I suppose if the term had existed I have always been a metrosexual man.
I cook and clean and shop, I changed nappies, done the school run, even became part of board of governers of school. But so has my wife.
Being equal partners does not make a man a limp dick!

Now a bloke who won't look you in the eye, or have a firm handshake, definitely a faggot :excited:
I'll let the ladies off with the handshake, but that is all

 

Have you lost your clothes? Or your ability to find bargains at low-low prices?

 

I agree with everything that you posted. You are right. Having more women with college degrees is a good thing. These women will make more money and have better lives. However, there is something that you have left out. Something that you may not be aware of. The more educated, successful and wealthy a woman is, the less likely she is to get married. That is bad for our society. We need more two parent families. Children should have a mother and a father. Successful women feel that most men are not good enough for them. There are not enough college educated men to meet the demand. So many successful women forgo marriage. They refuse to be the breadwinner in a marriage. They would rather be alone than "marry down". This is one of the differences between men and women. Men marry for love, women marry for security. Women have told me that they would not lower themselves to date or marry a guy like me. I know that money and social status are part of the reason. The situation will only get worse as more women earn degrees and fewer men do. Medical science is working on a way for women to have children without a man's sperm. They will just clone the woman. Eventually men will be extinct. I think that will be bad for society. Ironically, women will be the biggest losers. They will live lonely loveless lives. The last few men on the planet will have very pleasant lives. They will be treated well. Women will give them whatever they want whenever they want it. They will not have to work. Women will do everything for them. They will even fight with other women over the few men still around. It will not matter what the men look like or how much money they have. They will be treated like kings. The women will be happy just to be near a man.

 

Good point(and your sarcasm wasn't lost on me, though our defn. of metrosexual differs a bit)

One thing, is that `metrosexuals' as far as the term has been coined, have been around since the early nineties.

Single, attractive, slim, highly intelligent, never married, well dressed, are six of the criteria that are quoted(or heard), but more must be added, of course; otherwise this can apply to many that really aren't, not as far as mindset is concerned.

btw: not all I would see as `good looking' or `better' dressed than me(for dates, business functions, etc).
I think we can add, vain and foppish to the criteria.

Carrie on...

 

You odd little man. I have pointed out elsewhere there are many countries where men and women share the same duties and perform the same roles as parents and "bread winners" in their day to day lives. They are happy and content. There was no "disintegration of the family unit."

And in case you happened to miss lesbianism and bisexuality, women who do not have men in their lives get along just fine. They are not miserable, lonely or loveless.
What planet are you from?
Women can and have gotten along just fine without men.

And for your information, all fetus's start out as essentially female, as I recall it's the introduction of the Y chromosome that cause them to mutate into males. So there you have it, men are mutants.

With that out of my system:
Metrosexuality.. I have met quite a few, wildly garish and flamboyant, proud of the fact that take care of themselves and stand out from the crowd.
No issue.
No issue with homosexuals, transexuals, crossdressers, or whatever "label" people like to toss about..

MY definition of a "Momma's Boy" are these loathesome males whom seem to think doing housework is "womens work".
Males who can't cook, clean, sew, bake, or clean up after themselves.
Men who can't look in the mirror and dress themselves in at least a modicum of cleanliness and visually pleasing apparel.
Males who can't function without some female looking after them like mommy used to.
Men whom are not self sufficient, neat and tidy, are "Momma's Boys" in my books.

That being said a little rant on women. I am very much the eqaulist. Yes women should be paid just as much as men for the same work. Women should be treated with as much respect as men.

And if I can lift 200lbs over my head on the Job site, I expect my female co-workers to do the same. If I can take a blow to the head from a beer bottle at work, I expect my female co-workers to do the same.
Rest assured your gender will play absolutely no part in how I treat you.
If I can do it. So can you. Equal is equal.

I get livid when I hear a female say "I can't do that work, I'm a woman".

