This is a guest post by the cheeky, entertaining and always whip-smart Elly of Quiet Riot Girl. Photo by Mona Kuhn
“Contrary to what you have been told, metrosexuality is not about flip-flops and facials, ‘man-bags’ or ‘manscara’. Or about men becoming ‘girlie’ or ‘gay’” says Mark Simpson, the man who coined the word “metrosexual”. “It’s about men becoming everything. Quite simply, metrosexuality is men’s “desire to be desired”. Men in contemporary society are now able to admit to wanting to be beautiful and to be appreciated as “objects of desire” in a way that was previously reserved for women.”
One of the things I love about Rabbit’s blog is this is a place where men and expressions of masculinity are taken seriously. That sounds strange, when we are forever told (mainly by feminists) that it is women who are not considered adequately in our culture–as people, as sexual beings.
But I find that wherever I look there are discussions about ‘‘the objectification of women’s bodies” or “sexual violence against women and girls” or “pornography and women”. It has reached a point where I have to ask, without irony, “what about the men?” Simpson, an English author and journalist, has spent his entire career asking that very question.
Simpson coined “metrosexual” back in 1994, but it really became a media-fuelled phenomenon in 2003 when “metromania” hit the USA. From Barack Obama to David Beckham to Giorgio Armani to Eminem to The Situation, the metro man is everyman. As Simpson explains, “metrosexuality is the male desire to be desired by everyone, including and sometimes especially by other men. This was once regarded as pathological, perverted and definitely something to keep to yourself. Now it is so commonplace it’s almost ‘normal’. Perhaps even – eek! – ordinary.”
But, it’s not as though men just became narcissistic. Simpson says it’’s clear that men had a capacity for sensuality and vanity – a desire to be desired – but for most of history it has been closeted. Men were to be warriors or laborers or empire builders. They weren’t meant to be beautiful. The Victorians codified a sexual division that decreed women were beauty and men were action. But now that men have been encouraged to get in touch with their vanity and sensuality it seems there’s no stopping it!
Metrosexuality differs from other incarnations of male self-love, in that it’s reliant on consumer capitalism. In other words, if you want to look hot: buy more stuff. But that narcissism, ever-apparent for the metro-man who needs mirrors like Narcissus needs the pool, is not necessarily a negative, argues Simpson.
“The rise of male behaviors, practices and tastes characterised as metrosexual are made possible in large part by the decline of stigma attached to male homosexuality. While this stigma made life difficult for homosexual men, it also had an instructive, not to say repressive, effect on all men.” In contrast metrosexuality means masculinity is no longer black and white, “no longer always heterosexual and never homosexual or always active never passive, always desiring never desired, always looking never looked at,” says Simpson.
Nicole Lesser, photo
Back in the 90s, Simpson identified “lesbian chic” — you know, those women celebrities snogging each other on magazine covers and at film premieres-as an example of increasing acceptability of female “bi-curiousness”. It is this blurring of sexual orientation amongst men that some people have found hardest to swallow. I asked Simpson if metrosexuality blurs the boundaries between gay and straight, and enables men to express bi-curiousness, why is it still not acceptable for men to be openly bi?
“It’s still early days, remember. And we’re only just beginning to move away from the commonly held nostrum of the last thirty years or so that all women are bi, but any man who touches another man’s ‘pee pee’ is gay” says Simpson. “ Metrosexuality is definitely a form of bi-responsiveness. But a lot of people want masculinity to remain repressed. Some men are scared stiff of having those options. They don’t trust themselves. This is crucial in understanding how metrosexuality has impacted men’s sense of self, and also why it is still a controversial concept, especially in conservative corners of the globe.”
In the end, it all comes down to one plain fact, Simpson explains, “Frankly, everyone knows that men love cock. Though we’re not meant to mention it. And as a result of this secretiveness there is an unconscious idea that if men taste cock then they won’t want pussy. It’s untrue of course, in most cases – Professor Bailey and his kinky sex-lie detector tests notwithstanding – men love cock AND pussy. Just look at straight porn! It’s salient that this fear doesn’t generally manifest itself with female bi-curiousness. Because, the assumption seems to be ‘she’s always gonna want cock’.”
But despite this homo-anxiety he triggers in many men, the metrosexual won’t stop shoving his pretty sexually-undefined ass in our faces. He symbolizes men gaining pleasure from looking at themselves and each other, you just can’t be 100% straight and metro. In the metrosexual noughties, some male stars have come out as bisexual. James Franco, Duncan James from the UK Boy-band Blue, and Tom Hardy for example. Simpson says about Hardy, “There is something quite inspiring about this married Hollywood star’s ownership of his bi-curious past and his ambi-sexual persona. It’s a good advert for metrosexiness: ‘Don’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling’.”
Some recent research backs up Simpson’s theories. A 2010 report by academics at The University of Bath suggests that “the majority of male students in the UK think nothing of giving one another a big wet one on each other’s lips in all sorts of social situations”. The researchers found that 89% of white undergraduate men at two UK universities and one sixth from college said they were happy to kiss another man on the lips through friendship. Doctor Eric Anderson, the lead researcher, claimed that heterosexual men kissing is a result of the decline of homophobia.
