Talk:Metrosexual/Archives/2013

Bryan Ferry and Peter Murphy

Wasn't Bryan Ferry the original metrosexual, and Peter Murphy the second?

Neither, I would say. The very concept of metrosexuality hinges upon the rejection of masculine vanity in the 1990s that was brought about by a variety of influences, among them the indie music scene, the advent of a dresssed-down workplace, and a kind of cultural homophobia than rejected anything that was "gay." Blondjamesblond (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone add information about Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean's self-identification with the term metrosexual? For many Americans, his self-identification was the first time they heard it. ~~freepatriot

Which Bravo show?

In the summer of 2003, as most of Canada legalized gay marriage, the US Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy statutes as unconstitutional (Lawrence v. Texas), and Bravo introduced a cable show in which stereotypically Fabulous gay urbanites make over a hopeless, hapless hetero, Metrosexual sprang back into the public discourse after a decade of UK obscurity.

Are we suppose to guess this Bravo show's name? As well, this 'sentence' is much too long. I will edit it, someone find the name of the Bravo show. --ShaunMacPherson 11:40, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand how it is so hard to figure out. The name of the show is 'Queer Eye For The Straight Guy'.

'Metrosexual' = prejudice?

In light of the obvious tension present in this discussion, I would like to posit a different way of thinking about metrosexuals. I argue that through their spectacular presence, metrosexuals empower and privilege the feminine gaze while, perhaps unwittingly, undercutting the monolithic and castrating nature of postmodern masculinity.

In their resistance to traditional gender norms, metrosexuals threaten to collapse the dominant heteronormative ideology, hence the homophobic verbal backlash. According to feminist, gender and queer theories, dominant ideologies are maintained through the persistent ‘Othering’ of groups that resist or lack the normative codes they prescribe. According to this formula, women and gay men shop freely to make up for what they lack; establishing a highly visible identity in a world of straight white male invisibility. Straight white males who seek more visible identities via consumption also inhabit the subordinate space of the Others. The performance of the metrosexual is a highly visible disavowal of the dominant heteronormative ideology. Thus, those who criticize the metrosexual are not afraid of a distinct group of men, but of a slow and steady shift in postmodern masculinity that threatens to collapse the heteronormative ideology via disavowal.

This typically pretentious crap from a politcally correct moron who does sociology, and think's he's clever. Meterosexuals constitute a very small proportion of men, and let's face it - how many men would admit to fulfilling the typical meterosexual stereotype? Very few. (Unsigned edit as of 17:35, 10 July 2007, by 80.229.27.251)

Heh, I know some. :D I do for example. However, that is besides the question, lol. This is original research, and that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Pretentious crap or no. 77.234.80.168 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the wrong place to "posit a different way of thinking". This is an encyclopedia. Our job is to summarize the existing way of thinking. It sounds like your thesis would make a really interesting eassy though. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Beback -- Wikipedia is not the place for a semiotics paper. However, it might be interesting to note that part of the tension inherent in the word "metrosexual" springs from how a variety of sources feel proprietary over it. Blondjamesblond (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondjamesblond (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson reference

Marilyn Manson makes a subtle reference to the term in his song "New model #15":

And I'm vague and I know that I'm homopolitan

Interesting because:

• "Homopolitan" is arguably coined out of "metropolitan" and "homosexual", as well as "metrosexual", but uses the other combination.
• The song has been issued in 1998, when the word "metrosexual" is said to be unused in America.

(Together with "vague", it also reminds you of Vogue magazine and in turn Cosmopolitan Magazine -- though this might be unintended.)

"Metrosexual" comes from "metropolitan heterosexual", not "metropolitan homosexual". Also, according to this site [1], "homopolitan" is a play on "homosexual" and "Cosmopolitan" (the magazine), which seems like a more probable explanation. Miraculouschaos 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference section needed?

I assume that all the quotes in the Metrosexual article are from Mark Simpson's original article (although it is really not that clear to me that they are all from the article). If they are, then there needs to be a reference section telling which magazine or book they are from. BlankVerse ∅ 08:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest the same thing... Xinit 7 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

I'll third the suggestion. There should be references in all wikipedia articles. -Seth Mahoney July 7, 2005 23:08 (UTC)

reversion

please stop removing my addition to common usage. I have most often (9 out of 10 times) heard metrosexual to refur to a person "in the closet", and thus it should be included. It doesn't matter ONLY what the orgin was, but also common usage presently. Look at "gay". used to mean happy, now common usage is different. IreverentReverend 8 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

I agree that common usage is equally important, in many ways more important. However, I have NEVER heard the term used this way. Can you find sources documenting this sort of usage? -Seth Mahoney July 8, 2005 17:09 (UTC)

granted urban dictionary is not exactly a high quality source, but it does show common usage as people see it... it has a mxture of both straight only usage, in the closet usage, and humourous usage, as well as maddox of missionx (thebestpageintheuniverse.com) uses the inthe closet definition on his humourus pointed look at society.

