Fictional characters express the stereotypes (and politics) of the authors and the system that put on the show.  Emotional reactions to fictional and imaginary people are different than to real people.  Shows like this are cleverly constructed to evoke particular emotions.  They remind us of real feelings.  They don’t evoke real feelings, they invoke real memories.

Psychology studies the observable and the provable, or at least the falsifiable.  Literary reviews are something else, and should not be confused with reality.

Reality is not pitched to particular demographic, TV is.

It’s kind of like psychoanalyzing Hamlet; There’s a tradition of doing it, but you can’t trust the results and the patient doesn’t get better.

I don’t watch Mad Men—I don’t think I currently have it in me to be exposed to that much rank sexism and womanizing, even in great TV. 

But my favourite example of this of all time?  Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights.  Reviewers in the 1850s knew the guy was bad.  Critics now know the guy is bad.  Tortured, tragic, maybe not born bad—but he’s still bad.  The novel contains a character who believes that Heathcliff is just a romantic tortured soul and she can redeem him, and he marries her and then tortures her until she runs away, which you’d think would serve as a reality check on readers who want to think he isn’t bad. 

But there are still readers—mostly women, I’d guess—who are FANATICAL about how romantic Heathcliff is and how Catherine just didn’t appreciate him and she’s the real villain and blah, blah, blah.  It utterly fascinates me.  It’s kind of depressing.

He’s also *really* good-looking.  I mean, seriously.

I like Mad Men a lot, mostly for the standard feminist reasons.  The patriarchy hurts absolutely everybody, in a wide variety of ways, and the show takes its time playing around with all of it.  And I think that showing the exact ways Don’s emotional crippling harms him makes him a more sympathetic character than he would be if we just saw him cheating on his wife out of a sense of privilege.  He’s doing that, but he’s also reacting to it with a kind of dumb horror even as he keeps repeating the same wretched actions.

Again, sympathetic =/= crushworthy, but it helps a little to bridge the gap between “hot villain” and “understandably flawed protagonist.”

It probably also helps that, of the male cast, Don’s actually on the *less* reprehensible end of the scale.

He may be an asshole with everyone else, but once he realizes how well you know him, how much you understand him, surely he’ll be different with you! There’s nothing some women like better than a project, and an asshole can be just that.

Eh, just reads like post-facto rationalization to me. He’s a sexy dude, so women wanna fuck ‘im, and they come up with whatever story to tell themselves to make that okay in spite of the obvious reasons not to do that. I mean, it’s nothing different from anything guys do. Hell you could probably call it the women’s version of Nice Guyism.

Dan - Yeah, that was always why I did it.  (shame)

I am a sucker for the “asshole with a heart of gold” in fiction. I love Josh Lyman on the West Wing; I love Al Swearingen on Deadwood; I love Mal on Firefly; and hell, I love Don Draper on Mad Men.

HOWEVER.

I would never, ever want to date any of these men. I just want to swoon over them in the privacy of my own living room.

Now, why do I feel this way? I think it’s partly the “I could change him” thing—that you imagine he would act differently if he truly loved someone. I also think it’s that these characters are often the LEADING male roles in their respective shows. The shows are designed around these men; whether they’re always depicted as good guys isn’t the point—they’re what everyone else pivots around. Who doesn’t want to be with the most interesting guy in the room?

Plus, good guys don’t make for good television. (Sam Seaborn? Seth Bullock? No thank you.) But that doesn’t mean they don’t make for good partners.

ugh, I couldn’t stand Mal - hot as he undoubtedly was.  I wanted Wash.  Oh my yes.

career women who have house husbands

Oh, that’s me. Not even with a rental dick. Extrapolate from that as much as you please.

The Nice Guys tend to forget that men are just as apt to do the ‘project’ thing - it’s simply a gender-cast version of being The Rescuer. I, and only I, am special and attractive enough to take this crazy asshole and win them over into being a magical prince(ss)!

Actually, the whole cast of Firefly was so sexy that I’d at least consider having sex with any of the crew, regardless of gender.

The second season Don Draper/Dick Wittman reveals ...I don’t want to tell you, Amanda. You must watch it.

The Nice Guys tend to forget that men are just as apt to do the ‘project’ thing - it’s simply a gender-cast version of being The Rescuer. I, and only I, am special and attractive enough to take this crazy asshole and win them over into being a magical prince(ss)!