 

Preach on! I royally agree. I take care of myself, love dressing nice, and actually care about my appearance! And u know what? I'm a pro wrestler, I bench press 50 pounds. I'm all man. And women love the way I look. Do u know how many compliments I've gotten from women that blow me and thank me for having trimmed pubic hair and smelling better than sweaty ballsack?? Cut beard so they don't have irritated skin?? Presentable so they would be proud to be on my arm at all times? Idk what you've heard but looking good and taking care of yourself gets women.

 

Your logic is flawed.

We are not talking about other countries and cultures. We are talking about western civilization. Yes, the family unit is disintegrating. There are far fewer two parent families than there used to be. It is a real and growing problem. Eliminating men will only make the problem worse.

Your logic is flawed. Of course lesbians will be happy. There will be no men around. They will have more women to chose from as some otherwise straight women go lez out of loneliness and sheer desperation. However, most women are not and never will be lesbians. As for bisexuality, it will no longer exist.

Men are not mutants as you describe them. Women did not come first. The first person was a man. His name was Adam. The first woman came after Adam. Her name was Eve. God made her from one of Adam's ribs. It's in the Bible. You could say that women are made from spare parts. That would make them the mutants.

Your definition of a momma's boy may also be flawed. Were do you think a metrosexual would get his fashion sense from? His father? I think not. I separated my post into paragraphs as you and x_orion suggested. You both were right. It does look better and it's easier to read. I did it all by myself too. I didn't need momma's help. Aren't you proud of me? :excited:

 

Impressive............

Throw in 5 push-ups and the girls will be falling at your feet.

 

Well, it would stand to reason that if a women is educated, successful and wealthy, she doesn't have to marry a man for financial security. She can marry just for love. Imagine! So she holds out for love, and maybe she finds it and maybe she doesn't. The happiest people are, in order, married men, single women, married women and finally single men. Single, happy career people are not bad for society. Not everyone is meant to get married. Not everyone is meant to be a parent. A few decide to become single parents, but most don't because it's hard!

Other successful women marry and they and their husbands decide to remain childless. It's so common they call them DINKS - double income, no kids. Isn't that their choice? Married women in high powered careers have children half as often as their male counterparts. Why? Because either they are married to men who are also in demanding careers (so who takes care of the kids) or their husbands don't want to be stay at home dads. Being a stay at home parent isn't for everybody, male or female.

You say we need more two parent families and that children need a mother and a father. Agreed. What's the number one cause of divorce? Money problems! Is that going to get better if women dumb down their careers? The problem is that we aren't preparing our kids in school to either go to college or go into a trade. Graduating with just a high school education is not going to get you a good job, whether you're male or female.

So again, the solution isn't for women to dumb down, it's for men to smarten up. There's nothing keeping men from going to college. There's nothing keeping them from learning a trade, in fact a plumber or electrician will probably make more money than a school teacher or a nurse.

Cloning humans is something that is discussed from an ethical standpoint, but no current research is taking place, nor is it likely too. Even animal clones have a high rate of birth defects. Funding for medical research is limited and it's unlikely to be spent on something as insignificant as women wanting to have babies without a mans sperm. Do you know how much in vitro fertilization costs? $20K a pop, whether it produces a pregnancy or not. Cloning would be prohibitively expensive. You've totally fabricated a dystopian future from your right wing paranoia.

You continue to generalize your lack of success with women to the world at large. 81% of men get married by age 40 and 86% of women. By age 75 it's about 96% for both. Whether they have children or not, most people do eventually marry at least once.

 

The answer to the OP is that many men think that women want this look/behaviour.

I know a few things for absolute certain............

1. I have my hair either very short or very long, I attract a completely different type of woman depending what it is at the time.

2. Money, I have a friend that is very wealthy, I do mean serious money, he is overweight and not great looking, you simply wouldn't believe the girls that he pulls, one look at his house and it's all over.

