Discussion: "metrosexual"

[Phil Free]

When I think of a Metrosexual, I think nothing of his sexual preference.

The only thing I think of is his plasticity - his pretension - his obsession with appearances (and, from this, his natural materialistic tendencies and his sort of status obsession).

And then I want to kill him.

I feel that the whole "metrosexual" phenomenon is a result of a culture going down the drain. These people idolize IMAGES - images that are handed down to us from the multi-billion dollar fashion and entertainment industries. And only in our mass-consumer culture are these freaks in turn idolized.

They're the same disgusting byproducts of our degenerate society as are stick-figure calorie/carb counters, television junkies, and the pop-punk scene.

Vomitous. Absolutely vomitous.

[Phil Free]

...and before I get the "but YOU'RE obsessed with appearances" argument - you could say that I'm mostly obsessed with the deconstruction of consumer-culture and (American) Idol worship and all that that brings - makeup made from the fat of whales, hair-spray cans filling up overloaded landfills, chemicals being washed down the drain, etc.

'Cos in such a society, the only people that benefit are the capitalists. (Though, as Lenin stated, a capitalist would sell rope to his own hangman...)

[italiangm]

The rest of Simpson's definition...

For some time now, old-fashioned (re)productive, repressed, unmoisturized heterosexuality has been given the pink slip by consumer capitalism. The stoic, self-denying, modest straight male didn't shop enough (his role was to earn money for his wife to spend), and so he had to be replaced by a new kind of man, one less certain of his identity and much more interested in his image – that's to say, one who was much more interested in being looked at (because that's the only way you can be certain you actually exist). A man, in other words, who is an advertiser's walking wet dream. Gay men did, after all, provide the early prototype for metrosexuality. Decidedly single, definitely urban, dreadfully uncertain of their identity (hence the emphasis on pride and the susceptibility to the latest label) and socially emasculated, gay men had pioneered the business of accessorizing masculinity in the '70s with the clone look enthusiastically taken up by the mainstream in the form of the Village People. Difficult to believe, I know, but only one of them was gay and 99 percent of their fans were straight.

I think Simpson may have indentified, but miscategorized and stereotyped for entertainment purposes, an underlying shift that's slowly emerging amongst heterosexual males.

As I've posted elsewhere, I believe homosexuals are an evolutionary solution to fill a gap. If the underlying gap is filled by men who exhibit the best of feminine traits (from an evolutionary perspective), and who are sexually attracted to females, the need for homosexual males may very well be rendered vestigial and disappear.

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by italiangm, As I've posted elsewhere, I believe homosexuals are an evolutionary solution to fill a gap. If the underlying gap is filled by men who exhibit the best of feminine traits (from an evolutionary perspective), and who are sexually attracted to females, the need for homosexual males may very well be rendered vestigial and disappear.

Have you heard Desmond Morris's theory on the biological role of homosexuals? That they are non-reproductive couples in a world were overpopulation is a very serious problem? This does not ring true in all examples, however, since homosexuality probably has always existed and most likely always will (there are small tribes across the globe that practice homosexuality and have done so for centuries).

The existence of homosexuality is in my opinion a very good thing for the human race. However, I would agree with this Simpson fellow that metrosexuality is a result of a consumer culture or a class based society, and that it is, unlike homosexuality, a negative thing.

This is not to say that a man "in touch" with his feminine side is a bad thing. On the contrary, it is necessary for our survival - an intelligent woman should detest war-mongering, ignorant muscleheads.

But we are forgetting something here - the idea of "femininity", at least by modern standards, is mostly a cultural construct. Wearing makeup and making your hair "fabulous" and donning exquisite, expensive jewelry and clothing and wanting a huge mansion is no more inherently "feminine" than being a drag queen is inherently homosexual! Not all homosexuals are drag queens (not all drag queens are homosexual!) and not all feminine people are wasteful to precious natural resources, destructive to the environment, and buttress an unjust hierarchy based system.

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Phil Free Have you heard Desmond Morris's theory on the biological role of homosexuals? That they are non-reproductive couples in a world were overpopulation is a very serious problem?

I don't remember if what I've read was Morris-specific, but I've read similar theories. I don't buy the homo-to-limit-population-growth schtick, though.

This does not ring true in all examples, however, since homosexuality probably has always existed and most likely always will (there are small tribes across the globe that practice homosexuality and have done so for centuries).

I agree with "always existed" but the jury is still out on "always will". If the hetero male brain can acquire positive female survival traits that are present in homosexual male brains, I think homosexual males will go bye-bye.

The existence of homosexuality is in my opinion a very good thing for the human race.

I do too. I doubt we'd have come this far this fast without homosexual support.

