for all of these types of actors as different types of projects are being done for different types of audiences who, besides having different tastes, have different reasons for watching movies and tv series. It’s just a matter of choosing the right actor for the right role. Except that of course it’s never that simple. Many times selecting actors for a given role is subjective, and since finances are always a question too, rather often how much audience actors can attract matters as well, and sorts of stuff that I can’t probably even begin to imagine.
I do have to say that I’ve always been drawn to actors who seem to delight in taking vastly different roles. I myself have about as much acting prowess as a block of wood and the ability for great transformations has always fascinated me to no end.
One actress I am so impressed with is Eva Green particularly during her work on Penny Dreadful. She is an incredibly beautiful actress who managed to play a ridiculously demanding role of a woman who is occasionally possessed and not only portrayed it without prosthetics but made herself look quite ugly and evil just by manipulating her face and body. It was absolutely stunning work.
I agree about makeup and wardrobe, especially for shows like Game Of Thrones or period pieces it’s essential. But there are also those actors like Daniel Day Lewis and others who can just transform themselves and play across class lines, nationalities and historical periods. I love it when I discover an actor or actress is actually from a completely different country but fooled me by playing their role in a flawless accent.
Thank you for the Penny Dreadful recommendation! I have not seen the series and Eva Green’s performance in it sounds truly impressive. I have only seen Eva Green play smaller parts before, but I’ve always liked her work. And true, she is utterly gorgeous.
Daniel Day-Lewis is indeed incredibly versatile and talented. He also seems to be extremely dedicated to his craft. I’ve read that he has repeatedly immersed himself in a character for several years in preparation and that he strives to never break character when on set. This type of dedication is of course only possible for a select few – not that it makes his achievements any less impressive. It also sounds to me like a taxing way to live.
I think how characters dress, how they wear their hair etc. is very important regardless of the time period. When I think about how people dressed from the 50s to the 90s for example, every decade has its own sense of style and even in productions set in this very day and age the way characters are styled – even if it’s something very simple – always helps me to get a better sense of the characters and consequently helps me to believe in them.
I’ve always wondered how often that happens – mastering a flawless English accent that is. The thing is, when the accent is only very slight – and especially if the speaker is from Northern Europe – I don’t notice it. I’ve figured that actors from non-English-speaking countries who end up working in English and living in English-speaking countries probably lose their accents at some point (if they even had one to begin with), but I’ve never been able to ask anyone if there are many such actors who have managed that.
Speaking of accents, it’s sometimes a bit weird to me when characters from non-English-speaking countries speak accented English in movies. Like the movie is set in Germany (or some part of it is) and the German characters speak accented German to each other. I know that’s how the English-speaking world’s movie industry does things and I’ve watched many excellent movies where exactly that happens – I do not in any way resent it – but it still always causes a moment of disconnect for me before I get used to it.
I am not a fan of beards at all, as I feel like they are too untidy and they feel scratchy. However, I can appreciate a good man-bun, and I am a sucker for a man with long curly hair. Dev Patel is my idea of a complete dreamboat and he seems to rock both the scruffy AND the suited look. He looked divine in period wear in David Copperfield, but he also was unbelievably sexy in Lion, where he was more scruffy looking.
I don’t associate any particular way of dressing or facial grooming or wearing one’s hair with handsomeness/attractiveness. It depends on the person and the occasion. Different looks work for different people and you obviously can’t dress the same way everywhere and anytime, for example. Looking back, the men I’ve found attractive, famous or not, have been – and still are – an eclectic bunch.
But if I had to choose between suited or scruffy, it would be scruffy – I guess that puts me in the minority here. I like all lengths of stubble. I like beards. Not wizard-long ones, but even pretty big beards can work for me. Plus longer beards can be neat and trimmed too, although the untrimmed look can be attractive to me as well. I can think of a whole bunch of long haired men I find attractive. I don’t have any kind of preference hairdo-wise though, anything goes from a buzz cut to waist length – and some men totally rock the bald look too. Chest hair is a big plus. Tattoos are cool, I like them on people, I myself have several, and I’m always interested in the stories behind them, but having tattoos doesn’t make anyone more attractive to me.