I will happily attest to falling into that trap.  Find a cute girl, crush on her, try to win her over by proving you’re better than the competition, realizing she’s not that into you, getting all emo and mopping for a bit, meeting a new girl, lather, rise, repeat.

As for Firefly, that show was just jam packed with hotties.  It’s a really tough call over who is more doable - Inara or Kaylee.  Just total win all around.

January Jones or Maggie Siff?

I’d favor Ms. Jones, but only if she’d let me play with that hat.

As for Firefly, that show was just jam packed with hotties.

Good grid, yes. The slash writes itself!

The idea that a woman could be attractive to a man because she’s his equal (or in Rachel’s case, far superior) and challenges him is increasingly a given, especially in more sophisticated places.  Watching someone react to it like it’s a revelation is thought-provoking.

Especially since these people seem to have never seen a single Katharine Hepburn/Spencer Tracy movie.  Jesus, this stuff was in the popular culture 60 years ago!

Off the “Mad Men” topic, on the “Firefly” topic.  I have proof that my husband is better than all of yours—he’s declared Friday nights to be “Firefly Fridays” and we’re re-watching all of the episodes in the correct (not broadcast) order.  So nyah.

OH come on! Simon! Young hot brilliant and he devoted his life to saving his sister. I’m totally with Kaylee on that!

Wash was cute though.

The Rescuer scenario is tailor-made for beta males, because a) there are so many men out there beating up on women either metaphorically or literally, so there are plenty of helpless females to save, and b) so many normal reactions are pathologized when women have them, so there are just oodles of things to fix. Oh, and c) working to help your partner with all of her troubles is a perfect excuse for not dealing with any of your own.

Nope, never did that, not me. Never got called on it, nope.

Don Draper may be sexist because it’s presumed that he expects Betty to be faithful while he galavants with numerous women, and he’s an asshole because he’s fucking people behind Betty’s back, but I disagree with his characterization as a completely sexist wolf. He doesn’t see all women as merely fuckable fuck-bots or unfuckable fuck-bots, while it’s quite obvious that a hell of a lot of other men in the office do. He consorts with women who want to fuck him, and who are well aware of what they’re getting into. Correct me if I’m forgetting any of his trysts, but I don’t think any of the women expect anything but a booty call with Draper. He doesn’t promise a long-term relationship or leave them high and dry or lie about leaving his wife or anything. He may express genuine uncertainty about whether he wants to stay with Betty, and he fantasizes about going out of town with a few of the women, but he doesn’t outright lie about his marriage (whether by promising divorce or pretending not to be married) just to get into somebody’s pants.

I’m fascinated by the way he interacts with Peggy and Joan. Peggy is young and attractive and unfortunately living in the 1960s, which means that many of the other office boors catcall and make innuendos and all that junk. But Draper doesn’t. He treats her professionally, and in fact mentors her, to help her succeed in an area of business that women at the time rarely entered. Her gender or sexual attractiveness is a non-issue for Draper. She’s smart and ambitious, and that’s what he sees.

Similarly, Joan is obviously the most sexually desired woman in the office. She expertly performs femininity in order to thrive in that environment. Again, however, Draper never makes any of the comments that other men in the office make about her appearance or sexual availability. To him she’s simply a capable office manager, and Draper never flirts with her or disparages her for what she is or what others perceive her to be.

Plus, yeah, he is fucking hot.

I am a sucker for the “asshole with a heart of gold” in fiction. I love Josh Lyman on the West Wing; I love Al Swearingen on Deadwood; I love Mal on Firefly; and hell, I love Don Draper on Mad Men.

Interesting, as a fan of both WW and FF, my first instinct was to question whether Josh and Mal belong on that list. Both are basically good people, idealists who care about their fellow human beings and tend to do the right thing despite their flaws. Both are also arrogant, unscrupulous and occasionally mean, but I think they’re fundamentally decent blokes. Maybe that’s where the asshole with a heart of gold idea comes in, but from what (comparatively less) I know about MM and Deadwood, doesn’t seem to apply to the other two.

I prefer to think of them as complicated characters, but on reflection, you have a point.