The young men interviewed came out with some lovely quotes which illustrate how comfortable they are with expressing their “metro-love” for one another. Matt, telling a story about breaking up with his girlfriend, “I was really lonely…So one night I asked my housemate who is one of my best friends if I could sleep in the bed with him. He looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Come on,’ opening the covers to invite me in.” Matt continued, “He kissed me, and then held me. It was nice. I sent him a text the next day saying, ‘I’ve got the best friend in the world’.”
Sam, comparing university with more conservative approaches in his home town, “I never kiss any of my friends back home,” he said. “And I can’t imagine it going down too well.” When asked about how his friends showed him affection back home, he said, “Punching and rubbing their knuckles into my head.”
Pete stressing that when he kisses a mate, it is not because he is drunk: “Alcohol might make it easier for some guys, I guess. But I don’t think that’s why guys kiss.” He added, “I can tell you why I kiss my friends. I kiss them because I love them.”
“I kiss them because I love them” is a little bit different, a little deeper, than the stereotype of the metrosexual, preening and plucking and prancing in front of a mirror. The achievement of Metrosexy and its potentially subversive power lies in the way Simpson manages to take all these aspects of metrosexuality and make whole, a rounded picture of how contemporary masculinities are being formed and changed, made less heteronormative, through our consumer culture.
Quoting that early metro icon, James Dean, who famously denied being homosexual, Simpson characterizes metrosexuality as a man’s way of saying, “I don’t want to go through life with one hand tied behind my back.” And why should he?
Editors Note: “No-Homo”.
Guest Article By Blogger Quiet Riot Girl
Metrosexy is available on Amazon Kindle Amazon.com
41 Comments
I’m more than a personality and a set of complex emotions and memories, I’m also a piece of meat to be oggled and groped, dammit!
Lol, you know it’s funny, in feminist conversations we argue about the sexual objectification of women, but seeing someone for their sexuality and in a sexual light is not a bad thing. I think a little sexual objectification can be a good thing, perhaps. Curious what others think about that…
I think the evidence is mounting up that men enjoy being objectified. Quite a lot!
It’s a shame that feminism has gone down a road that seems to say you have to choose to either be a good feminist, or to enjoy your sexuality in many cases. If you want both, you have a lot of arguing to do with the powers that be in feminism. Men, who have not traditionally been seen as ‘objects’ in our modern culture, seem to be embracing it without so many political conflicts. Which I think is a good thing!
I’m with you, QRG! I suppose the question is how-why-when is objectification okay? Is it okay only if its conscious? Only if we know we are wearing clothing in order to be ogled and owning it?
It seems with women there is a lot of “accidental sexiness” that goes on–the marilyn monroe effect. Perhaps because women aren’t encouraged to own their sexuality. But again, I do think a little objectification can be a good thing because after-all aren’t we sexual beings too?
Today, for instance I saw an article about how women are over encouraged to “bare it all” and be sexy and how this is awful. I find quite the opposite to be true as well, when I want to dress sexy I find myself feeling guilty because so much of culture tells me that’s dumb or bad or not okay.
Check out these boys baring it all. They are tres metro!
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/je-suis-un-metro/
A short anecdote that has only a little to do with the topic of the post but that I think ties into some of the comments…
A comedian/musician visited my university and during his schtick bent over to pick something up off the ground, revealing that he was wearing (awesome) Superman boxers. I felt the need to inform him that his wardrobe choice made at least one nerdy girl in the audience happy and called out “Nice boxers!” to which he replied “I can see half your tits, I win”, which was certainly not the direction I expected that conversation to go. However he became extremely confused when I responded “You’re meant to, it’s a $40 push-up bra!” (Victoria’s Secret, the Incredible, bright purple, gosh I love it, especially in cold weather when the amount of push-up means I can use my tits as chin warmers).
A few things interested me about this exchange.
1. That a comment on his wardrobe was immediately taken as a come-on. Admittedly it was underwear, but the wide variety of boxers that young adult males wear, and the high visibility of said articles, leads me to believe that commenting on them should be seen much the same as commenting on a shirt, or maybe a highly visible bra with a fun pattern or cool color. A nice thing to say in a laid back atmosphere, such as we were in, though maybe not something to be commented on in more formal situations.
2. That owning the fact that yes, I was dressed provocatively (at least showing a good amount of cleavage, the rest of my outfit was schmeh, in compensation) was surprising to him. I wasn’t about to be ashamed in front of an auditorium full of people for wearing a pushup bra to a night of entertainment which I followed up by heading out to a bar with some friends. I was hardly dressed inappropriately for the forum (had it been a business meeting or an interview, okay sir, I would see your point, but it precisely was not). I’m not sure what he expected from me instead but I don’t think he expected my reply at all.