A stereotypical homosexual male who dresses very "stylish" and is up to speed with anything trendy and sophisticated, but swears he doesn't pound ass with anyone.(sic)

A: Homosexual in denial.

B: Excuse to dress gay, feeding the inner homosexual.

In the closet flaming homosexual who says they are straight

A closetted gay man who enjoys maxing his credit cards, emptying his bank account and mortaging his house for the 11th time in his pursuit for the latest fashion items and beauty care products.

He enjoys being admired by just anyone, gay or straight, but claims to be nothing but straight.

Just means somebody who 'takes care of himself' by buying a lot of nice gay clothes..... Heh... But tries to pretend they are actually a heterosexual.

Someone who adheres to homosexual tendencies but declares their sexual orientation to be heterosexual (supposedly)

High maintenance male. Usually a homosexual, or a flamer.

you will find a gay man trying to pass himself off as a metrosexual because he cannot find the courage to "come out of the closet" for fear of embarassmen

1.A man who is not gay but has a very good fasion sense and knows how to take care of themselves.

2. A fag

Wow, I've never seen so much homophobic bullshit piled up into a single mountain ever in my whole life. Wilderns (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You almost always here PEOPLE use metro as someone in the closet, and the tv/radio to refur to the traditional definition. IreverentReverend 8 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Maddox isn't exactly the place to go for common usage - he's trying (and usually, I think, failing) to be funny, not to use words as they are normally used, and urbandictionary has some of the same issues going on. In both cases (this doesn't establish that this isn't common usage, but bear with me) this seems a sort of reactionary usage - a way of saying, "we wont accept that men who live up to some of the stereotypes for gay men are in fact straight". Again, though, I've never heard someone say a man is metro and actually mean he is in the closet, unless they're joking. Maybe a way to include this usage is to be more thorough about it. I'll make some changes to metrosexual, and you can let me know what you think. I still don't think it belongs on the closet though. -Seth Mahoney July 8, 2005 17:43 (UTC)

I've never heard metrosexual used to describe a gay man, and I dispute this usage. Exploding Boy July 8, 2005 19:19 (UTC)

I dispute this usage as well. It is not the intended meaning. In fact, the point of the word is to differentiate the line between homosexual tendencies of personal upkeep and heterosexual interest (as shown to have been influenced in magazines in the article..). Including this referance undermines the whole of the article. WesleyPinkham 05:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with IR, seen it at my highschool. It was used sarcastically about the biggest 3 gay guys until their senior year when they came out together... one was upset that no one was suprised, they thought they would shock the school!

Please sign your contributions to talk pages with -~~~~. Thanks. -Seth Mahoney July 8, 2005 19:44 (UTC)

This post seems to say a lot more about the poster and his adolescent anxieties - most of which appear to centre on a fear of/obsession with homosexuality - than about the word. Is this Wikidpedia or a High School bulletin board?

OMG LOLZERZ!!!@! Are real bulletin boards so much more mature than high schoolers talking about themselves on the internet? From your post I can tell you read the bible too much. Or Wikipedia articles. -~~~~

This isn't supposed to be a bulletin board or arena to air opinions. This discussion page is aimed at improving and, if necessary, expanding this entry. A lot of the debate could be cut short if people remembered the wikipolicies:
# 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
# 1.4 Wikipedia is not a soapbox
# 1.6 Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site
it doesn't matter what you *think* or how you have heard this term used in "common usage". Without making relevant points and then supporting these with citations, your contributions detract from the articles quality, and thus have no need to be included. --bntrpy 18:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If this was true then Wikipedia shouldn't even include terms like metrosexual, in this case your citations seem to be basically rubbish as is much of the description in the article. I remember coming across the word years ago and it basically meant/s "someone who is willing to experiment sexually, 'willing to try anything!' ". Yes it does often refer to hetro men but it's explicitly implying that they are willing to experiment with the gay side of their sexuality as well. Labeling Beckham 'metrosexual' had more to do with gay fantasies about him than anything else. I suspect we are again merely arguing the differences between UK English and US 'english'. Lucien86 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reactionary usage section

