Greg Krehbiel
This “metrosexual” thing really annoys me
by Greg Krehbiel on 23 November 2003
Why does male vanity have anything to do with sexuality? The implication of the term, it seems to me, is that men who get manicures and wax their hair off and all that other vain stuff are somehow distinguished in their sexuality from other men. But that’s absurd. Do we think that women who primp and dress glamorously have a different sexuality than women who are dumpy and don’t wash their hair? (Metrosexuality Spreading to More Macho Lands)
Men and women should take care of their bodies and manage their appearance without going to extremes. You have, on the one extreme, the slob, in the middle, the well-dressed person, and on the other extreme the peacock. This has nothing to do with sexuality.
2003-11-23 » Greg Krehbiel
24 November 2003 @ 12:11 pm
Excellent! This is precisely what has been bothering me about the whole "metrosexual" thing, though I couldn’t put my finger on it.
I guess what’s happened is that homosexuals as a "community" (whatever that means) have somehow laid claim to male personal grooming and good taste, and for some reason the culture has cheerfully conceded that to them. What’s known as "metrosexual" is of course an extreme preoccupation with those things, but just look at "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" (actually I never have, but you know what I mean) — the whole thing is predicated on the idea that sexuality somehow dictates someone’s ability to exercise good taste. And that’s just silly.