After a one-month period that saw more than one million votes cast, AskMen.com’s Top 49 Men of 2007 have been chosen, and the list is now revealed. “We’ve spent the past few weeks sifting through your votes and assembling the rankings of the guys that you’ve deemed to be the best representatives of our gender – this year’s manliest men,” says AskMen.com.
At #7 on the list, Apple CEO Steve Jobs ranks above the likes of Simon Cowell (#38), Apple’s own Jonathan Ive (#33), Kanye West (#28), Tiger Woods (#26), Stephen Colbert (#24), Richard Branson (#21), Sacha Baron Cohen (#18), Steve Carell (#13), Brad Pitt (#11), and George Clooney (#8).
Steve Jobs – #7: This year proved to be another landmark year for Apple Inc.’s CEO and cofounder, Steve Jobs. He launched the video-streaming device known as Apple TV in January, the immensely successful iPhone in June, and new generations of iPods (including the updated iPod nano and the iPod touch) in September.
2007 Resume
• Debunked rumors of the decline in music sales over the internet, as song sales at the iTunes Music store surpassed the 2 billion mark.
• Made Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People In The World list.
• Met publicly with Bill Gates for the first time in over 20 years at the Wall Street Journal’s D: All Things Digital conference in May.
• Became the subject of a play about his and Bill Gates’ early years when Nerds://A Musical Software Satire premiered in Philadelphia.
• Had his gadgets spoofed on both Saturday Night Live and MAD TV.
• Was involved in an undertaking to get Al Gore, a member of Apple Inc.’s Board of Directors, to run for President in 2008.
• Inducted into the California Hall of Fame in Sacramento.
• Achieved success with the iPhone as it reached the 1 million sales mark only 74 days after its release.
• Helped Apple earn a reported 73% increase in its fiscal third-quarter earnings.
Jonathan Ive – #33: Acknowledged as the head designer of the team that brought us the iMac and the iPod, Jonathan Ive, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Industrial Design, continued to lead in the field of industrial design when his latest technological innovation, the much ballyhooed Apple iPhone, was made available in the U.S. on June 29th.
2007 Resume
• Celebrated his 15th year with Apple Inc.
• Celebrated his 10th year as the corporation’s Senior Vice President of Industrial Design.
• Earned a Cooper-Hewitt National Design Award in July for the development of the iPhone.
• Had his biography, Jonathan Ive: Designer of the iPod, by Kris Hirschmann released through Kidhaven Press.
• Was featured in an article published in The Observer entitled “The 50 Men Who Really Understand Women.”
• Was included in the 2007 edition of “Who’s Who,” Britain’s biographical record of “the great and good.”
• Celebrated the global sale of iPods surpassing the 100 million mark.
• Introduced the updated iPod nano, which allows the playing of video as well as music.
• Unveiled the iPod touch, which includes a touch-screen interface.
Who’s #1? David Beckham. Full list here.
So when asked So, really, what’s the difference between a metrosexual and a homosexual?
Mark Simpson replied:
Metrosexuals are better dressed. Homosexuals are so last season.
You might want to read the Askmen.com article on “metrosexual” which states and I quote
“What’s sexuality got to do with it?
If Mark Simpson is gay, does that mean metrosexuals are too? Most current references seem to peg metros as hetero, but in Simpson’s original definition, orientation was unimportant. Simpson clarified this point in an interview with Russia’s OM Magazine , explaining, “Metrosexuality is in fact the end of ‘sexuality’.” He goes on to say that when it comes to metros, sexuality “is utterly immaterial because the metrosexual has taken himself as his own love object and pleasure as his sexual aim. Desire in the metrosexual has been uncoupled, or at least irretrievably loosened, from reproduction and gender — and reattached to commercial signs. Adverts. Images. Icons. Brands.”
In general parlance, to be called metrosexual is not to be called gay, but rather sensitive, chic and cultured.”
Simpson, a gay man, says rather matter of fact that metrosexuality is the “end of sexuality”.