3. “I win” Really? When did Superman boxers covering a very cup-able ass start losing out against some cleavage that could be seen on any female with sizable tits? Who made these standards? Is there a point system as to the attractiveness of different parts of the male and female body? Which are equivalent? How do I know?! haha, I should make that list. I feel it would be an appreciated addition to the intarwebz.
Sorry this is so long, but to the idea of ‘owning’ objectification, I think that when it’s okay to be objectified is such a personal thing but I enjoy a little objectification when it comes with no other expectations. I don’t mind be looked at, as long as letting that happen doesn’t lead to other things without me physically/verbally encouraging it. Too many times I’ve been in situations where guys have assumed that because I’m showing off my body that I want physical attention from them, with no other cues from me. Sometimes showing off my body is simply showing off and taking personal pleasure in my own body and nothing else. I think it ties into the whole slut-shaming ‘you deserve it’ or ‘you asked for it’ sort of thing. Wearing provocative clothing is a conscious choice, and it is to the point where if people DON’T notice, I might be a little put out, since I do it so rarely. But that does not mean that it is an open invitation for sexual advances from strangers. Getting noticed is one thing, getting harassed is another.
One annoying thing is that there are also definitely men out there who can objectify you and slut-shame you at the same time. I think it’s sort of a “you make me lust for your body! how dare you have sexual agency?!” kind of thing. I wonder how the idea of ‘comefuckme’ clothing/shoes ties into it… Hrmm. Anyway, that’s enough, I think.
“I think the evidence is mounting up that men enjoy being objectified. Quite a lot!”
Yes! And I do doubt women when they say they don’ enjoy it. That is at the root of a lot of the resistance feminists receive when they talk about “male gaze” and “street harassment” and such. maybe – if someone is telling you about their experience, take it for what it’s worth and drive on.
But the point stands – a lot of time that male gaze and street harassment discourse comes across as a bargaining position for victim status. And the response to that uniformed resistance has been less than communicative.
Interesting anecdote…imagining myself in your position it feels like the thing you later described–being both admired and slut shamed at the same time. I think what happens with objectification (and we talked about this somewhat in another comment section on a recent post…if anyone remembers) is that its great as long as the one gazing doesn’t lose track that you are a whole person. And its a subtle line. But anyway–you win in this story! Your call out was cute and non shame-y, a great way to objectify in the nice way!
Jim, I just saw this (commenting from my phone as I don’t have internet at my new apt yet…) I wonder what elly, the author of the post would say to this. Living in cities, I have had my fair share of street harassment, and it doesn’t feel good. When someone yells at me from a moving vehicle it feels like its on a continuum of aggression and violence. But a glance or a small compliment can make me feel good inside. Its all about where the comment is coming from and the emotion behind it I suppose–and with objectification–if I remain a whole person who is complemented for my sexuality or become a ‘slut’ or JUST seen for my sex-body…I say there is a difference because I’ve felt it—over and over, everyday when I leave the house!
I think objectification is natural healthy & (just like booze, sex, power, profit or whatever) should never get a bad rap because people misuse it. It’s all about the abstract a.k.a. fantasy, desire, assumption or anything else that can not be physically touched but rather only be explored by some neuron in the dome…..neurons that are there for a reason.
Personally I want to use them. As far as men wanting to be objectified being any new concept I think that’s an editorial result of how repressed America has always been. I have zero homosexual skeletons in my closet but I’ve ALWAYS been into make-up, clothes, staying fit but it’s not about me me me gimme gimme narcissism it’s (besides it being what I LIKE which is most important) this is what the women THAT I WANT prefer & desire…so label it any way you wish but I call it simple, practical, as well as INTELLIGENT means to an end & it has served me well.
Sexuality & intelligence are only on two sides of a fence if you want to play the either or game instead of combining the two & skipping that endless debate as to which is more potent. As far as I’m concerned one without the other is little more than “Fool’s Gold” anyway…..whether we’re discussing a female or a male.
Great site Rachel. Nice to see/read.
I think you should explore the flip side of this subject: How so many woman on the street have lost their “woman”, why being sexy is being defamed more & more, why heels & skirts are taking a back seat to men’s clothing with “female” labels, & why the scrunchie has made a HUGE comeback.
In response to Jim’s comment, I think ‘street harassment’ is a bit of a hot potato at the moment.
It is something that has always been around, as long as there have been ‘streets’ I expect. But recently it seems to have become a feminist issue.
I am a little bit ambivalent about the campaigns against ‘street harassment’. Rachel’s comment here indicates some of the complexity:
‘When someone yells at me from a moving vehicle it feels like its on a continuum of aggression and violence. But a glance or a small compliment can make me feel good inside’
This suggests that part of the meaning of men’s attention to women depends on how the woman interprets it. i.e. it is subjective. So, mounting a whole feminist campaign on something that is open to different interpretations seems a little bit problematic to me. I find attention from men often depends on my mood. If I am feeling confident, open, I don’t mind it, or I even enjoy it. If I am busy, stressed, tired, not in the mood, I find it annoying. If it is men in cars/vans just shouting, yes that is rarely enjoyable.
