Geeks?

Yesterday, terminal work boredom was relieved somewhat by a lovely email from my gorgeous wifey, Karen. Knowing I have a slight penchant for breakfast TV cleavage queen, Lorraine Kelly, Karen had supplied a link to a feature on MSN Entertainment about “Geek Chic”.

The feature, although not particularly in-depth, called us all to celebrate the oddballs and misfits of the celebrity world – the stars that we are “afraid to admit [we] fancy”. On the face of it this seems a great idea. Anything that bounces people out of the size zero hero-worship that taints modern society has got to be a good thing, right?

And yes, having scanned through the list of misfit celebrities there are plenty that can be termed geeks and misfits: David Gest, Louis Theroux, Jade Goody... I could go on.

But there are plenty on the list that I think are not geeks or misfits at all. They just don’t adhere to the stick-thin ethos of the media and fashion world. Lorraine Kelly, Fern Britton, Kirstie Allsopp – all highly attractive women (in my opinion) and eminently fanciable. Hubba hubba, etc.

So why does bucking the size zero trend automatically label you a geek? Or even a misfit? Why should I be ashamed to say that I think Lorraine Kelly or Kirstie Allsopp are attractive women? There are countless men (and women) out there who’d be glad to tickle Lorraine Kelly’s fancy on the GMTV sofa or give Kirstie Allsopp a quick look at their basement extension in the privacy of their own home... and they’d be damn proud to brag about it too.

And then it got me thinking about the rest of the list and at what point my opinion diverges from that of the author. Are David Gest, Louis Theroux and Jade Goody geeks just because I don’t fancy them? Or because the person who wrote the feature doesn’t? I mean I don’t fancy Catherine Zeta Jones or Keira Knightley either but does that make them geeks too?

If someone is attractive then they are attractive. End of story. There’s no shame in admitting this. And everybody is attractive to somebody. So who has the right to label somebody else a misfit?

If I get my kicks ogling Supernanny, Jo Frost or moist muffin maker, Nigella Lawson, shaking the bejasus out of a bawling brat or a homemade cocktail, so what? I like what I like. And that doesn't make anybody a misfit or even a non-misfit.

Wow. I actually started this entry with the intention of waxing lyrical about the impressiveness of Kirstie Allsopp’s commodious bosom and her rapier-like high heels but seem to have ascended instead into the higher realm of social comment...

Geez. Does this make me a geek?

Baps And Beyond

After yesterday’s "Lorraine Kelly breast-fest" I feel the need to move this blog away from such bap-titious topics and onto a more sedate and gentlemanly footing.

Hey. I’ve just invented a new word!

Baptitious: adj, of or pertaining to the female mammary glands; resembling breasts; boob-like. Not to be confused with baptism or baptize though baptitiousness is not confined to any one religious or social denomination. Usage: Lorraine Kelly, wearing a plunging neckline, looked exceedingly baptitious on GMTV this morning, said Eamonn Holmes in a recent interview with Cantaloupe Weekly.

Eat your heart out Samuel Johnson. Shove it in your dictionary and spin on it!

Yes. Anyway. About this more sedate and gentlemanly footing...

Kelly’s Heroes

Karen and I ended up debating the allure of GMTV presenter Lorraine Kelly last night - the reason being we’d just watched a repeated episode of Have I Got News For You – the one presented by Lorraine – on UKTV G2. I’d like to point out at this point that debating the merits or otherwise of breakfast TV presenters is not a normal pastime in our house.

Anyway Karen commented on the fact that, like an awful lot of men, I find Lorraine Kelly intriguingly attractive and I had to agree that there is something about her that a lot of guys seem to go for in a big way. But what exactly is it?

Having thought about it over night (oo-er) I think Lorraine’s attractiveness is based on a few key points.

1) First and foremost she IS actually a beautiful woman. Stunningly so. That alone will do it for most guys.

2) She’s giggly and funny – a huge plus in anybody’s book – and tied in with that is the fact that she obviously has an absolutely filthy sense of humour. That is always attractive. Yet she’s never coarse which is a repulsive trait in absolutely anybody (Jade Goodey take note).

3) Sure she’s a bit mumsy but she’s NOT mumsy in a pinafore, feather duster and stench of Mr Sheen kind of way. She’s mumsy in a MILF kind of way (pardon the expression) and that’s a BIG difference.

4) She’s also patently intelligent, quick witted and sensitive. All admirable traits I’m sure you’ll agree – you just cannot be great without them.

5) But the real reason – and I have acknowledged the truth of this to Karen’s face – is that (to quote an exemplary episode of Bottom) she has an absolutely "wazzo pair of jugs".

I’m sorry if this offends people. But it IS true and I suspect most guys tune into breakfast TV every morning for no other reason than to get their fix of Lorraine Kelly’s delectable cleavage swinging pendulously as she fidgets and giggles on the sofa.

Are we hetero guys really so shallow, superficial and so utterly predictable in our stimuli?

It seems that we are.

Even the Lorraine Kelly Appreciation Society uses the following as a tag-line on their site: "She [Lorraine] is on GMTV every morning, where she gives her male fans a glimpse of her shapely legs and her magnificent cleavage!!"

So there you go: Lorraine Kelly, folks... a woman of many talents and virtues which can yet so easily be whittled down to two.

But my God are they good ones.