My argument has always been that metrosexuality has nothing to do with latent homosexuality or sexuality at all, it’s about commercialism, consumerism.
My other argument has been that for what some reason you’re continual desire to attach the term to homosexuality is indicative of homophobia, more than likely rooted in some kind of fear of being associated with being gay and/or being associated with something that may give the appearance of being gay.
You may also want to read Marks own blog where he states “metrosexuality is not about going to spas and wearing flip flops, nor is it essentially ‘girly’ and ‘feminine’ – unless you think that narcissism and self-centeredness are essentially feminine qualities. Metrosexuality – do I really have to spell it out? – is mediated masculinity. Mediated masculinity that has replaced the ‘real’ thing. This is why I described the metrosexual as a collector of fantasies about the male sold to him by the media.”
I find it interesting that you’ll quote Mark Simpson, but won’t site your source, so I’ll do it for you and quote from the same article. In the article, “MetroDaddy speaks!” where he interviews himself he states:
“Are hetero metrosexuals really latent homosexuals?
Certainly it would make life easier and less worrying for retrosexuals if this were true — and I notice that in certain slightly, shall we say, clenched circles, metrosexual has become another word for “homo” or “fag.” Unfortunately for these threatened types — and also for me — this is just wishful, over-tidy thinking, homophobic housework. Hetero metros are not “really” gay — they’re just really metrosexual. In point of fact, hetero metrosexuals are probably rather less “latent” than retrosexuals. They are, after all, rather blatant — in their flirtatiousness. Their identity is not based on a constant repudiation of homosexuality. What the retrosexual finds repugnant in the metrosexual is his invitation of the gaze — a gaze that is not and cannot be gendered or straightened out. They’re equal-opportunity narcissists.”
You seem to have the ability to read, and quote, but not to comprehend the subject. Go back a reread the article.
“after all, rather blatant — in their flirtatiousness. “
Get over it. There’s no question that metrosexuality and homosexuality are inextricably linked.
To quote again Mark Simpson’s words “Relaxed, fagotty, submissive metrosexuality.”
The one short form definition that would fit your views would be “a guy who acts how the world perceives gay guys to act” The most common short form definition however would be “a guy who hasn’t admitted to himself or others yet that he’s gay”
Once again, you demonstrate that you can’t see past your homophobia with regard to what a metrosexual is, and even though Mark Simpson himself in his own answer in the article “Metrodaddy Speak” clearly states that a metrosexual is not a latent homosexual.
Since we both have gone quoted liberally from Mark, I decided to email him directly to get his answer, and his response is as follows
Dear James,
Thanks for your email. Yes, it’s fairly clear that quite a few people would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes
Here’s the answer I gave on Salon in 2004 to the question.
Are hetero metrosexuals really latent homosexuals?
Certainlyit would make life easier and less worrying for retrosexuals if this were true — and I notice that in certain slightly, shall we say, clenched circles, metrosexual has become another word for “homo” or “fag.” Unfortunately for these threatened types — and also for me –this is just wishful, over-tidy thinking, homophobic housework. Heterometros are not “really” gay — they’re just really metrosexual. Inpoint of fact, hetero metrosexuals are probably rather less “latent” than retrosexuals. They are, after all, rather blatant — in their flirtatiousness. Their identity is not based on a constant repudiation of homosexuality. What the retrosexual finds repugnant in the metrosexual is his invitation of the gaze — a gaze that is not and cannot be gendered or straightened out. They’re equal-opportunity narcissists.
Dear Mark,
I thought I’d send you an email to key you into a conversation I’m
having with a poster on MacDailyNews.com that part of a thread about AskMen.com’s Top 49 Men of 2007. The conversation I’m having, as the poster @Phil, is with a gentleman named Phil McRackin. In a post, Phil McRackin, equated metrosexual with being a latent homosexual. I argue that it has nothing to do with being a latent homosexual or sexuality at all but is a generalized demographic term used by advertiser and marketer to sell products to men. I’ve also stated to Phil that he’s a homophobe due to his reaction to the term and his disdain towards it. I also posted a comment under the name “to the homophobes et al . . .”.