The recent changes to the reactionary usage section seems to miss the point (perhaps the writing isn't clear). The issue being taken up isn't whether a person using metro to describe a closeted gay man is right or wrong, but refers to societal norms and stereotypes. Even if the hypothetical metro is a closeted gay man, that kind of usage suggests that the idea that we can't read a person's sexuality by looking at stereotypical behavior is being rejected. -Seth Mahoney July 8, 2005 19:44 (UTC)

um... if they ARE gay (read later come out) then apparently they CAN read their sexuality.... the way it reads now is making the caller seem wrong. they can be right as well. 134.161.244.216 8 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)

Right, and if you can read someone's sexuality based on stereotypical behavior, then the idea that we can't do so is being rejected. -Seth Mahoney July 8, 2005 19:50 (UTC)

I don't really want to indulge Steve, but this message is for everyone. If someone wants to add a bit about how closeted gay men "use metrosexuality as a shield", you simply need to cite it and properly attribute it to an article. Rhobite 01:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest removing any reactionary/common usage section, unless it is properly attributed to credible articles, which is not the case at this moment. I know there are some issues with the public perceiving the metrosexual as gay, and the marketers assuring he's straight, but there are good articles about that, especially by Mark Simpson. We can't allow common usage just because people and their friends have a certain idea of what the metrosexual is, it needs to be cited by a credible source. Mcmvanbree 16:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnold Schwarzenegger has often been called a metrosexual, and he apparently accepts the term. He has called himself a "shoe queen", and is known for his particular care in grooming, wardrobe, and jewelry. A Google search on [Schwarzenegger metrosexual] brings up almost 5,000 hits, including [2]. -Willmcw 23:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The salon piece 'Meet the metrosexual' did introduce the word to global usage - the article was one of the most popular ever posted on Salon, then the web's most popular online magazine, and linked and pasted all over the web and led to many derivative and occassionally plagiaristic articles appearing in the world's media, including 'The rise of the metrosexual' in the Sydney Morning Herald (March 6, 2003)http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/05/1046826436007.html It was also clearly the source from which the American marketers took the concept. Right down to the mention of 'pink shirts' at the end of the article.

salon.com section taken out

I took this section out because the length was unwarranted. The article did not introduce the word.

It introduced the word to the US - and popularised it globally. Salon.com was then the most popular online magazine in the world - and particularly in the US. It was because of this article that the one in the NYT appeared - though it does not acknowledge it.

The Salon.com did in fact not introduce the word, however, it was more than significant for the popularization of the word. I believe it should be in the wikipedia article, because of its significance. Mcmvanbree 21:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The New York Times article did the most to popularize the word. The salon.com article was published an entire year before the word was popularized. Lotsofissues 22:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right, however, I do still think the Salon.com article is significant, as it explains the concept of the metrosexual better, and the first part of the quote from Meet the Metrosexual, is the most accurate description of the metrosexual in my opinion. Mcmvanbree 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Great job fixing up the incomplete article.Lotsofissues 04:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Salon.com article

The fuel was set; the spark was Simpson's 2002 Salon.com article lampooning soccer megastar David Beckham, "Meet the metrosexual". The firm Euro RCSG Worldwide adopted the term shortly thereafter for a marketing study, and the New York Times made it a Sunday feature, "Metrosexuals Come Out"; the story trickled into local news outlets across North America.

Simpson's Salon.com definition is distinct from metrosexual 's common use today. His article was detached, wittily ironic, with more than a dash of anti-corporate disdain, and his definition exists outside the gay-straight style spectrum that defines the boundaries of fashion for many Americans –

The typical metrosexual is a young man with money to spend, living in or within easy reach of a metropolis – because that's where all the best shops, clubs, gyms and hairdressers are. He might be officially gay, straight or bisexual, but this is utterly immaterial because he has clearly taken himself as his own love object and pleasure as his sexual preference. Particular professions, such as modeling, waiting tables, media, pop music and, nowadays, sport, seem to attract them but, truth be told, like male vanity products and herpes, they're pretty much everywhere.

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. The "Metro" in Metropolis comes from the Greek word Meter, meaning mother. Hence, as a matter of semantics, "Metrosexual" actually means motherfucker.^[3]

It includes a Sex and the City definition for females, and touches on the queer angle only in passing –

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.^[4]

• ^ Simpson, Mark. (July 22, 2002). Meet the metrosexual. Salon.
• ^ Simpson, Mark. (July 22, 2002). Meet the metrosexual. Salon.

lots of issues | leave me a message 11:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed trivia section

I reverted back because any list of random facts begins the process of quality deterioration. The first is also mentioned in the article itself.

