The Death of the Metrosexual

It was bound to happen sooner or later, and based on numerous articles, including The Guardian and the Chicago Tribune's Red Eye, it looks like "metrosexual" may be coming to the end of its 15 minutes (or four years, but who's counting?).

And it's about time. "Metrosexual" may fall somewhere between heterosexual and homosexual, but why is it on the same spectrum to begin with? To merge one's grooming sensibilities with their sexuality is unnecessary. Is male sexuality so poorly defined that any "new" behavior exhibited by men can actually alter our perception of their sexual preference?

News flash - ask any owner of upscale, high-end spas or salons that caters to a male clientele and they'll assure you that men have been participating in these sorts of activities for years. Look back on the 90's and the pre-metrosexuals were there. The 80's had more than their share of pretty, preening, pin-up boys. The 70's had their own version, too, they just maybe had a moustache and even tighter pants than their modern-day counterparts (but no "manscaping" - chest hair was big back then). The 60's? Well...hippies are smelly by definition, so nevermind.


Lots of people credit Queer Eye for the Straight Guy for intensifying male interest in grooming. After the grungy 90's, male style had been in a transition period. The Fab Five came prancing into our living rooms and made it OK for men to pluck their eyebrows, wear fitted clothing (for the love of God, when will they stop making pleated pants and tapered jeans?), and even exfoliate. After all, the men could reassure themselves that even though they were taking cues from gay men, it was all done to help them get laid, right? Because, really, that's what this is all about: men trying to find that elusive combination of manly ruggedness and sophisticated civility that will help them score with the ladies. Women dictate their tastes and men just try to keep up.

So what's really changed? Some men are clueless about fashion and their own physical image, other men take it to the extreme and spend more time in front of the mirror than their girlfriends. Most men (gay or straight) fall somewhere in between.

A little while ago there was an article in The Guardian about how "ubersexuals" are replacing "metrosexuals." Apparently, "ubersexual" men care about grooming as well, but don't get carried away with it. They smoke cigars, have more male friends than female friends, and lust after and respect women at the same time. Examples included George Clooney, Bill Clinton and...shudder...Donald Trump.

Then there was yet another article stating the following:

"The New Lad is old news, the Metrosexual should pack up his expensive eye cream and the Ubersexual can stop his pathetic dreaming about classic manliness. Modern man is actually a no-nonsense, well-balanced Heteropolitan, according to a new study.

Neither lager-loving sexists obsessed with football nor excessively moisturised, pink-shirted effeminates, Heteropolitans enjoy both the pub and the grooming parlour, and are surprisingly committed to relationships and family life."

Heteropolitan? Are you kidding me? Can't we just give all these names a rest? Why are we so eager to define and label men? Are "pretty boy" and "jock" and "nerd" and all the classics not good enough? We don't come up with all sorts of weird takes on the word "heterosexual" for all the different kinds of women who like to sleep with men. What it is about male sexuality that seems so slippery and elusive that we must stamp it with these strange, unsatisfying titles?

I'm done trying to analyze it. I don't think "Heteropolitan" is going to catch on anyway, so maybe - hopefully - it will all be behind us soon. Good riddance.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go apply pomade to my hair while I drink a beer, watch football, and peruse the latest Express for Men catalog.