But neither does wearing a suit (or being clean-shaven) make anyone less attractive to me. If the occasion or job requires it or it’s the style that a person feels most comfortable wearing in their free time, they should wear a suit and I’ve found men wearing suits handsome. But I’ve also found a bassist in jeans, boots and a sleeveless shirt dripping with sweat while playing a concert just as handsome, for example. And a farmer in rubber boots, threadbare jeans and a turtleneck jumper getting in his tractor – just as handsome. And several horsemen in their riding or driving gear ready to drive or ride or to just shovel shit. And a whole bunch of athletes in their gear in the middle of the game sweaty and grimy. And several actors who look different depending on the project and still somehow always manage to look attractive. And the cashier in the nearby supermarket in an ugly as sin work uniform who is also unfailingly polite, always has a smile and a kind word for everyone, helps the elderly and us disabled folks and genuinely seems to take pride in his work. Etc. There’s something super attractive to me about people doing their thing, following their passion, in the middle of doing what they are good at, what brings them joy and/or satisfaction regardless of how they are dressed and, depending on what they are doing, whether they are even particularly clean while doing it.
I’d also remind all that I said MOST attractive. There are so many ways to be attractive!
You’re right, of course.
And I did end up choosing scruffy over suited for the reasons mentioned in the second part of my original comment. I do want to stress that I’ve found all the men I mentioned in the regrettably long-winded third part handsome in the same way – the yes please, take me now -way based on physical appearance. I explained what they were doing because I thought it made their clothing make more sense – since it was the part of my comment that talks about clothing – and because, as I said, people just shine when they’re doing their thing and succeeding. It seems to be easier for someone as oblivious as me to notice other humans in such situations.
Well said!
I have never seen my DH in the 45 years I have known him without his well shaped and trimmed beard. And I really don’t want to know what he would look like with out it. He has lovely short silver hair with it. And I love him dressed in black tie though we go to far fewer black tie events these days. I also love him in 501s and thick wool jumper/pullover. Fantasy man, though, would be Aidan Turner coming out of the sea or Sam Heughan naked, on the floor in front of a a roaring fire……… *sigh*
It’s hard to pick between them. Good thing you don’t have to!
Sam Heughan looks sooooo much better in his scruffy Outlander styling than he does when he wears suits and slicked-back hair for magazine shoots. I think to me, it’s that one looks like a human, someone you’d really like to touch, and the other looks like an artwork. Which is lovely, aesthetically, but I don’t really want to hook up with an artwork.
The way a hero is described really helps bring him to life for me. Generally, I prefer clean-shaven and well-dressed, although it doesn’t have to be a suit. Historicals are replete with gorgeous, fashionable (but not dandified) dukes who make my heart sing. I love reading about the fabrics, the neckcloths, the jewels, etc. In contemporaries I like a man who has a sense of style and is well-groomed. Grunge doesn’t do it for me at all. After all, who needs reality in a romance novel?
I agree. It’s more about looking pulled together, having made an effort, that I find sexy.
I can’t stand bearded men, especially the long scruffy beard with man-bun that’s still trending right now. All that comes to mind is the food and drink that get stuck in there, ew. Just, no! I de-beard all of Penny Reid’s heroes in her Winston Brothers series. In my mind, they’re all clean shaven.
That is hilarious and charming.
I’m cool with the man bun, but ditch the facial hair. The food and drink issue with long beards has definitely crossed my mind too…
I am firmly non-man bun and have been since this:
Man buns are a huge nope for me. I think it’s a generational thing. I don’t know any women over a pretty young age that like them. Also skinny jeans are a hard no for me. I know I’m showing my age here but I can’t abide a man who looks like he’s in jeggings.
My sons all say dressy joggers are the thing.