Has anyone considered the fact that modern day self-described feminist women may be attracted to Don Draper because he’s, y’know, an actor cast to play the role of a man who is a product of his time (and a bit of a player, as he’d be called today), who is supposed to be regarded sympathetically by the audience, otherwise the whole thing doesn’t work?  And that most actors (especially actors meant to play sympathetic protagonists) are good looking?  And that, in addition to dramatic success and “quality entertainment”, A&E;probably wants to reel in viewers the same way most TV shows have always relied on reeling in viewers—by presenting attractive people in sexy situations.

Nobody would EVER do a story on the mystery of why men are attracted to X actress whose famous character doesn’t share their outlook or moral standards. 

I don’t watch Mad Men—I don’t think I currently have it in me to be exposed to that much rank sexism and womanizing, even in great TV.

For what it’s worth, Mad Men has its feminist moments.  Firstly because the sexism is meant to be seen for what it is (even if the characters themselves don’t).  And secondly because one of the major narrative themes of the show is the huge cultural change that took place during the 60’s.  In the first season we saw Peggy Olsen make the move from secretary to copywriter.  Now we’re seeing her face all the challenges of being a woman in a male-dominated workplace with no concept of sexual harassment or politically correct (or even sensitive) behavior.  We’re seeing various characters deal with the idea of divorce and single parenthood.  We’re seeing some of the more blatant womanizers on the show (including Don) get their asses handed to them for their behavior.  We’re also seeing a few very dimly impending changes with an interracial relationship and a closeted gay man.  Mad Men is vehemently NOT a glorification of the post-war “good old days” via modern day d00d culture.

Oh, and for my armchair media crit analysis of why Don is the way he is—his particular “the patriarchy hurts everyone” boot to the teeth is that what he really wants is a woman who is his equal.  But the patriarchy won’t let him have that openly, so he’s got the pretty doll at home and an artist, entrepreneur, or entertainment industry power broker (depending on where we are in the story so far) on the side.

Don Draper may be sexist because it’s presumed that he expects Betty to be faithful while he galavants with numerous women, and he’s an asshole because he’s fucking people behind Betty’s back, but I disagree with his characterization as a completely sexist wolf.

BTW there’s a long tradition of the clueless mainstream media assuming for some reason that the primary feminist issue is our disapproval of extramarital affairs.  I remember a lot of scoffing in the news media during the Lewinsky era about how surely Clinton’s actions would force feminists to leave the Democratic party en masse.  Uh… Wha?

Honestly, as a feminist, I don’t really give a crap who fucks who and whether they’re married.  As a human being, I think that couples should be able to trust each other, and it’s always important to keep your word.  But I don’t regard those as feminist concepts, particularly.

opopnax, well said on all counts.  i completely agree.
i am enamored of don draper as much as anyone else, but i also would never date him if he were a real person.

mad men is a great show in part because it examines the time period and how culture affected various different groups.

also, what cycles said with regard to don’s assholeism vs every other guy on the show’s assholeism.  i think that don being able to mentor peggy, in spite of her vagina, displays a greater regard for the capabilities of women than most of the dudes at sterling cooper.

I don’t swoon over Don, because I was never into he-men types, pretty or not. Actually none of the male characters strike me as Teh Hotness, because they’re all so much less preferable than the guys I actually know now, the ones who grew up with feminism. My mom worked in offices like that, for men like that, and I grew up on her stories, and feel no nostalgia whatsoever. She was a lot like Peggy, in fact. Which makes me want to watch a lot more than the pretty clothes and cool cars.

And being a child of the early 70s, I *remember* what this show can’t show you, which is that when everyone smoked, everything…everything…smelled nasty. Don and Betty’s house, the offices, the planes, the beautiful clothes all reeked, to high heaven, of stale cigarettes. I wonder if the downturn in perfume sales nowadays is accounted for by not having to mask that ashtray odor anymore.

Opoponax: exactly.

All in all, the whole thing interested me because while I love the character Don Draper, the only thing I find attractive about him is his looks.

He’s also *really* good-looking.  I mean, seriously.

Plus, yeah, he is fucking hot.

If we regendered this, there’d be no need for other analysis.  But we don’t acknowledge that sort of attraction among women, so everyone falls over themselves to produce some theory about why women find some men attractive that preserves the fiction that the average-looking guy (and part of the fiction is that every last guy is at least average-looking) could be this desired too, if only he acted like the guy on the show.

