Just when you think you know someone, they show up on the cover of GQ in a tailored white suit, with a nice haircut, a well-groomed beard and an equally well-groomed dog.
In this instance, it’s Seth Rogen. The actor/writer/producer, who has long played the consummate paunchy schlub, graces the newest issue of GQ, donning all kinds of fancy tropical leisurewear: floral Dior shirts, pastel Louis Vuitton chinos, silk Gucci shorts, etc. And yeah, he looks good — way better than we’ve seen him before. It’s a surprising (and for many, a thirst-inducing) turn. Among the internet’s many questions since the GQ issue dropped last week: Is Seth Rogen, gasp, actually hot? How did this happen? And wait, has he actually always been hot?
I won’t try answering them, because hey, that’s up to all of us. Our collective conversation is what interests me.
For now, Rogen is the focus of a longstanding public discourse about celebrities who, looks-wise, went from a pumpkin to somethin’. In all the obvious ways, this discourse is trivial: Rogen’s glow-up won’t impact public policy, the economy, etc. When you start unravelling it, though, this dialogue begins to look meaningful and, dare I say, even culturally edifying — all while avoiding the toxicity that plagues most modern debate. Individually and collectively, we can argue about Rogen’s alleged hotness and walk away unscathed. How many other kinds of public debate would we actually describe that way?
In the fifth season of “The Office,” employees of Dunder Mifflin get into a heated daylong debate over whether Hilary Swank is, in fact, hot. (Not attractive, but hot — Kevin makes sure this distinction is clear.) All work-related business comes to a halt as each side delivers its impassioned oral arguments. The arguments and rebuttals quickly extrapolate into much broader issues. It’s no longer about Hilary Swank, but about mortality, sexism and even geometry. And, as expected, tempers flare.
Of course, these debates don’t play out exactly the same way in real life, but this “Office” episode shows how discourse can devolve when something gets analyzed beyond its natural limits. Political debate needs nuance. Debate about Hilary Swank’s hotness probably doesn’t.
It’s safe to say that social media, with its 280-character limits, its mob-mentality incentives, etc., has hurt public discourse on the whole. But when it comes to the “Is Seth Rogen attractive?” debate and ones like it, social media’s inherent limitations become valuable. These limitations wrangle the argument into a yes-or-no binary: Rogen is either hot or he’s not. That binary inspires more nuanced thinkpieces, but those thinkpieces make the rounds via social media — where the debate first started. As such, their arguments inevitably funnel back into the two options of the original binary. It’s unhealthy for high-stakes debates, but desirable for low-stakes ones like this.
It’s been fascinating — and yeah, alarming — to watch how Instagram accelerates, shapes and codifies broad cultural standards of physical beauty. I’ve written about this “inertia of sameness” before, but not in the context of Instagram and visual aesthetics. I think this modern discussion around folks like Seth Rogen — “normal-looking” people who are less attractive by Instagram’s Kardashian-esque standards — become a healthy cultural counterbalance, and not just because the Rogens of the world challenge aesthetic norms. It’s also because the tools of this particular discussion inevitably swing the pendulum in the defendant’s favor. Whether it’s Hilary Swank or Seth Rogen or Benedict Cumberbatch or Adam Driver, the collective verdict of every “Is this celebrity attractive?” debate is that yes, that celebrity is attractive.
In this instance, the court of public opinion is ultimately kindhearted — and man, that’s a rarity.