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for the poor formatting, but those random facts were meant to be connected. The point is that "metrosexual" translates literally as "motherfucker". This random fact is worthwhile for someone to know before they choose to self-identify as "metrosexual".

The word was obviously coined by someone who did not know the Greek and Latin meanings of the words they borrowed, or else they would have chosen something less offensive. (Perhaps "cosmosexual" from "cosmopolitan" and "heterosexual"? In this case the implied connection to "worldly" and also to "cosmetic" would be entirelty appropriate.)

Jamie 00:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Mark Simpson has already dealt rather smartly with this slightly pedantic issue in his self-interview 'MetroDaddy speaks!' salon.com Jan 2004

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/01/05/metrosexual_ii/index.html

"Did you know that "metrosexual" means "motherfucker" in Greek?

No, but thank you for pointing it out. It does make a certain kind of sense. Metrosexuality is the sensibility of the New Matriarchy. It's post-Oedipal. Dad is largely out of the picture, replaced by Nike and Playstation. The metrosexual family romance, the cradle of male narcissism, is just Junior and an adoring Mom. It's why, from a certain perspective, Italians have been metrosexuals for years."

'UBERSEXUAL' ENTRY SHOULD BE MERGED WITH 'METROSEXUAL' AS SHOULD 'RETROSEXUAL'

Not only is 'ubersexual' clearly derivative of 'metrosexual', it is directly derivative (though not acknowledged as such) of the work of the author of the metrosexual concept Mark Simpson.

Two years before it was used in THE FUTURE OF MEN by Marian Salzman, Simpson deployed the term 'uber-metrosexual' in his article 'Becks the virus' (Salon.com June 28 2003), the same article in which he coined the term 'retrosexual'.

"Beckham is the über-metrosexual, not just because he rams metrosexuality down the throats of those men churlish enough to remain retrosexual and refuse to pluck their eyebrows, but also because he is a sportsman, a man of substance -- a "real" man -- who wishes to disappear into surfaceness in order to become ubiquitous -- to become media."

Clinching the matter, Marian Salzman is the very same marketer who appropriated 'metrosexual' from Simpson's work in 2003.

Even the title of the chapter in her book in which the 'ubersexual' appears 'Beyond Metrosexualmania', is derivative of Simpson's work. He coined the term 'metrosexmania' to describe 'the media's insatiable craving for metrosexuals' in 2003.

I agree that ubersexual should be included with metrosexual - also it has too much space for a term that is hardly used by anyone. 'Retrosexual' is much more commonly used (also Simpson's term). NotoriousQRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.179.159 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have made sections under 'other terms' for 'retrosexual' and 'ubersexual' and then to explain more about ubersexual, used the heading Marian Salzman.

I think this is clearer and will add to it later. NotoriousQRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.179.159 (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

the quote block in the lead

The promotion of metrosexuality was left to the men's style press, magazines such as The Face, GQ, Esquire, Arena and FHM, the new media which took off in the 1980s and is still growing (GQ gains 10,000 new readers every month). They filled their magazines with images of narcissistic young men sporting fashionable clothes and accessories. And they persuaded other young men to study them with a mixture of envy and desire.

Some people said unkind things. American GQ, for example, was popularly dubbed "Gay Quarterly". Little wonder that all these magazines - with the possible exception of The Face - address their metrosexual readership as if none of them were homosexual or even bisexual.^[5]

I feel this quote doesn't define the lifestyle, but rather the traditionalist objections. Agree?

Lotsofissues 00:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

I think that the article "ubersexual" ought to be left as is, since it is a different term. Comments? --Kerowyn 00:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge them. - hmwithtalk 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge them. Clearly 'ubersexual' doesn't mean anything that 'metrosexual' doesn't.

Why? -Will Beback · † · 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Because they're different terms for the same thing. - hmwithtalk 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge from "Retrosexual"

I just merged the material from Retrosexual and made it a redirect to this article. It's poor material, so I apologize for bringing it here, but I'm just acting according to the vox populi. Brian G. Crawford 23:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a recent AfD vote for Retrosexual. Is this from the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Retrosexual ended in November? This material seems unsourced, and http://www.theretrosexuals.com/ appears to be useless. I think the definition of it as an antonym is questionable, since some individuals seem to be called by both names. Maybe Wiktionary is a better place for it after all. -Will Beback 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on "1337" Usage

I believe that this should be removed. Even if anyone ever earnestly used 1337 dialogue, as of 2006 it's only used ironically and even then quite often frowned upon as cliched and trite. I think that if someone wants to stay they need to verify its usage in this context. JD79 05:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Last edit

Who's Stuart Turner? Is that vandalism? Mateo LeFou 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Bogus term?