Honestly, as a feminist, I don’t really give a crap who fucks who and whether they’re married.  As a human being, I think that couples should be able to trust each other, and it’s always important to keep your word.  But I don’t regard those as feminist concepts, particularly.

They’re feminist concepts only inasmuch as there has been and continues to be a double standard around them.  The notion that men can demand fidelity from their wives while failing to practice it themselves, and that this is right or normal and the wife has to just deal with it instead of getting angry and/or ending the relationship, is very much a product of patriarchy.

But certainly, I don’t think monogamy is a feminist ideal per se.

Mnemesonye: My husband’s better than yours. WHen we first started dating, he already owned the box set of Firefly. A few months into our relationship, he convinced me to begrudgingly watch the first episode. I would have never even heard about it without him.

As compensation, I crocheted him a Jayne-hat, and we’re considering naming our firstborn Malcolm (it’s lower on the shortlist)

And then we bought his little brother (14) the NERF sniper rifle, which he named Vera. The geekiness, it runs in the family!

And for anyone who’s a fan of Firefly, you should watch Chuck. It’s silly, and Adam Baldwin’s stunts totally make it worthwhile.

As guys on MM go, Don’s no Pete.  His redeeming qualities demonstrate one of the things I’ve always disliked about the show - nudge nudge, wink wink, feminism’s coming whether you want it or not.  I’ve begun to like Pete more and more this season, since he’s been able to display that he’s not just mean, but he’s mean and also human.  He goes way beyond the pale regularly, but that doesn’t invalidate all of his feelings.  Don has limits regardless of where his ego would like to take him.  I always figured that he stays above the Joan-ogling fray out of respect for the fact that she’s had a long-standing relationship with Roger, and he keeps his affairs mostly simple and sex-based, excluding Rachel, to whom he seems genuinely attracted and even proposed running away with.  We know that Dick Whitman is capable of doing such a thing, even as Rachel thinks he’s Don Draper and simply trying an immature trick to get back into her pants.

Even worse: I am desperately attracted to Roger Sterling.  And it is definitely because he’s an asshole (although his pretty, pretty face and silver hair would be enough on their own).  I do not know where this comes from.

I *remember* what this show can’t show you, which is that when everyone smoked, everything…everything…smelled nasty.

I think about this every time a character lights up in a beautiful room.  And I grew up well into the “smoking is bad for you, duh!” era, surrounded by nonsmokers.  Which makes the blight of the horrid cigarette smell even more noticeable to me.

I’ve begun to like Pete more and more this season, since he’s been able to display that he’s not just mean, but he’s mean and also human.

What fascinates me about Pete is the way that 99% of his inhuman assholishness boils down to very severe masculinity and self-confidence issues, and this desperate need to be accepted by the idiotic good ole boys network around him.  It’ll be interesting to see what he does 5+ years down the road, when we get into the real 60’s where suddenly it’s all about challenging that stuff.  Will he drop out?  Will he be doubly angry at the hippies for advocating what he never had the self-confidence to do?

Also I love that it’s Connor.

Remember that the show is set fifty years in the past.  Don Draper is, in a way, a modern man who is trapped in this insane world of misogyny.  There is something deep within him that is horrified by it, yet he cannot break free from it. 

It would be like if someone came from fifty years in the future and told you that the air was poisonous.  It would eat at you, but in the end you can’t stop breathing.

All in all, the whole thing interested me because while I love the character Don Draper, the only thing I find attractive about him is his looks.

...and maybe that’s all that’s necessary. I mean, if you’re just fantasizing about a guy, who the fuck cares if the character he plays on TV is an asshole, or even if he himself as a human being is an asshole, since you’ll probably never meet him or talk to him, much less date him?

I recently was talking to guy friends and they were very adamant about how ‘hot’ Palin was (and these are people who are voting Obama). I kept insisting that nononono she was not hot, and that if you met her in a bar you’d walk away the second she opened her mouth and started going on about how perfect her family was, not to mention her atrocious political views. The point was… so what? The beauty of objectifying someone sexually is that you don’t care what kind of person they are, that you’re just using their image for sexual gratification (even if it’s just a mental stimulation and not an all out “I’ll be out in a minute” session).

