Am I the only one who sees the blood-sucking succubus that is Selena Gomez? She's only there to promote her insignificant paltry lack-of-talent piece-of-dreck career. Without Bieber she'd be another 'Disney girl', which seemed to have worked out well for Britney.
- C'mon, Selena; don't you want to emulate Britney? Britney did so well... well, outside of her multiple melt-downs but, c'mon, look at the stars! Aren't they shiny? You almost seem as 'talented' as the eye candy from that Victorious show on Nickelodeon.
- He is musical
- He is (begrudgingly) talented
- He is a sensitive flower in need of Mummy cuddles
- He looks like a lesbian hobbit
- He is less-than-masculine
- He takes more time on his hair than Gomez (admittedly stylists etc.)
- He takes more time on his clothes than Gomez (admittedly stylists etc.)
There is only one conclusion that can be reached from this, now, isn't there? Maybe I'm completely off - maybe I'm just thrown off by the 'flagrant metrosexuality' on display. Could it be that the reason that he's successful is just to promote floral fruit bouquet conditioners, moisturisers for 'men' and five-hundred dollar mop hair-do's? I know that media and various cosmetic/personal hygiene companies have been trying to crack the male market. Considering at least 80-90% of their revenue is derived from women, if they were to attain even 10% more of the male population, it would make a huge difference to their bottom line. But, as long as women are able to stick their fingers in their ears and fantasise about a feminine hobbit, the male market will continue to believe that the only way to get a woman is by never going through puberty and modelling their style upon a floral-bouqueted merkin.
No comments:
Post a Comment