I think the problem I have is that women could be seeming to be saying ‘if I don’t like it, it’s harassment. If I do, it’s not’. And how are men supposed to know which it is going to be?
Also I think some of the banter that goes on on our streets is actually to do with the men, showing off to each other, and even trying to prove how ‘hetero’ they are, in an all-male group, which could seem quite ‘homo’- rather than being about harassing or complimenting women.
@ carella interesting that you say that about the scrunchies. What I was saying earlier about feeling guilty about dressing sexy often feels stemmed from this. Like the girls I want to befriend will look down on me and my 5 inch heels and lipstick because I’m not in the de riguer “man repeller” look. That this somehow makes me an enemy. I think there is a silent aggression-judgy thing toward femme women. Or maybe I’m just judging myself. Either way I get the whole femme guilt thing. But how I’ve navigated that guilt is by realizing I am a sexual being, I can express that with my clothing and that’s okay.
QRG, this is suuuuuch a juicy topic. The thing I hate to say here because its not true all the time and it kinda sucks is that I like male attention (smiles, glances, body scans) if the guy is attractive. I’m way more likely to feel creeped out or even slightly victimized if he’s not. This is a devils advocate position, because I know street harassment is real and do believe it is on a terrifying continuum of violence toward women, however I also know this attraction bit is true for me. And this truth puts men in a can’t win situation.
Sorry to double comment here but unsure how to edit my last comment from my phone–im actually thinking I meant less unattractive and more age. Because I tend to veer more towards liking attention of younger men( aka my age) no matter their looks..and its older men I see as creepy. This could also mean its more about power in my mind and abuse of power..or it could mean that older guys (diff generation) tend to be the more machismo I suppose…does this make sense to anyone else or ring a bell?
@ Rachel the not-so silent (for me at least) judgement thing is WAY out of hand now. I spent the last decade in Hollywood where no one blinked an eye but now I’m back in Chicago & the midwest ploy on this subject. I always feel like I’m swimming in a semantics pool that I can only dry off with (VERY plotted) articulation. So when people (& ironically enough it’s women more than men) try to play the “I’m trying so hard game” I point out both of our pants (mine never being jeans because I don’t own any) & remind them that it doesn’t require ANY more time in a day for me to place 2 legs in my pants as opposed to theirs. My shoes never have laces so their tennis shoes take more effort too. I do my own hair so when they spend that hour or two at the beauty shop chi-CHING = more time than me. I’m sure I could beat them in an eye shadow race too. YES it’s ALL so petty but I didn’t start their conversation. I’m just defending my chosen island, perhaps influencing a change in perspective, & the truth is they wouldn’t bring it up unless they were curious. In the end maybe it’s just a bumbling fool’s lack of composure. Anyway the truth is I never take more than 10 minutes TOPS to get ready but because it’s not THEIR way it’s supposed to be this THING & homie don’t play that (yo). I honestly could not care less what anyone calls it BUT the more I can change the way my street looks the more I’ll enjoy the view. It’s funny how so few ever EVER bring up what standing out is REALLY all about = GUTS & I expect little more than gutless interpretation from the gutless.
I definitely don’t like being objectified by men. Like a previous commenter has said, when a dude is yelling at you from his car, it feels so aggressive and violent. Like they know it’s inappropriate, so they just speed away. However, I also don’t appreciate being ogled at the gym-I feel it reduces me to just my looks. I also know many guys who don’t like being seen as sexual objects, and I’ve had more than a few episodes where I’ve comforted a male friend because he’s felt a girl was using him for sex. I think that guys enjoy being checked out, but they haven’t been subjected to the abuse girls have.
I’m not really sure about this article. There were a couple of things I found insulting. Not to be a downer or be mean in any way, because I think it’s a really interesting topic, and I LOVE this blog, but I think a few things missed the mark.
First is the assumption that metrosexualization is automatically taken as a sign that more men are bicurious. This seems to be just as big of a stereotype to say that all gay men are vain and pretty, now we are saying that all vain and pretty men are kinda gay. I think the point of metrosexualization is that your appearances don’t automatically define your sexuality.
I also wonder at this notion, the idea that these pretty men are a sign that “men love cock”, as another afront to the image of women. We assume that these men being vain, materialistic, and shallow means they are becoming more into cock, or more like women. Is anyone else bothered that vanity, materialism, and shallowness are automatically attributed to women? I have always known men to care as much about all of these things as women, even the macho ones, and I find it really insulting that society pretends like only women have ever cared about this stuff.
Also, metrosexuality isn’t a new thing, we just have a new name for it. Look at the fops in the 18th century, and we can see this materialism and vanity at it’s glory. Fashion and image are a constantly changing fad, and men being pretty will soon be replaced with men being macho again. This has gone on for centuries, I don’t really take it as a sign that sexuality is neccesarily changing.