I was wondering if you’d take a gander at the thread and reply with your thoughts, either as a comment on the site or as a reply to my email. If you reply to my email, I’d like to include them in my discussion on the thread.
We’ve both quoted from you’re Salon.com article and my last post quoted from your blog; of which i’m reading with enjoyment.
A fan,
James N
Why don’t you email him yourself you can do so through his blog marksimpson.com or at jortone2002 at yahoo.co.uk.
I’ve redacted my email address to protect my privacy. Please make note that in his response he clearly states “a few people “would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes.”
In one sentence he, the ultimate authority on the subject, solidifies both my arguments. You’ve been pwnded.
Once again, you demonstrate that you can’t see past your homophobia with regard to what a metrosexual is, and even though Mark Simpson himself in his own answer in the article “Metrodaddy Speak” clearly states that a metrosexual is not a latent homosexual.
Since we both have gone quoted liberally from Mark, I decided to email him directly to get his answer, and his response is as follows
Dear James,
Thanks for your email. Yes, it’s fairly clear that quite a few people would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes
Here’s the answer I gave on Salon in 2004 to the question.
Are hetero metrosexuals really latent homosexuals?
Certainlyit would make life easier and less worrying for retrosexuals if this were true — and I notice that in certain slightly, shall we say, clenched circles, metrosexual has become another word for “homo” or “fag.” Unfortunately for these threatened types — and also for me –this is just wishful, over-tidy thinking, homophobic housework. Heterometros are not “really” gay — they’re just really metrosexual. Inpoint of fact, hetero metrosexuals are probably rather less “latent” than retrosexuals. They are, after all, rather blatant — in their flirtatiousness. Their identity is not based on a constant repudiation of homosexuality. What the retrosexual finds repugnant in the metrosexual is his invitation of the gaze — a gaze that is not and cannot be gendered or straightened out. They’re equal-opportunity narcissists.
Dear Mark,
I thought I’d send you an email to key you into a conversation I’m
having with a poster on MacDailyNews.com that part of a thread about AskMen.com’s Top 49 Men of 2007. The conversation I’m having, as the poster @Phil, is with a gentleman named Phil McRackin. In a post, Phil McRackin, equated metrosexual with being a latent homosexual. I argue that it has nothing to do with being a latent homosexual or sexuality at all but is a generalized demographic term used by advertiser and marketer to sell products to men. I’ve also stated to Phil that he’s a homophobe due to his reaction to the term and his disdain towards it. I also posted a comment under the name “to the homophobes et al . . .”.
I was wondering if you’d take a gander at the thread and reply with your thoughts, either as a comment on the site or as a reply to my email. If you reply to my email, I’d like to include them in my discussion on the thread.
We’ve both quoted from you’re Salon.com article and my last post quoted from your blog; of which i’m reading with enjoyment.
A fan,
James N
Why don’t you email him yourself you can do so through his blog marksimpson.com or at jortone2002 at yahoo.co.uk.
I’ve redacted my email address to protect my privacy. Please make note that in his response he clearly states “a few people “would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes.”
In one sentence he, the ultimate authority on the subject, solidifies both my arguments. You’ve been pwnded.
Once again, you demonstrate that you can’t see past your homophobia with regard to what a metrosexual is, and even though Mark Simpson himself in his own answer in the article “Metrodaddy Speak” clearly states that a metrosexual is not a latent homosexual.
Since we both have gone quoted liberally from Mark, I decided to email him directly to get his answer, and his response is as follows
Dear James,
Thanks for your email. Yes, it’s fairly clear that quite a few people would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes
Here’s the answer I gave on Salon in 2004 to the question.
Are hetero metrosexuals really latent homosexuals?
