What’s wrong with the 69 Cosmo “bachelors”?

Jake Cuenca [left] and Paolo Paraiso

l-r: Luke Jickain, Marvin Wijangco and Joem Bascon

This year’s edition of the Cosmopolitan [Philippines] Magazine’s ten centerfold hunks is a sexy and good-looking bunch, no doubt about it. But for years, it has baffled me no end how Cosmo chooses its 69 “hot, new bachelors.” As a tagline, Cosmo wants us “to get ready for a hunkfest.” Right. Throw in an ugly Agassi kid in there, some callboys and wannabe models [especially this short dark guy from Sta. Cruz, Laguna with dubious origins, who looks old but claims he is only 20 years old], and you’ve got a hunkfest? I am not saying everyone in the 69 list do not deserve to be there. Some should not be there because they are not hot, not new, not hunks, not handsome, not straight enough to deserve a bit of space in the glossy. Methinks some persons in the list were merely accommodated by the casting director [incidentally, the manager of Dennis Trillo] as a courtesy to their managers, benefactors and supporters.

15 thoughts on “What’s wrong with the 69 Cosmo “bachelors”?”

  1. so far what i see are “hot guys”. all 5 guys pictured definitely looks hot. in fairness to your opinion, now let us see who are the “not hot” guys.

    P.S. .. I haven’t seen the glossy mag.

  2. before you throw a comment, try to look yourself in the mirror dude… then judge yourself, “Do I have the guts to critic other people?” … put your name to the test honey!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.