Above, Dwayne Wade is the picture of symmetry from People (September 19, 2011). Below, the same mag offers up Gilles Marini and some very lucky sand:

More after the jump...

Bruce Weber enjoys a (photographic) romp with junior Olympian Seth Kuhlman in Vman (Spring 2011), above. From the same issue, check out boxerman (Duke Dlouhy) by Weber, too:

The mag also offers movie star Ben Affleck (hot and not 20) and rising star Lucas Till (hot and 20):

Finally from Vman, Georges St-Pierre, mixed martial artist, looking good from the side:

Gerard Butler looks completely different depending on which 'bloid you read. In People (February 21, 2011), he's a ghost of his former thick self...

Which National Enquirer (February 21, 2011) catches him looking slimmed down but still pleasantly grabbable:

More after the jump...

If you hate Perez, you won't want to watch his brief segment with level-headed Joy Behar. But the salient info gleaned was that the image he linked to was absolutely not of Miley with no underwear and he didn't PhotoShop it (if you've seen his PhotoShopping skills, this isn't hard to believe); Behar has viewed the photo, and while she finds it distasteful and invasive (don't get me started on where we'd have to draw the line in litigating distasteful and invasive—but it's at least a conversation worth having about what is either of those things), she definitely didn't contradict him on these points.

Gee...where are those child-pornography charges that all the "experts" thought were imminent for Perez Hilton? Oh, wait, that's right—there was never a chance.

People (of all sources) is now casually reporting that Howard Price, a Beverly Hills criminal defense attorney, says:

"It seems unlikely Perez would be prosecuted for any criminal act in this case. For this to constitute as child pornography it has to be a photo of actual sexual conduct or a more blatant exhibition of one's private parts for the purpose of sexually stimulating the viewer. Plus, prosecutors aren't going to waste their time trying to go after an isolated event like this. They are more concerned about more serious and widespread cases. If Perez doctored the photograph however, that could be grounds for a civil defamation suit."

He's 100% correct but ha, a civil defamation suit for doctoring a celebrity's photo...that's about as likely as cleaning up that oil spill. Can you really picture Miley Cyrus filing suit over that? No. Already, her response has been to brand it "negativity" and go about her business.

And speaking of "negativity" and "business," perhaps those who hate Perez for being so relentlessly negative—and who don't rationalize that D-Listed (he skewers stars for sport, albeit trés wittily, I like him) or What Would Tyler Durden Do? (a hilarious but taboo-flouting hetero blogger who posted pictures of underage Demi Lovato's underage ass) or the print tabloids are somehow any better—or who at least find it wrong when he's relentlessly negative toward kids, can move on and focus on that aspect.

If you despise Perez Hilton so much you're not open to reason on the subject, skip to another post.

Ball-sack instinct

This Perez Hilton/Miley Vagyrus "scandal" is suuuch bullshit, and the people piling on Perez are embarrassing themselves as they hope against hope that something bad will finally happen to him.

OMFG!!! She (almost) touched her boobie! 

I'm no a fan of Miley Cyrus's work, though I've met her and find her to be completely professional and very nice (Britney Spears was also a sweetheart the three times I met her and you know I'm not big on her catalogue, either). And while I'm bored, aged 41, at yet another cycle of let's-sex-up-my-innocent-brand, I do think some of her provocations ring a bit desperate. It's transparent that she's trying to be naughty as a way to "grow up," and I can see how some parents of (very) young children might worry that this could put ideas into their heads, especially since she's playing "Hannah Montana" on a children's show of the same name.

However, Bonnie Fuller's recent piece on Cyrus manages to be reactionary and corporate-driven, and is disgraceful coming from a woman who's made every dime she has from the vicarious kicks America gets watching the very antics for which she's condemning the 17-year-old diva.

Yes, the "this is so Lady GaGa" meme is as ubiquitous as Lady GaGa herself (even Chris Crocker thinks it's tired—and makes fair points about it), but two more too-blatant-to-ignore entries are Beyoncé's "Why Don't You Love Me" video and Miley Cyrus's "Can't Be Tamed":

I like Beyoncé's song and I don't feel her video—obviously inspired by her recent collab with GaGa in that it's an over-the-top, movie-like presentation—is shameless. Miley's is (not to mention the Britney Spearsishness), and hopelessly camp on top of that. Poor girl is trying way too hard and is too young (and is not surrounded by cool enough people) to realize (or be told) what's edgy and what's naff. She's in a fucking nest, guys, she's in a fucking nest.

The good thing about the Lady GaGa Invented Oxygen debate is that even when videos are unique enough to withstand frame-by-frame analysis, there's no debating the fact that GaGa's full-throttle approach to style and video-making is being emulated, and if that competition creates a higher threshold in both areas, bring it on.

Christina Aguilera is a great singer but a lame artist—that's always been my take. Her new video doesn't do anything to disavow me of this notion. I already don't like "Not Myself Tonight"—it's a throwaway club track that sounds dated—but the video reeks of desperation.

I realize GaGa does videos that go over the top, but I think when she does it there is a clear sense of purpose, even if the actual purpose is often difficult to sense! Christina's video feels like a GaGa rip-off in structure, and uncomfortably quotes from Madonna throughout (though the opening frames really remind me of Annie Lennox's jerky head movements in "Missionary Man"), including homages to "Human Nature," "Erotica" and "Express Yourself."

A mess. She does have hot guys. And at least she looks beautiful, with the exception of her pendulous fake titties, which look like second cousins twice removed. And unlike Madonna on all of her recent videos save for "4 Minutes", she tried.

By the way, Miley Cyrus's new single is also a mess, but then I am so NOT a fan of defensive, self-referential, fame's-a-bitch songs ("Human Nature" included). It sounds like Adam Lambert's annoying "For Your Entertainment" meets, again, Lady GaGa (vocally) and Britney Spears (it's remarkably similar to "Radar" and Madonna's "Revolver"). She's a sweetheart and points for branching out, but I don't see what adults get from cheering on yet another girl going from sweet to sticky using yet another song like this to do it.

Of course, Miley's the girl of the moment, so her fans will eat it up and quite a few adults will convince themselves they're on board, too. Rinse, repeat.

Above, People (April 26, 2010) documents the fact that, overexposed or not, Matthew McConaughey has got it goin' on. Below, the same ish proves that Miley Cyrus's ex Justin Gaston isn't too shabby himself:

Vibe (April/May 2010) thinks homophobia is trivial, but there's no trifling with their taste in men judging by these Trey Songz shots:

"Britain's New Boy Wonder" Aaron Johnson gives it his sultriest in Details (May 2010):

More after the jump...

Life & Style (April 26, 2010) has a hilariously titled piece on Miley Cyrus's plans to move out of her family home (at age 17) and into a mansion she bought with her own bread: "DOES MILEY REALLY NEED A $3.4 MILLION MANSION?" 

Well, fuck no! But why shouldn't she buy it anyway, if she wants and can afford it?

I think it's at the core of what makes the gossip industry tick, that jealous sniffing about what someone needs. Some of the other prominent stories in this ish could be retitled along the same lines:

DOES KIM KARDASHIAN REALLY NEED TO LOSE 5 POUNDS IN 5 DAYS?

DO A-ROD AND CAMERON DIAZ REALLY NEED TO HOOK UP WITH EACH OTHER?

DOES HEIDI MONTAG REALLY NEED MORE PLASTIC SURGERY?