However, I would agree with this Simpson fellow that metrosexuality is a result of a consumer culture or a class based society, and that it is, unlike homosexuality, a negative thing.

Perhaps. On the other hand, he may have it wrong. Perhaps the brain shift is actually happening under the covers and he's just wagging his tongue to make a buck.

This is not to say that a man "in touch" with his feminine side is a bad thing. On the contrary, it is necessary for our survival - an intelligent woman should detest war-mongering, ignorant muscleheads. But we are forgetting something here - the idea of "femininity", at least by modern standards, is mostly a cultural construct. Wearing makeup and making your hair "fabulous" and donning exquisite, expensive jewelry and clothing and wanting a huge mansion is no more inherently "feminine" than being a drag queen is inherently homosexual! Not all homosexuals are drag queens (not all drag queens are homosexual!) and not all feminine people are wasteful to precious natural resources, destructive to the environment, and buttress an unjust hierarchy based system.

Exactly. That's why I use the phrase "positive female survival traits". It's about the mechanics of species survival and evolutionary support, not culture.

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by italiangm, That's why I use the phrase "positive female survival traits". It's about the mechanics of species survival and evolutionary support, not culture.

My problem with your argument (there isn't much, actually) is that I don't see much "positive female survival traits" in even homosexual males that strengthen your argument. I'm not saying homosexuals are less built to survive than heterosexuals, I'm just saying I'm not seeing a biological or psychological trend in homosexual males that puts them beyond the average homosexual male. Homosexual males are no more or less survival-ready than heterosexual males. And I don't, at all, buy that metrosexuals possess any "positive female survival traits." But then again, I don't believe that there are many by-products of our current culture that are really helping us, male or female, survive better - unless you mean survive better in a self-destructive, decadent culture - which is self-defeating anyway. (We live longer, yes... but this makes overpopulation our biggest threat to the human race.)

I stand by my argument that they possess merely "negative pseudo-female traits."

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Phil Free I'm just saying I'm not seeing a biological or psychological trend in homosexual males that puts them beyond the average homosexual male. Homosexual males are no more or less survival-ready than heterosexual males.

Compared to heterosexual males, homosexual males exhibit traits that favor nurturing, caretaking, and whole-brain creative thinking minus the tension and miscommunication that often sabotages the opposite sex interaction and bonding process (ie, "Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus.") By definition, these are the positive survival traits that females bring to the table.

Then, in an act that confirms evolutionary need, these traits continue to be expressed in homosexual males -- a biological entity that, due to its internal hardwired code, does not reproduce.

And I don't, at all, buy that metrosexuals possess any "positive female survival traits."

All I'm suggesting is that metrosexuals may be the clumsy prototype for the entity that will replace homosexuals. The fact that they're fumbling dandies at this stage may disappear once they get comfortable in their skin. On the other hand, they might simply represent a fad that will disappear. Only time will tell. :)

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by italiangm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (italiangm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Compared to heterosexual males, homosexual males exhibit traits that favor nurturing, caretaking, and whole-brain creative thinking minus the tension and miscommunication that often sabotages the opposite sex interaction and bonding process (ie, "Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus.") By definition, these are the positive survival traits that females bring to the table.[/b]

Well, I suppose I don't know enough homosexual males to make a satisfactory judgement on this. I just remain skeptical, though one gay male I knew did talk about wanting a child often. And since he could not reproduce, all I could see was that him having a child (most likely, or hopefully, adopted and not created through artificial - or real - insemination) would be positive. So many children without homes, and with our overpopulation problem, what's better for those who want children than adoption?

So I really can't argue here :)

<!--QuoteBegin-italiangm,
Then, in an act that confirms evolutionary need, these traits continue to be expressed in homosexual males -- a biological entity that, due to its internal hardwired code, does not reproduce. All I'm suggesting is that metrosexuals may be the clumsy prototype for the entity that will replace homosexuals. The fact that they're fumbling dandies at this stage may disappear once they get comfortable in their skin. On the other hand, they might simply represent a fad that will disappear. Only time will tell. :)[/quote]

My argument comes down to this, really: that there are males out there ALREADY that are NOT metrosexuals that are no less "in touch with their feminine side" than metrosexuals (I am actually a feminist myself, something that comes natural to me since I had been raised almost entirely by my older sister and mother and they were my best friends). Metrosexuals, I feel, do no justice for people like us and are still, IMO, abominable (one good example of why would be their exclemation that they are not afraid of being in touch with their feminine side, which is why they aren't opposed to spending a day at the salon - the person that instantly springs to mind is that host of "American Idol". What's so feminine about getting your hair done, a manicure, etc.?)

In any case, time will tell all, I suppose