Also, as part of the previous discussion of objectification, I think we all keep on using it as a blanket term for sexual attraction. Someone can be really into my body and not treat me as if I am an object. Objectifying means treating someone merely as an instrument for your own pleasure, and not treating them as an equal partner or multi-faceted person. While I love getting sexual attention, I will never feel satisfied with being sexually objectified. I DO think wanting to be objectified is unhealthy, but wanting to be desired is completely different.
And I think all of you are right, it is sad that women keep on attacking one another for wearing heels or lipstick, because it just distracts from actually supporting one another and improving the world. Whether it’s girls in short skirts or girls in blue jeans, anyone turning up their nose at another women because of her appearance is immature, insecure, and stupid.
And again, I really do love this blog and think it’s great, and I only make these comments as a variation of opinion, not as an attack.
I think this is a very interesting and constructive comment, eliza. I especially feel sparked by your comment on how we see vanity equaling femininity–and why do we?
I also like the questioning of the jump from metrosexual to something more fluid aka bisexual. Here is what I think it’s about: the whole metro thing shows a larger opening up for men outside of traditional gender roles..which are often sex roles . With this, men can shift their sex role a little too, perhaps in some cases embracing a more fluid sexuality. And I think that’s great. But it doesn’t mean the two always happen together.
But I’m with you in that its not great that we have to equate ‘metrosexual’ to homosexual in such disparaging discussions of vanity and consumerism.
And thanks for your positive words & continued support as well as your smart comments, always!
Hi all
Thanks for entering into such an interesting discussion! I am going to prepare a better response but I will just say that nowhere in this article or in Mark Simpson’s work which you can read in more detail http://www.marksimpson.com is there an equation of metrosexual with ‘gay’.
‘Gay’ is a word some ‘critics’ of metrosexuality have used to put down men who take pleasure in their appearance and their bodies and themselves and each other. Simpson’s thesis says that metrosexuality is not about being ‘gay, straight or bi’ but about being ‘everything’ to yourself. I think Rachel has it when she says metrosexuality encourages a blurring of gender identities which is related intrinsically to sexuality identities.
Mark says metrosexuality, eventually, will mean the ‘end of sexuality’ as we currently split it into separate categories altogether!
Hi, again.
I’d like to share a bit of my life, because I feel it might illustrate things a bit.
When I was in secondary school I had a classmate who was, for all intents and purposes, effeminate. He wore sunglasses, designer clothes, handbag, make-up. In my school, a very brave thing to do. After we graduated he came out as heterosexual and half of the village was flabberghasted and/or didn’t believe him – he obviously couldn’t be anything but gay with all the make-up. I myself never liked the guy much – he was too much of a rich kid – but that took a whole lot of guts, both the construction and the deconstruction of his perceived identity. More or less the point of this little story is for me that I learned for the first time that stuff like effeminacy, gender roles and sexual orientation are discourses that may very well overlap and be deeply connected, but that they don’t have to be.
I also think that “Metrosexuality” is the result of the current image we have of masculinity. I think that it’s the antithesis to what this culture defines as masculinity – perhaps a more or less pop cultural expression used to describe a shift in the discurse “masculinity”.
For that matter I’d like to point out that the relations between men and at our times female-coded attributes may change with time and (sub-) culture. Just take a look at Britain in the 1970s! Glam Rock, yay! Glitter and Make-up were used by straight working class men. Or take the New Romantics. The list is long. In ancient Egypt men wore a lot of make up. Er… /end {babble}
Hi Govinda that’s a great story. I like how you said the young man ‘came out as heterosexual’!
Mark Simpson does indeed acknowledge how men’s narcissism is as old as the hills, but he links metrosexuality specifically to consumer capitalism which is what brings it right up to date.
Men’s vanity and ‘self-love’ has never been sold to us this energetically before.
Personally, I believe that men have always been objectified, perhaps not as overtly. The sideways glances, etc. between women have always been a part of our history. Same for objectification through clothing, cars, luxury items, etc.
However, I believe a great deal of the metrosexual “movement” is due in great part by generations of boys being raised by women without fathers and role models. Who do they watch get ready for work, interact, play, chat, etc. – women. I grew up w/o a father and I can do every bit of historically women’s work; from cooking to laundry to everything in between. I didn’t realize how little I learned of being a “man” until my girlfriend laughed at the way I washed a car.
I personally do not care if someone is gay or lesbian, but I truly believe the blurring of sexuality is due in great part by the blurring or non existence of male role models.
Sadly, while many men and women think this is great and lowering inhibitions in men, the truth that I see in the real world is that MANY women would like a resurgence of ‘real’ men
Yeah, I wanna stress what Quiet Riot Girl said too–that metrosexuality means the end of sexuality altogether–into something more fluid. Don’t get caught up in my sensational naming of the article!
Govinda, I just love that someone *came out* as straight. If Mark is right and metrosexuality does mean the end of sexuality and everyone being more fluid as the default—then one would have to come out as straight, and what an interesting future to imagine.
Also, as a side I often feel confused about how the glam rock, fluid, bisexual men in glitter thing happened in the 70s–it seems to progressive compared to where we are today. Though, I venture to guess that male bisexual chic really got stomped with AIDS. I know from my research in the swinger community, that this is when male bisexuality in swinger circles became tabboo and really just flat out not allowed–while female bisexuality was expected.
James, I’ve heard this argument a few times, from my own husband even. But I’m just not buying it. I really think it has a lot more to do with men questioning their gender roles, owning more of their sexuality and the expressions of gender and sexuality–like women have been for the past decades!
After-all, studies show that men raised without Dads are often more aggressive or sexist–not “metro” or sexually fluid. And the findings in those studies I think have more to do with an unstable home rather than accessible male figures.
I don’t know about needing or wanting a return to “male-ness”–I do like websites like Art of Manliness but I think questioning your gender role is about reclaiming what you like and moving away from what you find problematic. We don’t need a return to anything (we were right to move away from rigid gender roles to begin with). What I think we do need is to recognize that maleness and masculinity is not wrong, it’s a beautiful expression and we can choose what aspects we like of traditional masculinity and what to reclaim…and which are stifling or problematic–and stomp them out.
Yeah I’m not buying that argument ether James to be honest I mean I have a strong male role model in the form of my dad who grew up in a really rough part of town and was proper working class and I still grew up questioning my gender identity. I feel this blurring of the lines would have happened even without the advent of consumer culture that QRG and Mark Simpson talk about as there’s only so long you can keep something like that under control before wants to breaks free .
Gender roles to me have always seemed so arbitrary to me anyway and as for the subject of what women find attractive I think that’s a matter of individual taste myself I’ve got a lot of female attention and I’m not particularly rugged or manly.
Also Rabbit I wouldn’t say that the music scene of today is any more conservative than it was in the 1970s there was the Emo sub genre of the 2000s that made it ok for male writers to express complex emotional sentiments in there song writing. It was also a scene that encouraged androgyny and exploring ones sexual and emotional boundaries as well.
I agree with most of what you say 2020- except maybe for this:
‘I feel this blurring of the lines would have happened even without the advent of consumer culture that QRG and Mark Simpson talk about’
Mainly because the advent of consumer culture is probably the one aspect of this whole situation that I think was pretty inevitable. Short of armageddon or a full-scale revolution in capitalist countries, it had to happen. Everything else relates to that socio-economic shift.
Ooh I’m loving this observation about ‘emo’ and I wonder if that’s why it remains such a hated and eye roll worthy genre…well aside from the fact that it is musically stunted.
Quiet Riot Girl: upon re-reading the article, I see more of the idea of a more fluid sexuality in appearance, and how metrosexualism is about not defining sexuality by style. Thanks for clearing up my confusion!
Rachel: I think that women and vanity are so heavily linked because of one of the many Catch-22′s placed upon women: we are told that our appearances are the most important thing about us, and then we are told that being into our appearance makes us vain and shallow. Basically, we are wrong no matter what.
I wonder if that is where this fear of being too girly and hated by other feminists stems from. We want to feel feminine and pretty, but we also want to be taken seriously as a woman, and our culture tells us this is impossible, because no matter what we will always be wrong. Women are told this so much, they start to buy it themselves, and then start to attack other women for it.
Thanks Eliza. But surely ‘other feminists’ have a critical eye on culture and would not hate other women based on their appearance? Sounds a bit rough of them if they do!
I also think that as men become more and more objectified- I have just watched the French Open final btw, and all the ads/promos were images of objectified men – the pressure on women to be beautiful all the time, while it won’t go away, is actually becoming on a par with men. This post was about men and masculinities, and whilst it relates to women too, it is about acknowledging men now have many of the same opportunities and pressures as women, as regards their bodies/appearance/self-expression.
This is the man behind the (mud) mask….
Firstly, I’d like to thank Rachel for running this piece – and Elly for making my ideas much clearer and more coherent than they probably are.
I may be being giddily optimistic, but I do think that metrosexuality signals the end – or the beginning of the end – of that Nineteenth Century discourse of ‘sexuality’. It’s the end of ‘heterosexuality’ and ‘homosexuality’. And even of ‘bisexuality’ – which as a category is really just the third term exception that proves the binary rule of the other two. Après metrosexuality sexual taste and preference doesn’t define your personality any more – and vice versa. Likewise, gender style is no longer so predictable. Vanity, thy name is… man.
People are right to mention 70s Glam and New Romanticism as a kind of first attempt at metrosexuality. But they were gloriously experimental youth cults and fads that weren’t meant to persist. Unlike 21st Century metrosexuality, they happened outside of mainstream consumerism – which back then didn’t really exist in the way we know it now, because the children of Glam and New Romanticism hadn’t yet gone into fashion and media. They were aesthetic rebellions – against the smothering Terry & June dullness of British life in the 1970s. You made or assembled your own clothes because the shops didn’t carry what you wanted. You wore make-up as a boy because you wanted the world to be a more beautiful place.
The androgynous High Priest of all this experimental decadence and aestheticism David Bowie’s last reinvention was to famously straighten himself out in the early 80s and deny his bi past. Because his ‘fagginess’ had been the biggest brake on his American ambitions. He wanted mainstream Let’s Dance success. And because his instincts about what the Next Big
Thing was going to be were still razor-sharp.