Isn't this term (metrosexual) bogus? 'has a strong aesthetic sense and spends a great amount of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle': aren't men (and women) supposed to be like that anyway? Is aesthetic sense bad in any way? Is spending money on appearance abnormal? To me the whole term sounds quite strange.

Is it bogus? Maybe, though clearly there are men who have never been near a manicure in their lives, bathe only occasionally, and have their hair cut by a guy who still calls himself a barber, not a sylist. Fact remains it's a widely used term to describe a particular stereotype, though like most stereotypes it has serious limitations when you try to apply generalizations to individual people. Fan-1967 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem is that this term is used left and right in a negative connotation. Though it seems rather normal to care about your appearance. BlackAsker 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that normal, though maybe you haven't ridden a crowded city bus lately ;-) -- Fan-1967 19:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the reception here on Wikipedia (see this talk page), and the quality of the article have strong connections to the fact that "metrosexual" is basically a media buzzword with little consensus to the proper meaning, and mainly being popularized by tabloids of questionable credibility. I wouldn't call it a "bogus" term though. For example, I do call myself "metrosexual" for lack of a better term. :) In my view it is more-or-less the XXI. century, liberalized version of the XIX. century "gentleman" or "dandy", which in our days carry an "out-of-date" aftertaste, and remind people more of top hats and tuxedos than the pursuit and acknowledgement of male beauty. Wilderns (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of the term, "metrosexual"

What would the opinion be here if this section was added, referring to the large majority of secretly homosexual (closet gay) men who now instead of claiming to be heterosexual, claim to be "metrosexual". It's becoming an increasingly common occurrence, especially in those from social backgrounds which are very disapproving of homosexuality (e.g. christian fundamentalists in the deep south of america, muslims, hindus). It seems that the vast majority of men who would call themselves metrosexual are actually homosexual and the ones who are actually "metrosexual" would refer to themselves as heterosexual but be referred to by others as metrosexual. (That's how i tell the difference anyway... other than when "metrosexuals" i know have gay sex on a flight to beijing)

In my opinion, it's a sad day when perfectly heterosexual men can be segregated as immitating homosexuals just because they aren't disgusting (I'm a traditionally disgusting heterosexual man).--KX36 20:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like everything else in Wikipedia, we'd need a source for that viewpoint. If you find one, please add it. -Will Beback · † · 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when does one need a source for a(n) viewpoint/opinion?Ryan8374 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Every assertion in Wikipedia should be verifiable using a reliable source. Editors should not add their own opinions or viewpoints to articles. See the three core content policies - WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

Why did we add Template:Sexual orientation to this article? "metrosexual" isn't a sexual orientation, it's a matter of personal style. -Will Beback · † · 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal style? I'd call it a subculture at best. It's an umbrella term for "feminine" masculinity that was made into a buzzword by the boulevard media. It's definitely got nothing to do with sexual orientation though. The label is misleading like that, mostly because it doesn't make much sense in the first place. 91.0.100.106 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised the article doesn't address the fact that "metrosexual" is a blatant misnomer since it has nothing to do with sexuality. I know college professors who can't stand the word when it pops up in academic discussions because scientifically it doesn't accurately or meaningfully describe anything.VatoFirme (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, this article is tagged as part of WikiProject LGBT studies. If, as indicated above, this has nothing to do with orientation, why is it in that umbrella project? VigilancePrime (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects can look after articles that aren't strictly within their field. If there's a better wikiproject I don't think anyone would mind if you add that too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Narcissism

This epitomizes what WP:SYN prohibits. Bringing Freud in in order to expand upon the assertion of 'narcissism' is original research (and not very well-crafted at that, IMHO). Much of this article reads like an undergraduate gender-studies paper, full of ideological biases, unexamined assumptions, and sloppy reasoning. I vote that this section be dropped until someone has something meaningful and within wikipolicy to enhance the larger article. --bntrpy 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I cringed reading this entry.Blondjamesblond (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Narcissim is perfectly justified. The primary (and often the only) reason for a man to be metrosexual is exactly because he is narcissistic, metrosexuality is merely a means of fullfilling one's narcissistic tendencies. Otherwise, there is no convincing explanation for why one would sacrifice their masculinity for something not generally acceptable. So, narcissism is the major reason for metrosexuality. 95.220.158.23 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Sounds more like a magazine article
Not very "encyclopedia-y," lots of opinions, etc. 68.101.130.214