Certainlyit would make life easier and less worrying for retrosexuals if this were true — and I notice that in certain slightly, shall we say, clenched circles, metrosexual has become another word for “homo” or “fag.” Unfortunately for these threatened types — and also for me –this is just wishful, over-tidy thinking, homophobic housework. Heterometros are not “really” gay — they’re just really metrosexual. Inpoint of fact, hetero metrosexuals are probably rather less “latent” than retrosexuals. They are, after all, rather blatant — in their flirtatiousness. Their identity is not based on a constant repudiation of homosexuality. What the retrosexual finds repugnant in the metrosexual is his invitation of the gaze — a gaze that is not and cannot be gendered or straightened out. They’re equal-opportunity narcissists.
Dear Mark,
I thought I’d send you an email to key you into a conversation I’m
having with a poster on MacDailyNews.com that part of a thread about AskMen.com’s Top 49 Men of 2007. The conversation I’m having, as the poster @Phil, is with a gentleman named Phil McRackin. In a post, Phil McRackin, equated metrosexual with being a latent homosexual. I argue that it has nothing to do with being a latent homosexual or sexuality at all but is a generalized demographic term used by advertiser and marketer to sell products to men. I’ve also stated to Phil that he’s a homophobe due to his reaction to the term and his disdain towards it. I also posted a comment under the name “to the homophobes et al . . .”.
I was wondering if you’d take a gander at the thread and reply with your thoughts, either as a comment on the site or as a reply to my email. If you reply to my email, I’d like to include them in my discussion on the thread.
We’ve both quoted from you’re Salon.com article and my last post quoted from your blog; of which i’m reading with enjoyment.
A fan,
James N
Why don’t you email him yourself you can do so through his blog marksimpson.com or at jortone2002 at yahoo.co.uk.
I’ve redacted my email address to protect my privacy. Please make note that in his response he clearly states “a few people “would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes.”
In one sentence he, the ultimate authority on the subject, solidifies both my arguments. You’ve been pwnded.
Once again, you demonstrate that you can’t see past your homophobia with regard to what a metrosexual is, and even though Mark Simpson himself in his own answer in the article “Metrodaddy Speak” clearly states that a metrosexual is not a latent homosexual.
Since we both have gone quoted liberally from Mark, I decided to email him directly to get his answer, and his response is as follows
Dear James,
Thanks for your email. Yes, it’s fairly clear that quite a few people would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes
Here’s the answer I gave on Salon in 2004 to the question.
Are hetero metrosexuals really latent homosexuals?
Certainlyit would make life easier and less worrying for retrosexuals if this were true — and I notice that in certain slightly, shall we say, clenched circles, metrosexual has become another word for “homo” or “fag.” Unfortunately for these threatened types — and also for me –this is just wishful, over-tidy thinking, homophobic housework. Heterometros are not “really” gay — they’re just really metrosexual. Inpoint of fact, hetero metrosexuals are probably rather less “latent” than retrosexuals. They are, after all, rather blatant — in their flirtatiousness. Their identity is not based on a constant repudiation of homosexuality. What the retrosexual finds repugnant in the metrosexual is his invitation of the gaze — a gaze that is not and cannot be gendered or straightened out. They’re equal-opportunity narcissists.
Dear Mark,
I thought I’d send you an email to key you into a conversation I’m
having with a poster on MacDailyNews.com that part of a thread about AskMen.com’s Top 49 Men of 2007. The conversation I’m having, as the poster @Phil, is with a gentleman named Phil McRackin. In a post, Phil McRackin, equated metrosexual with being a latent homosexual. I argue that it has nothing to do with being a latent homosexual or sexuality at all but is a generalized demographic term used by advertiser and marketer to sell products to men. I’ve also stated to Phil that he’s a homophobe due to his reaction to the term and his disdain towards it. I also posted a comment under the name “to the homophobes et al . . .”.
I was wondering if you’d take a gander at the thread and reply with your thoughts, either as a comment on the site or as a reply to my email. If you reply to my email, I’d like to include them in my discussion on the thread.
We’ve both quoted from you’re Salon.com article and my last post quoted from your blog; of which i’m reading with enjoyment.
A fan,
James N
Why don’t you email him yourself you can do so through his blog marksimpson.com or at jortone2002 at yahoo.co.uk.