And beyond that, it’s possible to Love a Character in a show precisely because they’re a horrible person, and if they happen to be hot, that’s just gravy. I adore the guys in Always Sunny in Philadelphia because they’re such horrible people. I really like the character of Al in Deadwood because he was such a mustache-twirling prick, and I love Jayne from Firefly because he’s a complete trainwreck, and um, yeah, he’s pretty hot.  I haven’t yet watched Mad Men (It’s on the list) but I’m sure I’ll be transfixed by Draper if he’s well written and compelling.

The point is that not everyone inserts themselves into the narrative, it is possible to appreciate bad people, hot people, and bad people who are really hot without writing mental fanfics where you Fix Them And Make Them Love You.

“which means they’re such a teeny tiny minority that you can’t extrapolate anything from their behavior”

Whoops, a piece of evidence doesn’t agree with our preconceived notions, so we must rationalize it away!

If you’re upsetting yourself about what kind of fictional characters are popular with the people you’re attracted to, and why, and whether you can be more like them, you need a serious shot of self-esteem.

I realize the idea that Nice Guys are in need of self-esteem is utterly unheard of. I’m just putting it out there.

“Plus, good guys don’t make for good television”

Oh, I know.  Who wants to watch a good man trying to do good things?  That’s why shows like “CSI”, “Law and Order”, “Without a Trace”, “NCIS”, and “Criminal Minds” are all ratings disasters.

The interesting thing about MM so far, Mighty Ponygirl (for me anyway) is that I’m able to both insert myself and also stay detached.  I root so hard for Peggy and Salvatore, and usually Harry, and totally lusted after Rachel last
season (one of the funnier permutations of my bisexuality is that I’m rarely interested in male actors “in that way”, aside from Gael Garcia Bernal).  But then I’m also just curious about where the show will take characters like Pete, Paul,  and Joan who I don’t like as people but find interesting in a character development and narrative sense.

Whoops, a piece of evidence doesn’t agree with our preconceived notions, so we must rationalize it away!

Personally, I have a slightly more interesting idea about why all these accomplished women lust after Donald Draper (I mean aside from “he’s hot, duh”).  The thing about Don is that he doesn’t cheat on his wife with hookers, or a secretary, or the dim little models who get lost on the way to the casting office, or the divorcee down the block.  He has affairs with accomplished and powerful women, women that the women who supposedly lust after Don probably identify with more than they identify with Betty Draper or Joan Holloway, or even Peggy Olsen.  Don Draper, as a character, is a man who would want them and want them for who they are, not in the role of cloistered housewife or servile secretary.

Very few powerful alpha male television characters openly lust after strong and ambitious women, and get them, , and want them just the way they are rather than forcing them to put on a cutesy role.

One of the commenters over at Feministe had it nailed: Cuttingly noting the obvious, she remarked that, duh, maybe all of us out there differentiate between what we want in our real romantic and sex lives and what we want in our fantasy lives.  I’d bet good money that most of us on this thread, at one time or another, have been turned on by something or someone which, if given the choice in reality we would say no to.  Why should this Draper character be any different?

And as to the housewife/househusband thing, I can’t shake the feeling that reducing your partner to a maid and daycare provider will kill romance, and will ramp up your attraction to (wo)men in your workplace who have more in common with you.  (Add to that the fact that workplace attractions have, for many, the additional spice of being forbidden on the one hand and having the zest of uncertain outcome, opposed to the mandatory/inevitable nature of domestic sexuality, on the other .)  I’m not saying it’s right.  I’m saying it’s common.  The unexpected and unhappy discovery of many househusbands is the experiencing the searing contempt for homemakers that had, until recently, been reserved for women imprisoned in the home; about the only difference is that the differing expectations placed on men mean that they get more contempt for not being “successes”.

about the only difference ...

Having thought about that for a short while more I realize I forgot to include the whole “guys get a cookie for things that women do routinely” dynamic/praise.  Conceded in advance.  The difference is guys changing diapers are not a lust object in our culture, and that plays into/helps program what women find sexy.  (Welcome back to the interactivity of the metaculture!)

I seem to remember that Larry Tate, the original adman from back in the day, got ALL the poontang.

The Opo—exactly. Having a healthy fantasy life requires that you divorce that life from your reality. If a compelling character from a television show has you building a narrative in your head about how you two would interact, it’s more than likely because it’s about as far removed from your real life as dragons and telepathic unicorns.

And I maintain that 99% of it is attractiveness. If Don Draper were played by the dude who’s that skeezy puppetmaster guy from Heroes, I doubt there would be as much (if any) oohing and ahhing over his character. Hollywood figured this out long ago.

