Um so I've pretty much weaned myself off of my People Magazine addiction (thanks in large part due to my daily fix of celebrity gossip on people.com and perez), but there are certain annual issues that I can't help but buy when I see them at the check out aisle of Harris Teeter. One of them is the Sexiest Man Alive issue. I'm sorry, but I'm a sucker for glossy photos of beautiful men. So as I was perusing this year's issue (Hugh Jackman as sexiest man? decent but he's no John Hamm-my choice for sexiest man alive this year), I came across something rather surprising and sightly disturbing.
Several of the sexy man photos were scratch and sniff. I sort of wish I were kidding.
Now don't get me wrong. I love me some Chace Crawford and some Michael Phelps. Both are indeed very sexy. But do I really need to rub their "chests" in a magazine in order to smell their "sexy scents?" It all just felt a tad too stalkeriffic. Not to mention creepy. Scratch n' sniff is great, but shouldn't it remain in the domain of Kindergarten? Do we really need to take something so innocent and so pure and tarnish it with sexiness? What's next? Sexiest Backyardigan? Sexiest member of the Wiggles? I just think that People magazine needs to reevaluate its methods of calibrating sexiness and come up with ones that don't involve remnants of my childhood.