I’ve redacted my email address to protect my privacy. Please make note that in his response he clearly states “a few people “would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes.”
In one sentence he, the ultimate authority on the subject, solidifies both my arguments. You’ve been pwnded.
Once again, you demonstrate that you can’t see past your homophobia with regard to what a metrosexual is, and even though Mark Simpson himself in his own answer in the article “Metrodaddy Speak” clearly states that a metrosexual is not a latent homosexual.
Since we both have gone quoted liberally from Mark, I decided to email him directly to get his answer, and his response is as follows
Dear James,
Thanks for your email. Yes, it’s fairly clear that quite a few people would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes
Here’s the answer I gave on Salon in 2004 to the question.
Are hetero metrosexuals really latent homosexuals?
Certainlyit would make life easier and less worrying for retrosexuals if this were true — and I notice that in certain slightly, shall we say, clenched circles, metrosexual has become another word for “homo” or “fag.” Unfortunately for these threatened types — and also for me –this is just wishful, over-tidy thinking, homophobic housework. Heterometros are not “really” gay — they’re just really metrosexual. Inpoint of fact, hetero metrosexuals are probably rather less “latent” than retrosexuals. They are, after all, rather blatant — in their flirtatiousness. Their identity is not based on a constant repudiation of homosexuality. What the retrosexual finds repugnant in the metrosexual is his invitation of the gaze — a gaze that is not and cannot be gendered or straightened out. They’re equal-opportunity narcissists.
Dear Mark,
I thought I’d send you an email to key you into a conversation I’m
having with a poster on MacDailyNews.com that part of a thread about AskMen.com’s Top 49 Men of 2007. The conversation I’m having, as the poster @Phil, is with a gentleman named Phil McRackin. In a post, Phil McRackin, equated metrosexual with being a latent homosexual. I argue that it has nothing to do with being a latent homosexual or sexuality at all but is a generalized demographic term used by advertiser and marketer to sell products to men. I’ve also stated to Phil that he’s a homophobe due to his reaction to the term and his disdain towards it. I also posted a comment under the name “to the homophobes et al . . .”.
I was wondering if you’d take a gander at the thread and reply with your thoughts, either as a comment on the site or as a reply to my email. If you reply to my email, I’d like to include them in my discussion on the thread.
We’ve both quoted from you’re Salon.com article and my last post quoted from your blog; of which i’m reading with enjoyment.
A fan,
James N
Why don’t you email him yourself you can do so through his blog marksimpson.com or at jortone2002 at yahoo.co.uk.
I’ve redacted my email address to protect my privacy. Please make note that in his response he clearly states “a few people “would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes.”
In one sentence he, the ultimate authority on the subject, solidifies both my arguments. You’ve been pwnded.
Nice try bozo.
You’re just quoting the already published article pretending you got it in a personal email to yourself.
Let me repeat to you a passage from the same article
“Perhaps because it represents the definition of recreational sex and doesn’t remind them of their heterosexual responsibilities but rather of their homosexual possibilities (the exhibitionism of male metrosexuality is literally asking to be fucked), or maybe because it’s seen as a kind of extreme sport (it involves trusting your life to some stretchy rubber and taking the plunge), anal sex has become the unholy grail of metrosexual sex. “
And to finally repeat the quote from Mark Simpson.
When asked So, really, what’s the difference between a metrosexual and a homosexual?
Mark Simpson replied:
“Metrosexuals are better dressed. Homosexuals are so last season”
He didn’t say metrosexuals are straight. The only difference he came up with is that they are a better dressed subset of homosexuals.
How does it feel that you hero regards your lifestyle as “Last Season”?
Actually, no, I did email him, which you can do yourself and he categorically states
“From: jortone2002@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: MacDailyNews.com
Date: October 27, 2007 8:26:06 AM CDT
To: gobimass@yahoo.com
Dear James,
Thanks for your email. Yes, it’s fairly clear that quite a few people would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes”
He, not me, then went on to quote his own article.