Also, Killjoy—about your Heathcliff bit. I like to view Wuthering Heights as sibling rivalry/oneupsmanship between the Bronte sisters. Charlotte wrote Mr. Rochester and thought she wrote a really fabulous prick of a man to be the romantic lead, and Emily turns around and writes about Heathcliff. By the By, have you read any of the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fford? If you’re well-read at all in Vic Lit, it’s a lot of fun. Esp. the scene in Lost in a Good Book when the entire cast of Wuthering Heights has to go to Anger Management Therapy.

And beyond that, it’s possible to Love a Character in a show precisely because they’re a horrible person, and if they happen to be hot, that’s just gravy. I adore the guys in Always Sunny in Philadelphia because they’re such horrible people.

Since everyone’s already said what I wanted to say about Mad Men (and I’m going as a Sterling Cooper executive for Halloween mainly so I can wear a gray suit that actually fits), I have to riff on this remark because I’m glad to find someone else who also likes Always Sunny.

What makes that show even more interesting is that it isn’t just the guys who are horrible.  Deandra was originally intended to be a foil: the sensible (female) character who is above what the guys do and tells them what they do is wrong.  But the writers decided to make her just as bad as the three guys and I think that makes for a much better show.

I know I’m just a dirty blogwhore, but I do have a <a href=“http://www.lippsisters.com>Mad Men blog</a> with a decidedly feminist sensibility. I do a “

Ooooh, Sterling Cooper executive….  Hot.  If only I had a suit….  Maybe I could put something together?  Linneaus, I hope we don’t end up at the same Halloween party this year.  On the other hand, if we do, we could be all, “Ah, Steven, how’s the little lady treating you at home?”  and “Oh, hello there Fred!  Shall I ask the wife to freshen your Old Fashioned?”

Ah, frack.  This is what I get for being a whopping two episodes behind.  Unless you’re talking about Don and Bobby in that hotel room a while back (though he doesn’t rape her, he just ties her up and storms off).

By the By, have you read any of the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fford? If you’re well-read at all in Vic Lit, it’s a lot of fun. Esp. the scene in Lost in a Good Book when the entire cast of Wuthering Heights has to go to Anger Management Therapy.

Yup, I’ve read the series.  I thought the WH bit was kind of a cheap shot, but then I’m a WH fanatic.

I’m with you on Don Draper, Amanda.  The only attractive about him are his looks.  Nice Guys(tm) can’t stand the thought that women can be shallow too so they have to make up these narratives about female masochism that fit nicely with all the evo psych bullshit they also subscribe to.

Oh, I always thought it was funny when the Pro-Caths would try to kill Heathcliff.

Oh, for fuck’s sake. Worst Pandagon post ever.

I fancy the pants off Jon Hamm/Don Draper. As a fictional character Don Draper is complex, interesting, amusingly angsty and has considerable charisma. And he’s played by Jon Hamm, who is among the most handsome men in Hollywood (and a lovely guy IRL, for the record). However, I would run a mile from any married man. I’d also run a mile from any guy with a dual-identity thing and a penchant for lying his face off. IRL, it’s a turn-off. In a fictional space, I don’t fucking care because it doesn’t MATTER. I’m boinking him in my head, not setting up shared bank accounts IRL. 

A friend showed me a picture of young Stalin a few months ago. I told him I’d hit it. This does not reflect a belief in gulags, authoritarian regimes or a need to be sexually dominated by a good-looking future dictator or the lack of self-worth or confidence such a thing might imply. It means he looked hot (surprisingly hot! go see!) and I’m shallow. No need to call my mother or the thought-police or summon a psychiatrist, thanks. I’m 38 and I’ve been having dirty thoughts about unsuitable men since I was about 13. IRL, I’ve been abuser-free. Conflating having the hots for an attractive-looking fictional man with psychological problems is fucking stupid and beyond patronising.

Gah, H., young Joe is exactly my type.  (With men, I have a definite type: short, stocky, hairy, dark-eyed, intense…) With women I tend more toward “breathing.”

A friend showed me a picture of young Stalin a few months ago. I told him I’d hit it.