This article has several portions, eg, "Metrosexuality is the trait of a sophisticated man..." that seem to remove criticism of Metrosexuality, especially in the beginning of the article. If someone with more knowledge on this topic could review and/or edit this article to ensure it adheres to WP:NPOV, it would be much appreciated. Additionally, I would appreciate if other editors would discuss ways to improve the neutrality of this article here on the talk page. Ninja! 00:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the "sophisticated man" parts alone that the NPOV suffers from. While such "peacock terms" do undermine the proper tone of the article, it is altogether made up of judgemental positions - both for and against metrosexuality. As a metrosexual I found certain parts of the article insulting. I beleive the article should be rewritten to present a factual recollection of the meaning of the term "metrosexual" - basically a (hetero-, bi-, OR homosexual) male who displays more concern about his appearance, clothing (and living conditions) than the accepted social norm among men. It has NOTHING to do with:
certainty of identity (I know it's a source citation, but citing it twice and without appropriate comments it compromises NPOV),
sexual promiscuity or monogamy,
pursuit of achievement or lack thereof, etc. Wilderns (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NO

Ubersexual is a/derives from German and thus should remain so and explicit it own def. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.170.243.188 (talk • contribs)

This is false. It derives from 'metrosexual'. There's plenty of citations of this. Where's yours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdWelthorpe (talk • contribs)

Metrosexual companies

I deleted an unsourced section covering purported "metrosexual companies". Men have purchased fsahionable attire for countless centuries, and these companies have no clear connection to the term. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Though Beback's edits are almost always right on the money, I am not sure about this one, since a key part of metrosexuality involved becoming aware of fashion in both style and brand. Brands like Hugo Boss, Prada and Gucci -- and even specific items like the sport-striped dress shirts from Paul Smith and Etro -- were key identifiers of metrosexuality in the mid-2000s. That said, I don't know what companies were mentioned before. Blondjamesblond (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondjamesblond (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't "metrosexual" originally a joke?

Didn't the word "metrosexual" start off as a joke? i.e. "metro" is derived from the Greek for "mother" (e.g. "metropolis" = "mother-city", the capital, or a city from which a colony was founded); hence "metrosexual" = "motherf****r". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.192.96 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• • um, no 68.101.130.214 —Preceding comment was added at 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, but nope. JosiahHenderson (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The main picture is a photoshopped version of the mask poster.

Is there really nothing better?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.75.187 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

…3:30 P.M. E.S.T. Metrosexual could this just be simply a taskable people formed from a related experience,such as mother and father,and metro just being the erea of circumstance,and or circumstance's like polotin or police wich means something of an acceptance. Metro a round about sittuation. Sexual, a discription of a usual formation,perhaps meaning mother and father.

The terming yankee doodle dandy is very interseting, such as the 'N'inbetween Yankee and Dandy if removed you will have a representational boundery. Perhaps De La n'cey could be another invovlement of how an 'n' is used and now would need Historical literature to create a Foundation for the n or even N formed in the begining of a word or wordi'n'g 3:39.P.M. E.S.T David George DeLanceyDavid George DeLancey (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pretty boy"

This is basically the same thing as a "pretty boy," right? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pretty+boy Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

They certainly seem the same, though one poster writes:

• Not to be mistaken for a metrosexual who generally spends a lot of time on his appearance. Although a pretty boy may spend time on his appearance he generally was always pretty - soft featured and more feminine in looks rather than having a square face and chiseled features, usually has a round or oval face. Sometimes androgenous in looks.

