[Okay so I gave this a shot: objectifying men in Hollywood. This is Baggott's failed attempt.]
Matthew Broderick will not age ruggedly. He'll age doughy and pink. Soft, puffed. You will think of him sometimes and the phrase, "He's in high colour!" will come to mind -- something you've never said before and how can you explain the Brit spelling as it appears in your mind? Do you think he's had work done? (You do -- maybe just those face injections? And it makes you sad in a way you can't quite explain. Ferris... Oh, Ferris. Wherefore art thou, Ferris? But what you mean is youth, youth. Wherefore art thou, youth?)
He is no Richard Gere (and never was), Gere who -- perhaps because of his Buddhism -- has aged stunningly, like a rich, rugged, well-educated hippy dressed in extremely expensive casual linenery (linen finery). I didn't think Gere was handsome young. (I have heard Winger talk about their work in Officer and I side with Winger.) But now looking back? He was beautiful. There's a certain beauty to youth in reverse. You see some sweetness and how can you not feel a little tender?
My son saw Sidney Poitier from footage at the Oscars. He'd just see To Sir With Love. "That can't be him. He was so much taller." Was Poitier tall? He was tall in his eyes, in his posture. But actually tall? Looked it up. He was tall -- 6 foot 2. But literal height for Poitier is beside the point. Age, yes, it diminishes the body -- but just saw a photo of Obama awarding him a medal and there is nothing diminished about Poitier. Never will be.
Yesterday I saw a picture of a dog who looked exactly like Sean Connery -- all in the eyebrows. But this is more about the dog than Connery. (Does the dog growl with a little Scottish brogue? These are things I wonder about.)
I feel like I've failed to truly objectify men, here. Have I? Is this offending ANYone? I seriously doubt it.