As we enter a new year, Laura Reynolds looks at how the dating game differs from previous generations.
Laura Reynolds looks at the freedoms of festive singledom
Join Jason Rose for a peek behind today's door.
Lauren Tabbron writes about the difficulties of spending Christmas away from a loved one.
Personally, I like guys with a rugged look and a sexy smile that says 'a hundred per cent natural' who exude effortless dishevelled style. For me, a man has to be comfortable in his own body and have the confidence to be himself, rather than hide behind make up and obsess over his appearance. However, I understand that finding the right balance in both appearance and personality may be difficult for a guy and he could end up at the somewhat extreme metrosexual end of the scale.
Yes, us girls do ask for a lot when it comes to crafting our ideal man: we want him effortlessly suave and sexy, yet he has to be extra sensitive and care about stuff that’s important to us (ie. to understand our need for shopping over watching football, and be on hand to offer a fashion opinion in the absence of girl friends). So, when this new type of man comes along, a man who shops with as much zeal as us, who knows what colour co-ordination is, expresses his emotions and has an abundant supply of moisturiser, what do we do? We moan about it...obviously.
But the moaning is with good reason! (I promise). It’s not that we’re trying to be difficult, it’s just slightly unnerving when you can relate to your man on a feminine level and there’s something just not right about that. As much as girls whinge about a guy’s slobby habits or throw a tantrum when we’re made to trade watching Desperate Housewives for footie (OK that never happens), we wouldn’t want it any other way. What makes guys different from girls and what causes attraction (as well as conflict), is precisely what makes the world go round.
It’s all in the science: men do their macho thing and are mostly programmed to not always understand a female view. I don’t think that men have to prove their softer side by actually acting more feminine! Next thing you know he’ll want to discuss periods and have a good bitch about that girl in last season’s outfit – it would be like going out with yourself! What makes guys attractive is that you don’t always understand them, and vice versa.
I have no objection to a guy’s self expression through his clothes or particular look and I’m not saying they should all be macho men. There’s no problem with a guy who takes care in his appearance or has a particular style involving some guyliner (it’s actually quite sexy worn in the right way), but they shouldn’t strive to be something they’re not. Style is obviously a personal thing but the modern concern with sensitivity and appearance, and the pressure to find a 'style' for guys, has morphed our men into pretentious wannabes. Call me old-fashioned, but beauty is only skin deep, and a polished exterior isn’t always a loveable one.
"and probably spend longer on they’re hair than us!"
Good article but this simple grammatical error sums up the Yorker's slump in quality over the past 6 months. Please sort it out...
An ex-Yorkerite who would prefer not to offend and stay anonymous!
I'm sure The Yorker can always use more sub-editors if you want to reinvest some time! 
Have you heard of feminism? What a trashy, idiotic waste of space you are... This is one of the worst pieces of writing i've witnessed in all the darkest recesses of cyberspace. Grow up.
"It’s all in the science: men do their macho thing and are mostly programmed to not always understand a female view."- your science is sickening.
Your regressive gender sterotyping, in a world which widely accepts homosexuality and endorses people's individual lifestyle choices, is simply pre-historic. You are a dinosaur. Probably a pterodactyl, circling for mammalian prey. How can you be at university and hold these views?
Metrosexuality doesn't automatically equal homosexuality. I think the article was a view on straight guys TRYING to appear a certain way
"Personally, I like guys with a rugged look and a sexy smile that says 'a hundred per cent natural' who exude effortless dishevelled style. For me, a man has to be comfortable in his own body and have the confidence to be himself, rather than hide behind make up and obsess over his appearance."
I like girls who look 100% natural and have the confidence to be themself instead of hide behind make-up and obsess over their appearance. On the other hand, I don't criticise those that do, and that's an important point.
"the pressure to find a 'style' for guys, has morphed our men into pretentious wannabes. Call me old-fashioned, but beauty is only skin deep, and a polished exterior isn’t always a loveable one."
If you insert the word "women" instead of men into the whole article, you find that your point of view becomes somewhat sexist, which is the point of #3, I think. There should be no difference between men and women, whether men want to wear make-up or women want to wear rugby shirts - well done for putting your name to the article though because it was inevitable you'd get a few negative responses!
Metrosexual Madness sounds like the title of an episode of Chucklevision.
#3, you are an idiot.
"How can you be at university and hold these views?"