In any case, Urbandictionary is not a reliable source. If we do find a reliable ource for tihs we could add it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Beback. Moreover, "pretty boy" implies someone who is both attractive and vain. A metrosexual doesn't have to be a model, just someone who cares about his appearance and takes pains to make himself look as attractive and stylish as possible. Blondjamesblond (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondjamesblond (talk • contribs) 16:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm 60 years old and in my day, the 70's and 80's, what you call is metrosexuality, was just good grooming. Showered, shaven, neat hair, neat clothes. It's not narcissism; what woman or man wants to be with a man/woman who has smelly genitals, dirty nails, and hair in ten directions. I learned from my grandfather and my Mom & Dad; who is teaching now? I pity todays men and women who don't care about these things. They only care about the end result, not the means to get there.Dcrasno (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Metrosexual/gay conflation

This article definition of a metrosexual as a "guy who acts gay but isn't" only confuses the issue by imprecisely conflated two distinct and difference trends. The fact that this article is part of the WikiProject GLBT only futher entrenches this confusion. This tacitly assumes a well defined way that gay men act. Gay men act differently, some conforming to metrosexual norms and others not. Furthermore, even the stereotypes we associate with gay man vary significantly. Lastly, gay culture is in flux and even if it did coincide with metrosexuality at one point in time, it does not mean it continues to do so.

Case in point: Body Hair. Metrosexuals tend to remove it. Some gay guys have removed it, but right now hair is in fashion in the gay community. So the association isn't there at all.

I think we need to simply return to the article back to using the original definitions of metrosexual, which have the added bonus of having convenient citations. Rather than define one group by vague behavioral association with another group, it would be better to just state the defining properties explicitly first. Later on in the article there can be a discussion of gay vs. metrosexual. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Necessary?

I'm sorry, but is an article like this even needed? It contains information that can be gotten elsewhere, and is so uncritical it seems a joke article, not a serious one. Olliekamm (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything you never knew about metrosexuality and are sorry you learned. I think the initial paragraphs defining the term and discussing its origins is useful, but the balance of the article is pointless. I will be revealing my age or unsophisticated bumpkinism when I tell you that I had to look up the term because it was used in a article I was reading and I didn't know what it meant in September of 2008, but that's what reference works are for, remember? Still, the article became boring to me around the middle of the 'evolution' section and intolerable when it got to Joe Namath's pantyhose. There must be a Wikipedia template for the larger part of this stuff somewhere: Intolerably Trivial.—Blanchette (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Everything in WP can be found elsewhere, so what's you point? If it's uncritical, go look at what can be gotten elsewhere, and either use that to improve it, or if everything out there is equally uncritical, try to document the controversy that presumably exists between those talking about it and those talking about it being discussed only uncritically by everyone but themselves.
  --Jerzy•t 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  

Was it << coined as a tongue-in-cheek play on "homosexual">> ???

I removed the sent

The word was coined as a tongue-in-cheek play on "homosexual".

which is unref'd and not followed up in Metrosexual#Evolution of the word.
Even if true, it is unencyclopedic to simply throw it out there with discussion: its only direct tie to "homosexual" is -sexual, but it is far more closely tied to "heterosexual", which is far more often pronounced "het'roseksh'al, rhyming with "metroseksh'al" perfectly but for a single phoneme. Another etymology, along the lines of

heterosexual, but (as common with homosexuals) markedly urban and, therefore, more like urban homosexuals in other interesting ways, than like stereotypical heterosexuals

so immediately comes to mind that it would be unremarkable for every editor to neglect requesting a reference for it. In fact, coinage per se -- a probably brief and unverifiable act by one person -- is trivia, insufficiently notable to be mentioned alone when the "viral" vigor of such a close rhyme, and any timeliness in the term's prominence, is the real story.
--Jerzy•t 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Metrosexual is a marketing ploy

The term metrosexual is derided, often by the same people who are actually embracing it. It's a ploy to sell "personal care" products to men. And it works. And if someone wants to call himself a retrosexual, there are personal care products for that too.--RLent (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Metrosexuals in Popular Culture

May I nominate Patrick Bateman? Naaman Brown (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Source?   Will Beback  talk  18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Think of Barney Stinson, Joey Tribbiani, or even Patrick Bateman (minus the serial killer part). These are great examples of metrosexual men." Source: http://www.metrosexualplanet.com/definition-of-a-metrosexual/ --82.171.70.54 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Lee McQueen (winner of The Apprentice (UK series four)) is a usable example too. Semi-source: (from 1:53) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWBI_7dJjfs --82.171.70.54 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

South Park Is Gay! is all about metrosexuality. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Metrosexual Planet" appears to be a one-person blog. If so, it would not be a usable source. "South Park" is not usable as a secondary source, obviously, but its comments might be worth making a primary-source exception for. I didn't watch the whole "Apprentice" clip, so I don't know what they said about him. But I'd say that if it was a significant comment it's probably been repeated elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The section on popular culture is not very good. I and Simpson are the only people with the knowledge to improve it, and this page overall. but I am not risking having my edits deleted by a bunch of geeks who don't know or care about metrosexuality! NotoriousQRG (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousQRG (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

meaning

until i saw this i always thought a metrosexual person was someone who had sex with cars 203.122.243.98 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourced/unsourced