Then Aids happened.
I think Rachel’s absolutely right that the Aids terror, plus the Reagan-Thatcher transatlantic love-affair, was what finally closed all this experimenting down. People – gay and straight – ran back screaming to the hygienic reassurance of that Nineteenth Century (medical) discourse.
Metrosexuality does represent a kind of belated victory for Bowie-ism, but perhaps without the same kind of outsider excitement or panache – or radicalism. David Beckham, not David Bowie, is the High Priest of metrosexuality. But that’s appropriate since footballers are today’s pop stars. Aids is far from over, of course, but it’s not the Biblical (or gay) plague that it was back then. And metrosexuality is not outside consumerism but very much a product of it.
Have not yet read through all of the comments, and probably won’t for a while (I am quite busy), but a couple of things:
1. I am mostly hetero, and yet the best kiss I have ever had–by a decent margin–was from a guy (also hetero, as far as I know). Also, I make a point of trying to promote physical affection amongst my friends (within comfort bounds, obviously). Hugs are one of the best things in the world. I probably hug guys more often than women, because in the latter case I still have some fears of coming across as a creep (i.e. “all guys are horn-dogs and only want to touch women for one reason”).
(Incidentally, I suspect many men feel very cut off from physical affection in general, since with guys it is “homo” and with women it is “creepy”. It is like male touch is not allowed to be non-sexual. I feel extremely sad for those guys. And I wonder how much of the “horn dog” behavior stems from just wanting/needing to be touched at all, but having to go about it in a way that is still acceptably masculine.)
2. A good friend of mine recently said something that I really agree with, and is consistent with my own thoughts of late: “Women are sexual objects. And so are men. And all of us are people, too.”
Mark! YAY!
No, seriously, you managed to put into nice words what I couldn’t quite express beforehand. I love your thoughts on Bowie, metrosexual avant là lettre. He’s definitely *the* pioneer in that aspect.
I still have a few questions… I’d like to inflict them on you, if you don’t mind:
1) Is it there a parallel discourse for women, i.e. is it possible to be female and metrosexual, or is there a different name for it?
2) Can one be old and metrosexual (cf.: “What happens to an ageing rockstar?”)?
3) Is there such a thing as a heterosexual version of camp and does it overlap with metrosexuality?
4) Where has the element of rebellion gone?
Great questions Govinda! Let’s see if that old metrosexual Mr Simpson can answer them…
Xakadu- lovely post. Nothing to add here except you go, bro!
P.s. if Mark doesn’t come back here for a while you can always chat to him about this subject on his blog http://www.marksimpson.com where metrosexuality is always the main topic of conversation!
I think a good clarification to make at this time is that aspects of gender, orientation and fashion/culture are all independent from one another. It is interesting that we are talking here about metrosexuality as a mainstream shorthand for a specific masculinity if you will but that the opposite is of any one aspect is not necessarily true. For example, metrosexuality denotes bi-sexuality but the reverse may or may not be true.
As a man who has done self work in each of the areas of gender, orientation and fashion/culture that make up my personal masculinity, I can say that no established mainstream shorthand I came across fit me well. This of course led me to continue to look at these three aspects separately as to what they meant to me. Had I felt completely comfortable in metrosexuality, or punk, or computer nerd, or even middle-class white male I would have stopped there and not fully understood the depth that each of these areas of my personality and masculinity had to offer.
@Edmund:
Ditto. Except I cringe at the notion of exploring my “masculinity” as a thing unto itself. Rather I wish to explore myself, and if parts of myself happen to be masculine (or feminine, or whatever) so be it. That some parts of me could be categorized as “masculine” is kind of incidental to me, and I do not feel any more attachment to those parts over other parts.
A lot of masculinity discourse just rubs me the wrong way, I guess. It still smells of “you have to be able to cram it under the ‘masculine’ label for it to be okay/relevant as a guy”. What if a guy is more interested in exploring and developing his femininity? What if a guy does not identify with masculinity very well? Do we still have to call it his “personal masculinity”? That just seems silly, and almost even disrespectful to how this hypothetical guy relates to himself. It still feels like we are so afraid of men not being masculine, that instead of just saying, “Some guys aren’t very masculine”, we instead try to dress it up as, “Oh, that’s his _personal_ masculinity. He’s still masculine in his own way, don’t worry! Nothing to see here!” I do not understand that. It is as if the word “masculinity” has some magical property that makes it required to be applied as a fundamental aspect of men.
As I continue to explore and develop myself, I do not see it at all as me developing my own masculinity, any more than I see it at developing my own femininity. What I am developing is myself, which has many aspects, none of which are more fundamental or important to my identity simply because I am male.
@Xakudo
I agree that exploring traditionally feminine aspects of one’s own personality is essential as well. I tend to feel that these days that is way more acceptable thing to do in other people’s eyes than exploring the more traditionally masculine aspects. I think this post illustrates that well by pointing out the decline in homophobia and the increase in men’s interest with body image.