You fail in your argument, you’ve been pwnd. Now go get some therapy for your homophobia.
If you’d like to verify that I emailed him and ask him yourself on the subject go right ahead, his blog is marksimpson.com.
I actually dare you to email Mark through his blog marksimpson.com and ask him the following
a) did you receive an email with the subject “MacDailyNews.com” regarding the issue of whether or not a metrosexual is a latent homosexual, and that he quoted his own article in his reply, as well as his proceeding statement.
b) are metrosexual in fact latent homosexual?
c) will he forward you a copy of my original email to him to verify that I did in fact email him.
You’ll see by my previous post I am no longer redacting my email address, you can use it to verify that I did indeed email him. You can also let him know that I dared you to email him, and that I’m more than ok with him forwarding you my original email to him. And while you’re at it, ask him what a metrosexual is and if a metrosexual is a latent homo.
I dare you!
How sad, still pretending you actually emailed him.
Get back to the question, how do you feel that your hero regards your lifestyle as “Last Season”?
If I were pretending to have emailed him then why would I be daring you to do the same yourself? Verify my source. What are you afraid of? You’re argument failed because of your sophomoric attempt at rhetoric. You’re argument is a bunch of gooseberries.
I was a homo last season, this season, and will be one next season. Much like you’re are and will always be a homophobe, with a pathological need to justify to yourself that you’re not a latent homo by being such.
My “hero”, Mark Simpson, by the way is also a homosexual, and is considered the Oscar Wilde of our time. I’m more than proud to be in that same company, as “last season” as that may be. He doesn’t hate his self for being such, is internationally acclaimed, has an incredible wit, and is quite handsome.
How about manning up, grow a pair, and email him yourself and and ask him directly what he feels about being “last season” and if a metro is a latent homo.
MDN magic word “reaction” as in you’re reaction to the subject is clearly indicative of you being a pathological homophobe.
James, you seem to have some identity issues and be struggling a bit with your homosexuality.
As I’ve stated before, I really don’t care if you’re the biggest screaming queen out there. I don’t care if you sexually gratify congressmen in airport bathrooms. I don’t care if you work as a lumberjack by day and go home to a committed monogamous homosexual relationship at night. I don’t care if you are any combination of the above. I really don’t care. To keep calling me a homophobe is just trying to divert attention from your own problems.
My comments are broadly based, not just on Mark’s writing, which despite your assertions to the contrary links Homosexuality and Metrosexuality, It’s also about how society perceives the word Metrosexual and Meterosexuals.
Look at all popular discussion of the word. To the vast majority of the population, it means a guy, if not gay already, only a couple of strong drinks away from his first homosexual experience.
The only people who appear to want anyone to believe anything different are advertising executives who know they will scare these guys off if they start labelling them as gay, and know they need to break them into their gayness gently, those who identify themselves as non gay metrosexuals, and apparently yourself, who seems to have missed the point that you can claim to be gay and metrosexual concurrently.
People can also claim to be straight and Metrosexual, but the fact is, nobody believes them.
You are a homophobe, you’re reaction to my previous post further illustrates this. You’re pathological need to continue to tie concept of the metrosexual to latent homosexuality is an irrational fear of of gay people, behavior, or appearance of homosexuality, both in a micro and macro societal way. You’re attempt to negate your “I don’t care” statement is laughable; as you use it to rationalize you’re pathology.
You’re comments are “broadly based” so as to support your failed argument. I, on the other hand, went straight to the source-the authority on the subject–by emailing him directly through his website, marksimpson.com to which he responded “it’s fairly clear that quite a few people would like to think that metrosexuals are ‘really’ homosexual, and very often those people are out and out homophobes.” Please, by all mean verify my source for yourself.
I never said that there aren’t metrosexual homos, I know quite a few of them. However they do not consider themselves nor are they target marketed to in that way. Gays and lesbians are target marketed as just that gays and lesbians.