Um, I’m 65 and I like man buns.
I loathe tattoos though!
I’m not a tattoo fan either and especially not cliche ones. If you are going to be permanently marked with something it should be special and mean something to you IMHO. Unless you are part of a tribe, tribal tattoos just look like you are a trendy copycat.
You are officially the first lady I “know” over 40 who has admitted to liking a man bun.
I would say that I’ve never been particularly conformist………………
My friends would say that I’m a bit odd at times!
It may be that many actually like man buns but you are one of the few who will step up and say it.
I’m 38 and I like man buns. And on the right man, skinny jeans can look great to me.
I am an old geezer because 38 still seems kind of young to me :0)
:D Everything’s relative, I guess.
I’m 65 and have no problems with man buns. But then, I grew up in the 60’s-70’s and long hair on men was common. And yes, even though it wasn’t a fashion statement back then, there were plenty of braids, ponytails and man buns, especially on men who did physical work. When I worked at the racetrack all of us, male and female, pulled our hair into twists and buns to keep it somewhat clean and out of the way.
I’m old enough to remember part of the 70’s which had, I think, even more long hair technically than the 60’s and I’ve seen tons of ponytail, braids- you name it on men over the years. I don’t ever remember seeing a man bun until relatively recently.
What was it about this picture that turned you off man buns, if you don’t mind my asking? Granted, it’s not Jared’s best look in my opinion either, but I don’t think there’s anything particularly bad about it either.
It’s not so much that specific picture as when he dressed that way for the Oscars, the man bun was suddenly everywhere in the news in the US. I wasn’t a fan then and I’m not a fan now.
BUT, as Jamie Lee Curtis says in Freaky Friday:
Oh, that’s totally understandable. Media overexposure can be annoying even if you like the thing they are covering and I doubt anyone is a fan of being bombarded with something that’s not their thing to begin with.
In defence of man buns (I can’t believe I actually typed that, lol) I also have to say that while to some having one might be a fashion statement or whatever (and as far as I’m concerned people can make all the fashion statements they want, it doesn’t bother me and I don’t really think it’s even any of my business) it is also a practical thing. My ex had long hair and while he liked to wear it free most of the time, there are things you just can’t do without getting your hair into your eyes and mouth and whatever it is you’re doing unless you tie it. So he put it into a bun when he went to work and when exercising, cooking, vacuuming and stuff like that. And also when he wanted to look particularly neat. Ponytail looked awkward on him for some reason and braids was a no go, but he had to tie his hair somehow – just like anyone with long hair.
But man buns with beards are so lovely! I guess the beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. This is one of the reasons why humans are so interesting and wonderful, I find. We are all so different and into such different things.
“We are all so different and into such different things.” Absolutely! And I think it’s nice that romance novels are finally starting to tap into niche desires- whether that means unusual character appearances, unexpected twists on tropes, or non-conventional settings and scenarios. Then, of course, self-publishing allows the rest of us to create our own fantasy characters that others might enjoy reading about.
Not that a man bun would be a determining factor on whether or not I would read a romance novel, but the hero in Hearts on Hold by Charish Reid has one- both in text and on the cover. Beyond that superficial note, it’s a really nice contemporary interracial romance between a college professor heroine and a librarian hero who is caring for his niece (I believe) in her mother’s absence. AAR gave it an “A” review, and I liked it too. :)
I do like stories where a completely masculine man takes on traditional female roles and never stresses about his ‘man card’. I remember a scene in a hockey romance where a player is the guardian for a late relative’s small children, and he’s happily letting a preschool girl paint his nails. I was charmed by that; to me that’s a manly man!
I’ve known a few really big guys who let their little daughters do that. There’s nothing funnier than seeing a huge ex professional athlete with a few glittery painted toenails courtesy of his daughters.
I love that too. Dr. Feelgood LOVES flowered shirts and always has. My brothers just to tease him but he couldn’t give a hang. The more pink and purple, the better!