However for example, a man showing visible anger or being intimidating or lustful are so unacceptable to society that they remain highly rejected even though they may be authentic.
For me the journey into the feminine came first, but it was actually through accepting my masculinity that I feel I became the most whole and emotionally available. It turned out those were the parts of myself that were most rejected not the feminine ones. And they turned out to be protecting a much deeper vulnerability that was unavailable to me until I saw these protectors as legitimate.
“Ditto. Except I cringe at the notion of exploring my “masculinity” as a thing unto itself. ”
Yeah. Reification can take you right down the rabbit hole.
There is a whole separate but related aspect of this that has to do with class. Think back to that opening scene in “Dangerous Liaisons’. Is there anything even remotely feminine about Valmont and his preening? But it sure is aristocratic.
It does connect to gender though, but indirectly. One aspect of the gender binary is the division of labor where boradly men do outside work and women do inside work. (And as soon as a type of work is done for people outside the family, it becomes men’s work – baking, pottery, dealing with gods, etc.) Well the same goes WRT to class – peasants do outside work and gentry are inside. It’s like our blue collar/white collar distinction.
Well those parallel each other enough to be equated in the culture. Maleness means being more peasanty; femaleness menas being more aristo. In advertizing, how much is coarseness, crudity, roughness equated with masculinity while refinement is equated with femininity?
This chimes with what working class women report about not being perceived as fully feminine. This may also explain the same thing that WOCs report.
Maleness means being more peasanty; femaleness means being more aristo – think of how this is going to play out in power relationships around proper behavior and manners – who is going to have the upper hand.
@Jim
Fascinating! thanks for that. It’s a good observation and I think works when observing societal changes in perception of aristocracy (particularly evident in the economic bubbles and recessions). If the aristocracy is making us lots of money then men come indoors a bit and the working man is a bit more looked down upon. If the aristocracy is can be blamed for an economic down turn men go outdoors a bit more. Metrosexual around the time of the tech bubble, hipster flannel and beards around the housing recession as a quick example.
Edmund, you are adding another layer of complexity to the analysis.
I think you are right about the ebb and flow of coolness between labor and whatever we call the Ferengi class in this society. I remember exactly when it became cool again to be in business and to obsess about the stock market – the 80′s. Suddenly there were all these popular finance talk shows.
But here’s the new complexity – those people are not aristocrats. At all. They are merchant class or Ferengi or whatever. The real aristocrats – the government/military function – are not the center of power in this society. (That’s why the society is so materially productive. The function of ogvernment is to protect the structures of society, not to grow.) Anyway.
And oddly, peacocking is definitely part of the miltary mentality. And I don’t just mean those smoking Marine dress uniforms. Sleeping in the mud is one end of the spectrum, and pretty extreem, and the peacocking is as far out on the other end.
It’s insidious – after WWII the Army put everyone into fatigues and boots. People started starching the fatuigues and spit shining the boots. So the Army brought out the BDU. People statrted starching them so much that the Army came out with a reg to stop it. So people started getting them tailored. So now they have the ACU. we’ll see how long that lasts…
@Jim
I agree it is totally interesting to observe and unpack these cultural shifts.
With respect to Rachel, let’s not take this discussion too far off track, but I think this observation may be helpful. I’m not sure exactly where the Ferengi class lies anymore either (perhaps it is not in the country anymore) but I do notice that the upper levels of government and industry seem to be the same these days with CEO’s becoming vice presidents and vice-versus. Additionally with white collar workers and middle managment looking more and more like the factory assembly line and clerks, I too have trouble locating the ferengi class.
Hi all, loads of great discussion on here. Just wanted to pick up on something which I don’t think has been discussed. I was most interrested in the end of your article; the boy seeking solace in the arms of a male friend. Does getting hung up on the public, extra side of the metrosexual debate (objectification blah blah blah) belie the perhaps more significant change in the private inter-relations between men. ‘I kiss my friends because I love them’ is not a statement born from the consumerist impulse, or even desire in the sexual sense. Affection expressed by physical closeness, exists in that dull hinterland between comfort and sexual desire, but by focusing on the latter we are missing out on the more important development of ‘hetro’ men sharing there emotional lives to a much greater extent. In this vein, I just want to ask ‘what about the women?’ or more specifically, is this a gendered phenomenon? Are men and women just more willing to engage in expressions of physical affection with a much lesser sexual edge with any one, not just withing there own gender. In the hetro normative world we live in, there has always been a view that physical contact between hetro men and women is an explicitly sexual act. I have never felt comfortable around men, which makes me a somewhat mixed-up metro I suppose, but have always felt comfortable in being physically close with my female best friends without it feeling sexual. Just some thoughts.
very astute thoughts, too Loz! I am going to think about them and get back to you!
2 Trackbacks
[...] http://rachelrabbitwhite.com/metro-or-bi-digging-deeper-into-modern-masculinity/ [...]
[...] Rabbit White [...]