I didn't know what to write about, so I asked around.
"How bout this...I like to read about ways to keep myself together, new trends and things that improve my overall appearance.....CONVERSELY - I HATE the term metrosexual. Sadly, the connotation is derived from people's inherent need to "categorize" methods outside of the cultural "norms." And its awful because women actually want a man to appear "appealing," but upon discovery of the research and things involved, the dude has to be "coined" something. A woman who takes care of her hair and teeth is a woman who takes care of her hair and teeth. A man? Gotta have some name."
hmmm...I think that was the blog right there :) Thanks D!
Ladies, let me ask you - Do you look at a man and size him up as gay, metro, straight or whatever...based on his looks? Or do you simply look at him as a man who has or doesn't have his sh*t together?
Personally, I look at a well-groomed man as simply that - a well groomed man. I think where the label comes from is more of a marketing buzzword than anything else. Give people an identity to strive for, an attractive pigeonhole to be squeeze into, and, like sheep, some will buy anything associated with it. It's like they created a "new" kind of man by telling the unmoisturized, unkempt man to kick rocks cuz he doesn't spend enough money on keeping his sh*t together.
Let's define metrosexual first, shall we?
A metrosexual is:
a modern, usually single, man in touch with himself and his feminine side; grooms and buffs his head and body, which he drapes in fashionable clothing both at work or before hitting an evening hotspot; has discretionary income to stay up to date with the latest hairstyles, the newest threads, and the right shaped shoes; confuses some guys when it comes to his sexuality; makes these same guys jealous of his success with the ladies -- for many metros, to interact with women is to flirt; impresses the women who enjoy his company with the details that make the man;
Among them:
his appreciation for literature, cinema, or other arts his flair for cooking his savoir faire in choosing the perfect wine and music his eye for interior design is a city boy or, if living a commute away from downtown, is still urbane, if not rightly urban; enjoys reading men's magazines...
That's not my definition - I looked it up :) Basically a metrosexual is a man who carries a "murse" - or "man" bag :)
Now..."Retrosexual" men are the opposite of that. They're your traditionally masculine man who rejects focus on physical appearance. You'll never catch this dude plucking his eyebrows.
So my question to the ladies is - which do you prefer? And to the men - do you consider yourself either, if anything?
I think it depends on what you envision when you hear the term metrosexual. Personally, the first thought that comes to mind when I hear "metrosexual" is a man who OBSESSES over his looks. Traditionally, women are the ones who worry about their appearance to an obsessive extent. The beauty industry is a billion dollar monster - and make-up, hair care products, fashion, plastic surgery, diet crazes, you name it - are all associated with women.
So when you meet that guy who spends more time in the mirror than you do, it kinda throws you off. It's like he's more interested in looking at himself than at you. Men being visual creatures, we're used to being ogled and stared at. So when this guy walks out of the store with more bags than you do, it seems as if he's "un-coupled" with you, and he has taken himself as his own love object. He wants YOU to stare at HIM.
Now, a metro guy might confuse the Neanderthal, brute man as well. He may not necessarily think he's gay...but because he seems chic, sensitive or "cultured," he has to label what he doesn't understand.
Men and women may find metro men to be sexually ambiguous, because "regular" dudes are wrinkled and ashy; they burp, scratch, fight, yell and grope. So when we meet the suave guy who doesn't do all those things and actually cares about how he presents himself, we might not be so sure because it's not "normal."
Granted, advertisers make it plain that metrosexuals are undoubtedly straight - but when men hear themselves being labeled as metro, they might get ready to punch you in the face. To put it in SATC terms, he thinks he's being called more of a "straight gay man" than a "gay straight man" - if that makes any sense.
Sexuality has nothing to do with it.
Personally, I love a man who cares about his appearance. I think a man who cares if a woman finds him attractive is sexy as hell. Ladies, he's doing it for you.
Men don't drive flashy cars, buy cool threads and rock funky shoes for themselves. They may appreciate these things - but they do it for US - to get our attention. Otherwise, they'd be walking around hairy and smelly. We do the same thing. We'd be some fat, hairy bitches if it wasn't for men.
So we shouldn't label them for doing the exact same thing we do. Some of the most masculine men can be "metro" - and wear it well. Will Smith, David Beckham, Brad Pitt - all could be male models by metro guidelines - but all still very much "man" - in my opinion anyway.
I know a few "Renaissance Men" who can put it down in the bedroom, toss your ass around and then go out and play football. I know a few "sensitive men" who bench heavy weights at the gym walking around with muscles and a six pack. I know some straight, beer drinking frat brothers who shop at Abercrombie & Fitch or Banana Republic. And they're all sexy as hell...con mucho machismo.
That being said...metro me this? If we MUST give him a label...doesn't this label sound more attractive? I'm jus sayin ;)
-b