Ad executives keyed in on the term metrosexual, which Mark Coined in the article “Here Comes the Mirror Man”, as a way to sell products to the general male populous. Which is by and large heterosexual to sell a media create image of masculinity by playing into male vanity and narcissism. Male vanity and narcissim is often perceived as being feminine ergo gay, but in truth it’s what it is vanity and narcissism.
It has nothing to do with sexuality in term of actual and real human sexuality it’s all about marketing. Marketers aren’t trying to “break them into their gayness gently” they’re playing into the needs of Narcissus.
The author on the subject himself points to this fact in his article “Metrodaddy Speaks” as well as makes clear that it’s mainly” just wishful, over-tidy thinking, homophobic housework” to think otherwise.
Phil, you have a sophomoric level of comprehension of the subject at best, and an inability to constructively frame and support your position at the least. I’m just trying to educate you on it, and point out that your homophobic reaction to the subject is indicative to a pathology for which you should seek treatment.
Until you email Mark yourself and ask him to verify that I did indeed email him about our discussion and inquire for yourself on the subject your proceeding statements are moot.
You’ve been PWND!
Keep telling yourself that what you’re posting is true.
For now you seem to be a sad self loathing gay man.
And, yet again, I truly don’t care whether you’re gay or not.
“You’re comments are “broadly based” so as to support your failed argument. I, on the other hand, went straight to the source-the authority on the subject–by emailing him directly through his website, marksimpson.com”
If you restrict analysis to his writing, which you clearly did when made up the email, you’ll find he emphases that Homosexuals form the prototype for Metrosexuals, that a Metrosexual is definitely playing with his gay side and homosexuality and metrosexuality are inextricably linked.
Does he also say the exact quote you quoted when you made up the email? Yes. But in a sea of other material he’s written which directly contradicts that position. So does Mark Simpson (with his words not mine) say that metrosexuals display faggoty tendencies and sexually explore their gay possibilities? Yes, he does.
What is your term for a guy who displays faggoty tendencies and sexually explores his gay side? (Other then Metrosexual, to whom you’re saying that comment does not apply)
But back to your statement of authority, he’s not the authority on what meaning the word has taken on in general usage. Look up Internet posts and definitions on the matter, most will have long discussions of what people perceive a Metrosexual to be. Ask people who know metrosexuals, and most will tell you that if the metrosexual is not gay already, they’re one step away from it, and that Metrosexual is to all practical purposes a synonym for a gay guy who hasn’t necessarily admitted it to himself yet.
A guy who hasn’t admitted to himself that he’s gay, or has “faggoty tendencies and sexually explores his gay side” is a closet homosexual or in today’s vernacular “on the downlow.”
As far as being a self loathing homo, I’m no more self loathing of being gay as I am of having black hair, brown eyes, and being left handed. I came out of the closet at the age of 19, and live as a proud gay man openly to my family, friends, and at work. I have no problem with my sexuality, certainly my boyfriend doesn’t, nor does any of my family, friends, or co-workers.
In your failed attempts to support your now pwnd arguments you don’t even site your sources. Please do so.
As far as me siting Mark Simpson, he coined the phrase and writes extensively on it. He is considered the authority on the subject. Can’t get any better than that, especially when he states in his article “Metrdaddy Speaks” in Salon.com that a metrosexual isn’t a latent homosexual he’s a narcissist and to continue too think so is just plain “homophobic housework”.
If I made up the email then why, oh why, am I encouraging you to email him yourself to verify my communication with him yourself. What are you afraid of? More pwnage?
You’re arguments is so generalized that it’s akin to those who say “women who wear pants are lesbians” or “people who use Apple computers no nothing about computer, the iPod locks you into iTunes, or that Apple computer users are fags.” All of which we know are not true and are bases largely on prejudice and ignorance.
As far as siting my sources, or only using Mark Simpson, I also sited Askmen.com and Webster’s New Millennium™ Dictionary of English.
So how about I quote another source, The Washington Post, in an online discussion with Dan Peres, the Editor of Details Magazine, titiled “What is a “Metrosexual?”