A recent set of edits deleted sourced material and added unsourced material. That's the opposite direction from the one we should be taking. While some of the sourced material may have been tangential or unnecessary, I don't see a good case being made for that. Unless there's an explanation I'll revert the edits.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I can source the material. Kinda new to this -- not sure exactly what to type and where to show source.Blondjamesblond (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I don't know how to start a new talk page topic for discussion -- namely, I wonder whether the entry on "female metrosexuality" belongs there at all. The reasoning is faulty, there's no proof or reference that the concept is valid, or needed, or anything.Blondjamesblond (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Some basic Wikipedia concepts are worth mentioning. First, if we have sourced information we should be reluctant to delete it. I'm not sure why you deleted some of that material. Second, all material should be verifiable. I see you added some material without sources. That's OK so long as sources can be found for it. Do you think that's possible? Third, the sources we use should refer directly to the subject of the article, in this case "Metrosexual". Sources that talk about related concepts should be used carefully, if at all.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Will, thanks for this. I did go back and source the references that were the most needy of it, and I can source the rest. Any material that I edited out was because largely so much of went to discuss Mark Simpson's creation of and personal thoughts on the concept, as if vast social, technological and economic factors were not at play in the birth of this vast consumer market. For example, there was a section on "retrosexual" that was "sourced" to Simpson, yet the quote did not address the word at all. As it still stands, the article is still tilted inappropriately to Simpson. There are now 31 mentions of his name on the page, down from 48 before. His authorship and contributions are not in question, but entire sections -- sourced they may be --- are inappropriate to the body of this story. In the forms they now take, both the sections "Female metrosexuality" and "narcissism," for example, both contribute nothing to the definition and make Simpson seem to be using this page as a soapbox and make-up mirror. Like all words, "metrosexual" belongs to language and the people that use it, contemplate it and illustrate it. That it seems to mean many things to many people and generate many opinions is only evidence that Simpson's thoughts should not dominate this page the way they do.Blondjamesblond (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Australian national newspaper Sydney Morning Herald"

The "Metrosexual" article mentions

The Australian national newspaper Sydney Morning Herald [. . .].

The fact is that in Australia the said newspaper is not regarded as national. In editorial content and in distribution it's decidedly a state-based newspaper, despite its good coverage of national and international matters. Outside New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory it's available in some shops in each state or territory, but usually no earlier than the day after publication.

Australia's two dailies that are truly national in that they're distributed nationwide for purchase over the counter and mostly on the day of publication are The Australian (News Limited, = Murdoch) and The Australian Financial Review (Fairfax).

The article is correct, though, where it calls Melbourne's daily The Age a "sister" of The Sydney Morning Herald. They're equals in that each is Fairfax, each is a broadsheet and each is classed as a metropolitan (ie capital-city) daily. Leigh Oats (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for that input. Would "regional" be a better description?   Will Beback  talk  11:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In Australia's fourth estate, "regional newspaper" refers to any of the major non-capital-city newspapers such as Victoria's largest-circulation regional daily The Geelong Advertiser.

The broadsheets The Sydney Morning Herald (published in Sydney, the capital of New South Wales) and The Age (published in Melbourne, the capital of Victoria) are usually known as "metropolitan" daily newspapers by virtue of their being published in capital cities. (And Sydney has another NSW-centred metropolitan daily, Murdoch's tabloid The Daily Telegraph.)

If I were you, Will, for the "Metrosexual" article I would write something simple but sufficient along the lines of "Sydney's daily broadsheet The Sydney Morning Herald [. . .]."

Cheers, Leigh Oats (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll update it with your suggested text.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it

What does looking prim and proper have to do with sex?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Anybdy?74.100.47.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the major reasons that people wear nice clothing, ensure they are bathed and groomed is to attract a mate.--RLent (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Flexisexual

Not sure why "flexisexual" got added to this article since the term has little to do with metrosexuality. The proper home for that information is on the heteroflexible article which means basically the same thing. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the 'flexisexual' bit I agree it is not relevant to the meaning of 'metrosexual'. NotoriousQRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.179.159 (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sam Romano

Can someone clarify who the Sam Romano mentioned in the article is? I can't seem to find a canonical Sam Romano when I search on either Wikipedia or Google, and the only references seem to be to other news articles which have clearly lifted from this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.233.25 (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)