I am sure that you are one of a small minority that could get so easily offended by this article. As #1 pointed out the only bad thing about it is a grammar mistake. Apart from that the opinions expressed are perfectly normal, and more importantly, are just opinions. Get a grip.
#7, I am afraid that I would have to correct you. It's not a small minority of people at the university who think that men should be allowed to wear make-up etc. And the difference is that the vast majority of people wouldn't be offended by suggesting it's wrong to discriminate against "metrosexuals" whereas a fair few people would actually be personally offended and insulted by the comments in the article - so I think that #3 has a perfectly valid right to express those concerns. "Next thing you know he’ll want to discuss periods and have a good bitch about that girl in last season’s outfit" -- actually quite sexist and surprising for an attendee at a university such as ours. Hopefully what I have said hasn't come across as insulting to the author - but more importantly, hopefully the article hasn't come across as insulting to anybody who feels labeled as 'metrosexual..!
Jesus Christ stop, with the inclusive use of 'us', 'we' and 'us girls' in this article! Just by trying to make it sound as if every woman is the same, doesn't make it true. Thankfully, I don't know any woman who spends every waking minute discussing periods and bitching about someone in last season's outfit - what is this? 90210?! The OC?! Get a life!
I'd also bet that for all your 'beauty is only skin deep' spiel, you'd never leave the house without some slap on. Look - I can generalise and stereotype too!
Whats's wrong with people? Men used to be men, women used to be women and we're all too worried about offending/being offended all the bloody time. Great comment #9, Jason Rose, I await the day you enter the sane and real world.
Men still are men and women still are women and some of us are sexist in the way we approach the subject.
Talking of which, DT, where have you been? I've been commenting alone for ages!
'...exude effortless dishevelled style'. It'd be nice, but I just look like an old tramp. Is that kind of lazy, scruffy 'macho' sexier than being highly effeminate?
comment deleted by the author In response to #7: I think this article is easily offensive - just from the perspective of an individual. The language used as #9 points out is presumptuous in its inclusion of the reader. It is utterly reductive of both women and men. It is articles like this that create and sustain barriers between the sexes. The result is that people can't interact as individuals but only as a woman or a man. In response to #10: "Men used to be Men, women used to be women" - What do you mean? What is a man? What is a woman?
It is impossible to describe a man or a woman in terms of gender without resorting to crude caricatures. Would you refer to yourself as one of these caricatures...?
Isn't it easier to see people as individuals,regardless of their sex, with their own quirks, likes and dislikes?
RE:#14
"It is impossible to describe a man or a woman in terms of gender without resorting to crude caricatures. Would you refer to yourself as one of these caricatures...?"
I'm almost certain he would!
That was what i was afraid of.
Dan Taylor is the epitome of pre-historic 'masculinity'. And also, Mr Taylor, so many comments about stepping out into the 'real world' are quite ironic coming from a guy who will have gone from private high school, to a top university, to Sandhurst. Yup. real world.
When actually, in the REAL world, stereotypes like the ones in this article are being made redundant! Most females I know would be offended by being included in this charade of what men and women are. All of my female friends choose men who are sensitive, do listen, do not drink their own urine (DT), and are generally of a much higher quality than the apes described above.
Wanna see the real world, Dan Taylor? Crawl out of your upper middle class, Conservative bubble.
Do I sense the credit crunch hitting home, Anon. 17? Or is just the same old bitter class-warfare that people like you indulge in?
Please, don't attempt to relay 'my life' when you have little idea how I was able to fund my schooling, education and gain my place at Sandhurst- do you have a job? You just make yourself look (more) stupid. Also, if you are going to personally defame my character, at least have the backbone to do it as yourself and not under the umbrella of 'anon.'
I have a dissertation to complete and no, I wont be paying my servants to do it for me.
Toodle.
ROFL at DTs post!! Claaaaaassiccccc.
It's becoming startlingly often that I side with DT now, but #17, upper-middle class though some of us may be, we're part of the real world just like you - you yourself are now pigeonholing and applying stereotypes to people of a certain socioeconomic background. Perceived class doesn't define the person or their ability to comprehend or empathize with the "real world" any more than gender. If someone has been fortunate enough to have the money, luck or intelligence (don't forget scholarships and bursaries) to go to a private school and top university then lucky them, I say. And if those institutions aren't teaching them how to function as part of society, then they're failing in their duty.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report