My hubs lets me dress him in loud shirts all the time; he’s a very big tall man and looks great in flowers! When we met he had white dress shirts, one grey shirt, one light green shirt, and and one blue chambray shirt. Period. Boy, did I get to work on fixing that!
Yes I’ve read some books where the guys were bikers or such with man buns but Hearts on Hold is the only one I remember where the hero was a “professional” a children’s librarian. The heroine kept thinking of him as a big Viking type so I think that’s part of why it worked for me.
“The heroine kept thinking of him as a big Viking type so I think that’s part of why it worked for me.”
Interesting! To me, that Viking description felt a little forced- especially considering the guy on the cover exuded more of a laid-back, beta male vibe. Obviously, the cover design comes after the book is written (don’t judge a hero by the cover model!), but I thought their art department choice was a bit of a mismatch in that regard. Also, as I’ve said before, I’m definitely in the minority here in that the traditional manly man types (Vikings, washboard abs, tallest guy in the room, etc.) typically aren’t my thing. Of course, if romance writers tailored to my unusual tastes, they would probably go broke.
Having said all that, I liked both the hero and the heroine. Their personalities really shone through which, to me, made for a fun read- more so than what they looked like.
Yes! I’m so glad things are getting more varied in romance novels. I think it’s important and also takes away from no one but enriches everyone.
I have found such wonderful books from self published authors’ works. There are really talented writers out there! I’ve been sort of blown away by this because before buying a Kindle a few years back when I started to read romance novels I’d only had pretty disappointing experiences with self-published books. That couldn’t be farther from the case when I think about the self-published books I’ve read since then.
I liked Hearts on Hold too. Both the hero and heroine were beautifully fleshed out characters and the way the hero John was described in the book made him sound totally gorgeous. I thought the occupations of the main characters made the story particularly interesting and it was also nice to have a well-written adult character with ADD.
Honestly, one of the reason I haven’t read that series is the beards. Even though my brother has had a beard all his adult life and that’s fine, I don’t like them on my husband or in romances.
Clothes – I feel fit matters the most. I think a well fit suit on any man instantly increases his level of hotness. Similarly for casual, I like jeans to be well fit with a T-shirt or button down on top, especially with sleeves rolled up (forearms!). Baggy shirts and jeans – not attractive. I also am not a fan of the trend of joggers on men, at least when worn outdoors.
Facial hair – I like clean shaven or scruff but am not a fan of beards and despise goatees, mustaches, sideburns and any other weirdly shaven facial hair.
Forearms! This is what I call arm candy…
In books/movies/graphic arts/entertainment, etc., it depends on the person and whether that person can carry off the look, their role, or the circumstances. One actor I think is more attractive with facial hair is Tom Burke: compare his Three Musketeer Athos look to his clean-shaven photos where he looks so much younger and far less edgier.
IRL, my preference is probably somewhere in between, but leans more toward casual and comfortable but not slovenly attire. I’m from a lower middle class blue collar family where people really didn’t have a reason to dress up that much, and I married an electrical engineer who often works in the field (wearing suits is not practical for his job and not something he wears well even when he dresses up for a special occasion). He’s a big, burly guy. He doesn’t have the kind of build that will ever be thin or lean, so he always looks a bit rumpled even when he’s put on something sharp and crisp. Hubby isn’t a beard guy, either, which is good, because while I might admire a well groomed beard on another man, I prefer him clean-shaven (and that is his preference, too).
You can still look neat and clean in working man’s clothes. Obviously some jobs are going to get the guy filthy so old clothes are probably best for that. But if a handyman shows up at my house with saggy and ragged jeans and shaggy hair and a scraggly beard….Nope! Just a big fat nope! from me. It sounds like your guy manages to look well groomed even with a blue collar job.
I see that Chris Pine made both lists!
In general, the Chrises clean up nicely!