You should see Children of the Revolution.  Not a perfect movie, but it has its moments and Judy Davis is really good.

what i find sexy and attractive about don draper’s character is the confidence he exudes.  which doesn’t mean he actually feels it, but he’s figured out how to put on a good show.  self-confidence is sexy to me, always has been, and in the case of don draper, jon hamm’s stellar acting goes along way towards creating the charisma.

that said, what i’ve learned in life is sometime guys who appear hawt/confident really are and sometimes they are faking it and are really screwed up inside.  don draper’s character is obviously of the latter category, as is made readily apparent early on in the show.  which kind of kills the attractiveness buzz, other than for jon hamm’s good looks (which are completely undeniable).

IRL, unfortunately, it can take longer to figure out which of the seemingly confident/hawt guys are realloy covering up deep-seated problems and neuroses and therefore RUN RUN RUN away from them, and which are actually really with it and together.  we see some of the female characters on the show (rachel, i’m looking at you) going through this trajectory.

I’m 38 and I’ve been having dirty thoughts about unsuitable men since I was about 13.

Having dirty thoughts about imaginary, long-dead or otherwise totally unavailable men doesn’t say a whole lot about what one would do if confronted with such a man in real life - as has been said over and over. The fact that you will never have to make a decision whether to do anything about those dirty thoughts is part of the attraction, no?

Jon Hamm as Don Draper is absolutely one of the most gorgeous men I’ve seen lately. Wouldn’t want him to be my husband. Lord, if I could pull off being Joan for Halloween…well, possibly Peggy! Thanks for the tip.

Glad to see Mad Men on the page, but I’ve really been wondering what you thought about the last episode, Amanda. Ta-Nahesi Coates has some interesting thoughts *SPOILERS* about Joan’s rape scene, but I’ve been struck by the way everybody characterizes it as Joan being raped for some reason - some have suggested she’s being punished - and almost nobody seems to characterize it as Joan’s fiance raping her.

I mean I guess that’s the same old denial of male agency in rape as always, but I felt it was interesting to see it in such relief.

Re the young Stalin - per Wikipedia’s image of him at 16, I’m gonna say no.  He looks like an asshole, sorry.  Kind of cute (though his eyes are too close together), but he’s got a face that broadcasts “WARNING: TOTAL D-BAG!” from 50 paces.  Though he did get better as a young Marxist, though honestly I think it’s the wild hair, sexy stache, and oh so revolutionary scarf.  Still probably a d-bag though—he looks like the kind of guy I’d spot across the room at a party and resolve to chat up, only to find out he was a libertarian or some stupid shit like that, only affecting the revolutionary aesthetic to score chicks.

And, no, I’m not just saying this because it’s Stalin. 

Can I just say that this has actually got me thinking along the lines of Famous Dictators I Would Totally Screw If I Found Myself On The Wrong Side Of History, or, Well, He’s Nice To Me, OK?!

Three words, Op: Hitler mustache rides.

Personally, I’ve always found it hard to be attracted to fictional characters I find unlikable…

Oh, and even though I’m pretty sure this thread is in its death throes, I have two words for all of you.

Gaius Baltar. 

Hate him with a passion, but want to fuck him with a passion, too.

<i>Ooooh, Sterling Cooper executive….  Hot.  If only I had a suit….  Maybe I could put something together?  Linneaus, I hope we don’t end up at the same Halloween party this year.  On the other hand, if we do, we could be all, “Ah, Steven, how’s the little lady treating you at home?” and “Oh, hello there Fred!  Shall I ask the wife to freshen your Old Fashioned?” <i>

*laugh* Well, Opoponax, since I don’t yet have a party to go to, I doubt we’ll run into each other.  In case that happens, though, I’ll bring my Zippo.

opoponax, i’m with you on gaius baltar.  but with him, as is the case with don draper, i don’t know how much of it that i am so attracted to how well the actor is playing the role, however despicable the character may be.  and of course, that can be applied to ian mcshane as al swearingen in deadwood as well.  i don’t know, i just think that really good actors inhabit their characters with such a charisma, it’s hard to not be affected by it.

My dad says it’s a good thing my mom took up pursuit of him because he always fell for troubled girls and thought he could rescue and change them. And my brother’s ex-wife who he still helps with moves and such is, well, definitely a piece of work.

So I don’t know if it’s just a human tendency or if Patriarchy Hurts Men Too by turning the idea of chivalry into a road to martyrdom for the more sentimental males.