Learn About It (August 20, 2003)”
“What does it mean? Good question. From my vantage point a metrosexual is a straight, urban-based man who is extremely comfortable and passionate about pursuing his interests in things like design, architecture, fashion, dining, grooming. The sorts of things that just a few years ago the same man would have been labeled a “sissy” for doing.” He goes further to state, “You can’t have a metrosexual experience the way you can have a homosexual experience because being a metrosexual has nothing to do with your libido. It is a term assigned to heterosexual men. Heterosexual men who no longer fit the alpha male description.”
You may also want to read the article “Who Are the Metrosexuals?” by Louis A. Berman, Ph.D. where he looks at the metrosexual phenomenon from an academic and psychological point of view.
How about reading the article “Metrosexuality” on felixsalmon.com by the writer Felix Salmon.
Or read the article “Metrosexuals Come Out” by Warren St. John published in the New York Times June 22, 2003.
I hope this expands on your research and understanding of the subject.
The word you are looking for is cite and citing.
Now, finally an admission by your own words.
“A guy who hasn’t admitted to himself that he’s gay, or has “faggoty tendencies and sexually explores his gay side” is a closet homosexual or in today’s vernacular “on the downlow.””
We get to the truth of it. By Simpson’s original writing, we get to the point where even you finally admit that Metrosexuals are closet homosexuals or “on the downlow”
“From my vantage point a metrosexual is a straight, urban-based man “
Which goes directly against even Mark Simpson’s view of his sexuality. (your new hero whose quotes on the subject you didn’t even recognise when I first posted them)
“The sorts of things that just a few years ago the same man would have been labeled a “sissy” for doing.”
Understand, he’s still labelled sissy for doing them.
So lets analyze you.
Despite your protests about having no problems with your sexuality, based on your posts, that doesn’t really ring true.
What we seem to have here is a self loathing gay guy. You don’t even have your own identity in this thread, merely one derived from responding to me. That probably flows through to a true lack of identity in your real life.
You appear to be someone who has struggled with what it means to be a man throughout his life. Then along comes this term “Metrosexual” and you get relief. You can believe all the “gay” things you did all these years fitted the new definition of “manhood”.
Then as suddenly as this relief comes, it gets swept away, as you realize that the world (except those cynically marketing to Metrosexuals) doesn’t regard the Metrosexual as a new kind of non sissy masculine straight man, but rather just another kind of faggoty gay or almost gay guy.
Then you spend inordiante amounds of time trying to prop up the definition of Meterosexual, presumably in an attempt to keep it meaning in your mind what you hoped the world would think it meant, something that affirms your masculinity rather than your faggotyness.
Sooner, or later, perhaps after 19 years, you will eventually admit what you know today, the true perception of the word.
It’s sad to be you.
PS. Just in case there’s any doubt, I truly don’t care whether you’re gay, a sissy, whatever. Just don’t try telling me that the world perceives metrosexuals as straight.
Steve Ballmer #2
Bill Gates #1
yewah baby!
My name is James Neal, I’m 34, I came out of the closet at the age of 19, and am a proud gay man; although I can’t spell.
You’re last post was laughable and is clear FUD. FUD based on homphobic stereotypes, and the acceptance of stereotypes as cannon.
In addition to Mark Simpson, who we both cite, I also source Webster’s Dictionary, The New York Times, Askmen.com, a psychologiest, another blogger, and The Washington Post. All of which agreed on the same point that “metrosexual” has nothing to do with latent homosexuality, or sexuality at all, it’s a marketing term. Besides Mark you’re sources to support your position are . . . ? Oh yeah, that’s right broadly based generalization that “every one has”. It’s just like a parent asking his/her child, “if everyone was jumping off a building would you do it to?”
As far as being a sissy boy, oh woo is me. How sad it is for me to accept who I am.
I’m glad that you don’t care if I’m gay, a sissy, or whatever thanks.
p.s You also don’t understand, or can’t understand, that there is a difference between a closet case and latency.
p.s.s Thank god Leopard has been released. I’m certain that that , at least, is something we can agree on.