What drives me absolutely crazy is to see in real life–or even worse, in a movie–a couple out on a date where the woman is dressed beautifully and the man (boy, really) is dressed as if he just rolled out of bed. It reflects the crisis in our country of delayed maturity of men who are not going to college in the numbers that women are, who are not married until the mid-thirties (at that), and who delay parenthood and maturity, in general, as long as possible. We have no movie or TV stars or singers who are not glorified boys. The “scruff look” is just one more indication of no real expectations by our society of males.
I have three sons whom I’ve hectored about just this. If your girlfriend is dressing up, damnit, so should you. And, more or less, it seems to have worked.
“We have no movie or TV stars or singers who are not glorified boys.”
I’d go farther than that and say that there really aren’t any young and/or upcoming movie stars who are distinctive- whether male or female. All the character actors are either dying or dead. Too many young actors and actresses these days all look alike, like they dropped in from a planet inhabited entirely by Hallmark Movies. While I don’t have any particular problem with the pop star look (as indicated by my comment above), I’d like to see a much greater variety of types.
Honestly, with all the self-publishing that’s going on now and big movie studios struggling to make ends meet, I don’t know why indie cinema hasn’t caught on, on a big scale. Yes, I realize there are indie studios and filmmakers, but they have almost no access to mainstream theaters or streaming venues compared to their much larger counterparts. What’s up with that? Especially now that filming equipment has gotten cheaper and cheaper (Tangerine was filmed entirely with an iPhone). There’s no shortage of people wanting to be actors either. Personally, saying (insert A-list celebrity here) stars in a film does nothing for me- especially with all the clonelike actors today. I’m far more interested in: a) What’s the story about?, b) How good’s the writing?, and c) What are the characters like? As Jimmy Walker once said (paraphrase from memory), “Almost anyone can be a moderately talented actor. You just have to be in the right place at the right time and know the right people.” Seriously, Hollywood, hire freelance screenwriters with good scripts, pluck some random but fitting guys/gals out of Central Casting, focus more on storytelling than politics, and you could make decent movies again.
I believe a lot of the problem with the sameness we see in movie and/or TV actors today has to do with dynasties and bureaucracy. Dynasties in the sense that some mediocre actors are only in the business because they are the offspring of actors who had actual talent, and bureaucracy in the sense that gone are the days of freelance writers being able to pop into a studio to pitch an idea or complete script with a minimum of red tape. It’s interesting to me that as the publishing world is opening up due to innovations like KDP, the cinematic world is becoming more closed-shop.
The one actor I can think of lately that really struck me as grownup looking and not girly or juvenile looking is Holt McCallany. I became aware of him on Mindhunter on Netflix (which is sadly not being produced anymore). It’s first season is set in the 1970’s and for some reason this actor who plays Bill Tench just looked like an actor or a law enforcement person from that era is. He’s not pretty at all but I think he’s very attractive.
I hadn’t heard of Holt McCallany before. Based on the pics I just looked up, I can definitely see him being cast as law enforcement in the 1970s. If he were zapped into the actual era via time machine, he looks like he could make a good Charles Bronson sidekick.
Here’s the thing though- he’s 57. That’s not a criticism, by the way, but it just goes along with what Lynda X and I have been saying about upcoming young actors mostly having the pop star look these days. Personally, I have no problem with the pop star look per se, but a lot of the actors and actresses I run across on TV today lack a compelling distinctiveness of personality or features. I mean, some of the character actors of old were no lookers, but by God they had an on-screen presence.
I think it’s more than even up and coming stars. I can’t even think of ones that are in their 40s to 50’s that didn’t at least start off as pretty before age added some character lines to their faces. I’m including currently popular guys like Keanu, Brad Pitt and Robert Downey Jr. I included Holt because I don’t think he was ever boyish or pretty and I can’t think of others, even in his age range that had a manly rather than boyish look with the exception of John Hamm. He was always stunning but not in a boyish way.
“I think it’s more than even up and coming stars. I can’t even think of ones that are in their 40s to 50’s that didn’t at least start off as pretty before age added some character lines to their faces.”
