Just to play devils advocate here- If being superficial and under pressure to look good results in more gays getting into better health and more fit- isnt that a good thing?? We'll live longer than the stereotyped beer bellied unhealthy straight guy and it will be one step closer to our master plan of taking over the world!!! :devil::devil::devil:
Well the action of taking care of oneself is very good indeed, however this post was mostly about the superficial
attitude more than the action. Yes the gay community are the pioneer in many man's health behaviors which brought in 1994 the Metro Sexual sub-classification of man who cares about what they wear eat and do, however that stereotypical beer belied unhealthy straight guy is really a gross myth, while they don't have the same level of pampering than a gay dude, they are not all a bunch of dirty Daniel Boon running after raccoons to yet make himself another ugly hat LOL.
What's the definition of metro sexual? Some define metro sexual as "a straight man in touch with his feminine side". Others define it with more specificity, such as "a straight man, who lives in an urban environment, who is into designer clothes, art museums, musicals, and other non-macho pursuits." Behind all the definitions is that the metro sexual is a straight man, but he's interested in things that the stereotypical gay man is interested in.
It is not a secret that many girls loves gay dudes for the beauty and the care and awareness they have about a healthy appearance and healthy lifestyle. Many man have understood the trick of taking more particular care of themselves in order to be as popular as gay dudes among woman. And it works, however today the metro sexual appellation made place for a more suitable appellation "man's health" which has no pejorative labeling about a man being gay or effeminate because he cares for his appearances and health.
Now let be honest I hate that word "Metro sexual"
The word "metro sexual" calls people's sexuality into question again when really it shouldn't in this context. It's as simple as that. The things that metro sexuals are supposed to like, such as good clothes, art museums, and the theater, are the very things that I had thought just meant that you had class and cultural sophistication. Since when did all of these things become associated with one's sexuality?
By assigning sexuality to buying a good suit, you are creating a stigma where none existed before. Of course this new terms brought some funny definition; according to some dude on the net, metro sexual was someone who has books in his house and has actually read them. Okay! I thought a person who has books that he read was called "educated", not "metro sexual."
Do men have to eschew reading to prove that they're not gay? Marketing people are totally screwed in the head if they think the use of a new word like "metro sexual" will help them sell stuff. The average heterosexual guy does not want to be thought of as gay, or even feminine. If you imply some sort of gay sexual connotation to buying an expensive suit, I suspect that you will sell less expensive suits and not more of them. If you want to sell something to a man, you have to demonstrate how it will help him get sex with women, not how it will help him become like women.
Are you only a real man if you wear ratty old clothes and spend all your free time watching football on TV? This is what someone seems to be trying to tell us.
Now about the gays taking over the world... well I believe that they took over several social strata, but we still need the female organs to make more gays :rofl::rofl::rofl:
PS- Of course I jest but I think there is a grain of truth in what Ive said- and that applies to everyone, not just gay guys. If societal norms and pressures result in a healthier population Im all for it. But like everything else as long as its within reasonable limits...
Agreed :thumbs up: