The Antichrist_Star
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 3
- Age
- 39
It gives me the greatest pleasure knowing that you (the various readers) have thus far enjoyed my newest collection of posts. There is always a certain amount of anxiety that goes into my writing… there has been many a time where I was not even sure of what I was writing about. So it always pleasurable to see my former peers (those of you younger than me) and even my current peers (those college students) find at the least some entertainment in my rambles… with those sentimental words out of way, let us continue. Recently (especially on this forum) I have noticed something that is very appalling to me. I could adequately place the blame for this phenomenon on various mediums… but I will only focus on two: our family units and our society.
The phenomenon that I speak of is that of “metrosexuality” not only society’s perpetuation of it, but a lot of men (especially on this board) utter disdain of it. Society definition of this distasteful word is, “A man who is in touch with his feminine side due to the fact that he grooms himself, wears stylish clothes and has culture.” This… in my humble opinion, is the most insulting thing that I have ever heard (you will see why in a second). On the other side of this fence we have an assortment of males whom for some reason believe that a man is measured by how many beers he drinks and how loud he grunts. These men believe that a man who takes very good care of himself (physically… in an appearance sense) is no longer a man. The argument ends here gentlemen… the Disillusion is over.
Societal Reasoning:
The societal definition of “metrosexuality” insults me because it assumes that proper grooming, manners, and decorum are strictly feminine practices. That is to assume that masculinity is limited to the practices that society constantly pigeonholes males into (the usual… clueless, uncoordinated, unkempt, sports watching male). Society assumes that a man who decides to venture away from the normal is considered “in touch with is feminine side.” Someone must have fallen asleep in history class.
Masculine Reasoning:
Because we live in a society where we are basically taught to accept what we are told as truth (you remember the famous parental line, “Because I said so”) the male gender has bought into society’s depiction of the male. The male gender now almost ardently believes that if you are not at home, sitting on the couch and scratching your balls (with your *insert favorite magazine* subscription) in front of you at least four times a week… you are no longer a man. A majority of the male gender ardently believes that exceptional grooming, fashion sense, and culture are “effeminate” traits. “Keep grooming to the basics” many men shout. Since when have we settled for the “basic” gentlemen? Moreover… when did how you’re grooming choices, fashion choices or your personal appearance choices as a whole ultimately decide whether or not you are a “Man”? Someone must have fallen asleep in history class.
Disclaimer: “Some of the following is derived from Art of Seduction by Robert Greene… a book that I encourage everyone to read.”
Women fall for a variety of men for a variety of reasons. However… in my research I found that throughout history, women (and society for that matter) have fallen for these two archetypes of males the most: The Dandy (the effeminate man) and The Rake (the very masculine male). Here are some examples of each… giving you some sort of bearing.
Dandies (or “Pretty Boys”)
John F. Kennedy
Elvis Presley
Giovanni Casanova
Benjamin Disraeli
Bill Clinton
Rakes (or “Rugged Men”)
John Wayne
Clint Eastwood
Genghis Khan
Napoleon
Sean Connery
Masculine Femininity:
The term “Dandy” would basically be history’s ally to the term “Metrosexual.” A dandy would be best described as a heterosexual man who may appear feminine in his appearance (not quite archetypically masculine) but possesses an archetypical masculine personality. A “Dandy” in modern society would probably be considered a “Metrosexual” in its moderate to extreme form. Elvis Presley for example wore pink frilly shirts and eye makeup. Moreover, Giovanni Casanova wore more jewelry than women during that time period (probably more than the modern woman), brightly colored clothes and he also wore eye makeup. In fact… contrary to popular belief and opinion throughout much of history (in various cultures) a man wearing makeup was a sign of aristocracy. Ironically enough throughout much of history, the more “Metrosexual” you were, the more powerful and wealthy you probably were… funny how times have changed.
Actually… if you were to glance throughout history as a whole, the more civilized a country… the more “Metrosexual” the men were. And how dare we forget gentlemen… the white flowing wigs that many of our fore fathers wore? If you believe that “Dandies” lacked appeal… think again. It is said that Giovanni Casanova slept with nearly one thousand women. Benjamin Disraeli would have married Queen Elizabeth (had such a marriage been allowed at the time… Disraeli was of darker skin). John F. Kennedy, Elvis Presley and Bill Clinton… I will let you figure those out for yourselves.
Masculine Men (Bad Boys):
I suppose the easiest way to describe this type of gentlemen would be to place him in the archetype of the “Bad Boy.” Women have the propensity to become attracted to these men because they are often dangerous, or they present them with a challenge. Many of the women that are attracted are already in current engagements, but these relationships are usually safe ones with “Nice Guys” that they have become uninterested in. The “Bad Boy” has successfully seduced women throughout much of history and continues to do so today. Throughout much of history (up until around America began to colonize) these men would live out their lascivious needs through married women in affairs. These women often did not stay with such men, because many of them incorrigible in their bad habits. However, for the novelty and danger of an affair, these women would get swept from under their husbands by these treacherous men… often for late night trysts.
Now… on the surface, the two archetypes of men described in this composition are not similar. The “Dandy” was usually much more refined and sophisticated than the “Bad Boy.” Moreover, the “Bad Boy” was typically worldlier and more exciting than the “Dandies” were. On the negative side, many “Dandies” and “Bad Boys” (especially in earlier history) neither of them were favored in normal society (even though many of them were members of high society). Because of this, both archetypes atypically had affairs with women… rather than actual relationships. One interesting phenomenon occurred in a number of men however… a few men (some whom will be addressed shortly) managed to bridge the gap between these two archetypes. These men managed to capture the benefits of both the “Dandy” and the “Bad Boy” archetypes, creating an interesting situation…
Cold Fusion:
The three gentlemen that I will use as examples are: Lord Byron (author of “Don Juan”), Pablo Picasso, and Andy Warhol. Lord Byron’s looks were very deceiving. His victims would typically fall for him when he displayed a moment of “feminine” weakness. This worked so well because Lord Byron was notoriously known for his lascivious antics… and he made sure to make them very public. Moreover… he treated women rather poorly. In spite of these things, whenever he would display a moment of weakness with a woman (which he often did on purpose)… she would melt. Many of those women sadly believed that they would be the one to change him… silly rabbits.
Pablo Picasso was probably as homosexual as you could be without begin so (I mean… he was a painter for Christ’s sake). Pablo Picasso was a notorious “Dandy” with one hell of a “Bad Boy” mean streak. It is rumored that he bedded a number of women (somewhere in the thousands) but it is also rumored that he was often very cruel to them (and abused some of them). Again… in spite of all of this, women still flocked to him because like Lord Byron… they believed that they would be the one who could change him. Andy Warhol was also a notorious “Dandy” (with his silver wigs and his ever changing fashion choices) but unlike Picasso and Byron, he was not necessarily terrible to women… he was just very distant from everyone. Much like Freudian’s “God Complex” (Freud’s distance from his students that made them almost fall in love with him) Andy Warhol’s distance made women flock to him, because they wanted to be the one that could garner his attention.
With all of this in mind… the point of this post is the man still makes the clothes… the clothes do not make the man. Moreover, (contrary to popular belief) being “androgynous” is not the end of the world. Men and women are very different in some instances true… but we are very alike in other instances as well. Instead of perpetuating our differences, we should learn to accept our similarities. Perhaps we would learn how to better understand one another and have better relationships with one another… just a thought.
The Rules... Have Changed
The phenomenon that I speak of is that of “metrosexuality” not only society’s perpetuation of it, but a lot of men (especially on this board) utter disdain of it. Society definition of this distasteful word is, “A man who is in touch with his feminine side due to the fact that he grooms himself, wears stylish clothes and has culture.” This… in my humble opinion, is the most insulting thing that I have ever heard (you will see why in a second). On the other side of this fence we have an assortment of males whom for some reason believe that a man is measured by how many beers he drinks and how loud he grunts. These men believe that a man who takes very good care of himself (physically… in an appearance sense) is no longer a man. The argument ends here gentlemen… the Disillusion is over.
Societal Reasoning:
The societal definition of “metrosexuality” insults me because it assumes that proper grooming, manners, and decorum are strictly feminine practices. That is to assume that masculinity is limited to the practices that society constantly pigeonholes males into (the usual… clueless, uncoordinated, unkempt, sports watching male). Society assumes that a man who decides to venture away from the normal is considered “in touch with is feminine side.” Someone must have fallen asleep in history class.
Masculine Reasoning:
Because we live in a society where we are basically taught to accept what we are told as truth (you remember the famous parental line, “Because I said so”) the male gender has bought into society’s depiction of the male. The male gender now almost ardently believes that if you are not at home, sitting on the couch and scratching your balls (with your *insert favorite magazine* subscription) in front of you at least four times a week… you are no longer a man. A majority of the male gender ardently believes that exceptional grooming, fashion sense, and culture are “effeminate” traits. “Keep grooming to the basics” many men shout. Since when have we settled for the “basic” gentlemen? Moreover… when did how you’re grooming choices, fashion choices or your personal appearance choices as a whole ultimately decide whether or not you are a “Man”? Someone must have fallen asleep in history class.
Disclaimer: “Some of the following is derived from Art of Seduction by Robert Greene… a book that I encourage everyone to read.”
Women fall for a variety of men for a variety of reasons. However… in my research I found that throughout history, women (and society for that matter) have fallen for these two archetypes of males the most: The Dandy (the effeminate man) and The Rake (the very masculine male). Here are some examples of each… giving you some sort of bearing.