Well, sure. I wouldn’t expect a 20 year old to look like a 40 or 50 year old. And I have no problem with pretty! But my point is, even when Keanu Reeves and Robert Downey Jr were young, they had distinctive looks and personalities on screen. They had a kind of star power from the start- a strong potential, if you will. That’s in contrast to my channel surfing today where so many of the young actors and actresses have more of a bland sameness about them (and the program content also, while we’re at it). Really, the last young actress I can think of who stood out to me was Anne Hathaway, who is now 38. Also, Rami Malek, whom I was shocked to learn is 39. Granted, I’ve kind of given up on modern movies and TV for various reasons, but even so, there hasn’t been an up and coming person in their late teens or twenties that made me stop and say, “Wow! There’s an actor/actress to keep an eye on.”
Just to clarify, this isn’t a look or appearance issue for me so much as someone exuding a powerful, unforgettable, and unmistakable on-screen presence. True, doing so can require maturity- which could be part of the reason why all the really good actors I can think of are older- but I don’t believe that necessarily has to be the case. But when I see the direction new movies and young “stars” are going, I am a bit disappointed. Don’t even get me started on the declining quality of cinematic storytelling, or we’ll be on this thread for weeks…
Oh! I take that back. I enjoy Emma Kenney (age 21) in The Connors, think she does a fantastic job playing a snarky, sarcastic snot trying to strike out on her own. Considering it’s the only thing I’ve seen her in, I don’t have a sense of her range. But she’s definitely what I would call “distinctive” and hope to see her take on some big projects down the road. Unfortunately, I think her unique looks will make finding work difficult in an industry often hung up on conventional forms of attractiveness rather than talent and characterization.
I am old and cranky enough to think ‘if you are going to be photographed, make an effort.’ That said, if you’re being photographed for a fitness magazine or a celebrity profile, wear whatever you want.
I don’t find long beards appealing, because to me a man’s neck/throat are a sexy zone. A well-trimmed beard that lets me see the shape of a man’s face and neck: no problem. A mustache alone is uncommon these days, but I have liked them in the past. ;-) Some current cover models I’m seeing with a squared-off overgrown Van Dyke: ick.
Clothes: depends on context. I don’t require a guy to look the same on the red carpet and in a casual snapshot. Clean, yes. A well-fitted suit is remarkably effective on almost everyone, but so is a nice pair of jeans with a not-too-bulky sweater. Oversized sports jersey: never.
Body hair: on the front is fine. Hairy back/shoulders, please no. Waxed chest? Eh. Long hair on the head? Well, I fell in love with the husband when he had a ponytail down to his mid-back, but he’s Filipino and it was a nice glossy black tail. (His hair is still almost entirely black at 61, though cut short and no longer as full.) I am not particular about hair on the head. Jason Statham to Jason Momoa, it’s not a deal-breaker.
Muscle development: I prefer a dancer/yogi body to a gym rat. Overdeveloped pecs and obliques do nothing for me. Defined arms, yes please. Basically I prefer to fantasize about men who are in a condition at least equivalent to me, and I’m not too bad for 55. LOL
Given that I *am* old and cranky, cover models who are too youthful for the part annoy me. But in general, a good-looking man makes my day better so I am really not too picky!
Beard, beard, beard, beard. All the way.
Hmm… It seems like I’m in the minority here. (What else is new? ;-)) But from an aesthetic perspective, I actually prefer long/scruffy hair on men and cleanshaven everywhere else. Ditto to anyone here who said ginormous muscles and tattoos aren’t their thing. Not a fan of piercings either. Overall, I’ve always had more of an appreciation for sleek, trim androgyny than traditional markers of manliness. Think somewhat effeminate “twinks,” and you’re in the right ballpark.