Dandies (or “Pretty Boys”)
John F. Kennedy
Elvis Presley
Giovanni Casanova
Benjamin Disraeli
Bill Clinton
Rakes (or “Rugged Men”)
John Wayne
Clint Eastwood
Genghis Khan
Napoleon
Sean Connery
Masculine Femininity:
The term “Dandy” would basically be history’s ally to the term “Metrosexual.” A dandy would be best described as a heterosexual man who may appear feminine in his appearance (not quite archetypically masculine) but possesses an archetypical masculine personality. A “Dandy” in modern society would probably be considered a “Metrosexual” in its moderate to extreme form. Elvis Presley for example wore pink frilly shirts and eye makeup. Moreover, Giovanni Casanova wore more jewelry than women during that time period (probably more than the modern woman), brightly colored clothes and he also wore eye makeup. In fact… contrary to popular belief and opinion throughout much of history (in various cultures) a man wearing makeup was a sign of aristocracy. Ironically enough throughout much of history, the more “Metrosexual” you were, the more powerful and wealthy you probably were… funny how times have changed.
Actually… if you were to glance throughout history as a whole, the more civilized a country… the more “Metrosexual” the men were. And how dare we forget gentlemen… the white flowing wigs that many of our fore fathers wore? If you believe that “Dandies” lacked appeal… think again. It is said that Giovanni Casanova slept with nearly one thousand women. Benjamin Disraeli would have married Queen Elizabeth (had such a marriage been allowed at the time… Disraeli was of darker skin). John F. Kennedy, Elvis Presley and Bill Clinton… I will let you figure those out for yourselves.
Masculine Men (Bad Boys):
I suppose the easiest way to describe this type of gentlemen would be to place him in the archetype of the “Bad Boy.” Women have the propensity to become attracted to these men because they are often dangerous, or they present them with a challenge. Many of the women that are attracted are already in current engagements, but these relationships are usually safe ones with “Nice Guys” that they have become uninterested in. The “Bad Boy” has successfully seduced women throughout much of history and continues to do so today. Throughout much of history (up until around America began to colonize) these men would live out their lascivious needs through married women in affairs. These women often did not stay with such men, because many of them incorrigible in their bad habits. However, for the novelty and danger of an affair, these women would get swept from under their husbands by these treacherous men… often for late night trysts.
Now… on the surface, the two archetypes of men described in this composition are not similar. The “Dandy” was usually much more refined and sophisticated than the “Bad Boy.” Moreover, the “Bad Boy” was typically worldlier and more exciting than the “Dandies” were. On the negative side, many “Dandies” and “Bad Boys” (especially in earlier history) neither of them were favored in normal society (even though many of them were members of high society). Because of this, both archetypes atypically had affairs with women… rather than actual relationships. One interesting phenomenon occurred in a number of men however… a few men (some whom will be addressed shortly) managed to bridge the gap between these two archetypes. These men managed to capture the benefits of both the “Dandy” and the “Bad Boy” archetypes, creating an interesting situation…
Cold Fusion:
The three gentlemen that I will use as examples are: Lord Byron (author of “Don Juan”), Pablo Picasso, and Andy Warhol. Lord Byron’s looks were very deceiving. His victims would typically fall for him when he displayed a moment of “feminine” weakness. This worked so well because Lord Byron was notoriously known for his lascivious antics… and he made sure to make them very public. Moreover… he treated women rather poorly. In spite of these things, whenever he would display a moment of weakness with a woman (which he often did on purpose)… she would melt. Many of those women sadly believed that they would be the one to change him… silly rabbits.
Pablo Picasso was probably as homosexual as you could be without begin so (I mean… he was a painter for Christ’s sake). Pablo Picasso was a notorious “Dandy” with one hell of a “Bad Boy” mean streak. It is rumored that he bedded a number of women (somewhere in the thousands) but it is also rumored that he was often very cruel to them (and abused some of them). Again… in spite of all of this, women still flocked to him because like Lord Byron… they believed that they would be the one who could change him. Andy Warhol was also a notorious “Dandy” (with his silver wigs and his ever changing fashion choices) but unlike Picasso and Byron, he was not necessarily terrible to women… he was just very distant from everyone. Much like Freudian’s “God Complex” (Freud’s distance from his students that made them almost fall in love with him) Andy Warhol’s distance made women flock to him, because they wanted to be the one that could garner his attention.
With all of this in mind… the point of this post is the man still makes the clothes… the clothes do not make the man. Moreover, (contrary to popular belief) being “androgynous” is not the end of the world. Men and women are very different in some instances true… but we are very alike in other instances as well. Instead of perpetuating our differences, we should learn to accept our similarities. Perhaps we would learn how to better understand one another and have better relationships with one another… just a thought.
The Rules... Have Changed