Definitely clean shaven. I really dislike that scruffy look unless it’s there for a reason—like you’ve been stranded in the woods for a week. Since I mostly read historicals, torn jeans and ripped T-shirts don’t often come into it, but I like elegant clothes in any period. Incidentally, Aiden Turner’s scruff in Poldark really annoyed me. He was the only gentleman in Cornwall who couldn’t get a decent shave?
Like a number of other commenters, I dislike the musclebound look. I prefer lean to bumpy.
He looked damn good clean shaven in And Then There Were None.
Yes indeed!
And in a towel ;)
“gets up and gets a glass of ice water”
In that era men of rank often shaved twice a day, if they had an evening event or something. I only watched the first season and was put off by the scruff also. I know a lot of men have sensitive skin and shaving is irritating to them, but in a period piece like Poldark its pretty essential. On the Outlander show Jamie is never clean shaven anymore, and it the books he shaves all the time even living on the frontier.
Yep. The current vogue for designer stubble on historical romance covers is annoying in that respect.
“designer stubble” LOL! I know what you mean. Then again, older romance covers with the hero’s chest partially exposed usually had him anachronistically cleanshaven…
I started watching Poldark because I find Aiden Turner very easy on the eye, but I gave up after a few episodes. I watched the original series when it was broadcast years ago and felt it was much better cast.
Suits or jeans doesn’t matter, but while I like toned bodies, I do not like muscle-bound. When a hero is described as having a thick neck and huge biceps, it’s frankly a turn-off for me. Also, facial hair- moustaches and beards are a no. I fine with other men having them, but my husband is clean shaven for a reason. I don’t find it appealing to kiss a hairy mouth.
I prefer men to be clean-shaven, but damn if a bearded Christoph Waltz didn’t look sexy in Django Unchained.
The neither-here-nor-there look of a five o’clock shadow has never worked for me, though. Or, for that matter, ripped jeans. Tattoos… maybe. I found the ones in Kushiel’s Dart beautiful, so if the tattoo is artistic, restrained and serves a purpose other than to indicate bad-boy status, I’d be okay with it.
On covers: the scruffy look every time—stubble, chest hair, tattoos, Yum! In real life: suited and shaved (or a neatly-trimmed beard). Yep—there’s a reason we have a fantasy life!
I generally go for the clean-shaven besuited look (that top left pic of Jamie Dornan? Swoon…) although I’m not averse to a bit of what we used, in the 80s, to call “designer stubble”, or a well-fitting pair of jeans (sans rips) and T-shirt/shirt etc. Not a fan of the full beard, but it does depend on who’s sporting it and how “full” it is – I’m definitely not a fan of the ZZ-Top look! Not a fan of tattoos either.
One person I always say looked better with a scruff/beard is Kit Harrington. As Jon Snow on game of Thrones he was stunning. In real life, meh.
I don’t think that I have a preference for what clothes men wear, as long as they’re worn by the right guy, in the right place, at the right time! I have more of a problem with size, as men were generally slighter in my younger days. Whilst I can appreciate a taut, well-muscled body, I don’t like the huge, pumped-up muscles of many current MCs. ‘Massive thighs’ are a turn-off for me!
Beards are something else that I’ve had to struggle with – and as I read mainly m/m romance there’s often at least one involved. Young men have been clean-shaven or stubbly throughout my life – only grandads had beards – so I’ve found it quite hard to adjust. I think that I’ve now got to grips with short beards, haha. Before the pandemic the ‘hipsters’ in London were sporting quite long beards which I still find problematic……..
Neat and clean shaven, absolutely! I grew up at the tail end of the Cary Grant and Gregory Peck era, where movie stars were always shaved, suited, and rather dapper. My dad was career Army, so he was always neatly coiffed and dressed, too. To me, that’s manly. This current trend of scruffy faces, shaggy hair, and ripped jeans is just not appealing to me. And tattoos are just plain ugly for the most part.
Having said all of this, my husband has a long beard and long hair and he didn’t even wear a suit when we go married. I adore him, but damn. I wish he’d shave!!