 

pie anyone?:excited:

 

Stop right there, the moment you brought theology into the mix you have just nullified your comments, in my opinion.
Do NOT apply religion/faith to a topic about gender equality and role of the sex's.
I am an extremely faithful person, in MY version of creation the Gods created people, men and women equally, at the same time, and it still flies in the face of science. The science has proven that humans start out as female and become male.

You also imply that two women cannot raise a healthy, well developed human being. That they NEED a male to raise a child.

And I'm talking about Countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Western society when I refer to successful distribution of the home care work.

And MY definition of a "momma's boy" may be flawed to you, but reading your antiquated sexist posts, I can see why you would think so.

If you are a grown adult male who is physicaly fit, and still require someone to come clean up after you, make your food, clean your clothes and be your personal servant, you are a "Momma's boy", You are not self-sufficient.

 

Generally my humor falls into the Steven Write / Dennis Miller lines. I can be a jackass sometimes and run the Dennis Leary route though.

Interesting that you point to the 1990's as the genesis of this point. - 30 years per generation for those men places them square in the 60's origin of the militant feminism, the article refers to. . .

 

Interesting points and well thought out as always. Fodder for me to crunch over. . .

In my experience those metrosexual fops disagree with me for the fundamental double standard they espouse. "No woman in MY life holding me down! Mommy please wash my shirts. . ." (if not mommy then the Korean dry cleaner lady down the street.) The soft pasty hands and aversion from anything hard in life also sets my teeth to grinding.

I am male, and can lift my body weight over my head, however I am more useful in that I have small strong hands. Mechanics, in the Army, never asked my help moving the big shit, but as soon as they dropped a bolt into a turret it was always "Eel-Tee! we need your little hand again." Different people have different strengths.

I have trouble with the 'equal in all things' statement. 200lbs for you and I is not that oppressive, asking a 90lb woman to lift that is x2(+) her body weight. Men are genetically predisposed to spacial relations (throwing a spear and hitting a running boar). Women are predisposed to see and detect the slightest variations in colors and textures (detecting a fever in a newborn). Translate that to these times, and you have an Archatect and Interior Design pair, based on genetic predispositions, both doing different tasks but that complement each other and create something greater than the parts. It is not just perception differences, there are muscular/skeletal differences too, males have more bulk but females have greater leverage because where the tendons tie into bone.

Asking a woman to take a bottle over the head in a bar and asking a man to do the same is demanding equality from unequal members of the team. I have taken hits from 200lb men and shrugged them off, but I'm a 165lb man. Asking a 90-135lb woman to take the same hit with her reduced body mass sets her at a substantial disadvantage on the receiving end.

The paradox is that by pursuing that level of equality it becomes unequal.

 

Women are not attracted to money exactly.

There are biological imperatives hardwired into men and women that most people don't even understand. I'll be a monkey's uncle if I could actually find the article, it was about the nature of marriage, affairs and cheating, of all things.

It basically explained that women look for 'established, successful, secure mates' or 'mates demonstrating potential for substantial later success'. Males are looking for pretty women with balanced facial and body proportions that match and compliment their own predispositions. But most of all a woman who is physically fertile and mentally stable enough to produce healthy children.

The dynamics are completely reversed when cheating (according to this study) in that men will bone anything with a heart beat, to 'propagate their genes', but women 'look for that handsome virile male with strong traits'.

 

This is an accurate assessment.

The person who wrote the article didn't put together a coherent argument. But I suspect that the target audience for the article are already "members of the choir" so will lap it up anyway.

 

OK, I thought the article linked was the goofiest line of illogical & emotive nonsense in this thread. Nope! You win, cloneofJoeD! :excited: congrats!

 

So you're here looking for twinks to put your macho penis into? Wow, you are a real man! :lol:

 

If I can't knock her up I'm not interested in her to start, and my sexual pallets become substantially much more discerning from there.

What the hell are 'twinks'? Google spits out gay porn cinema. . . is that a 'gay boy toy'?

 

You're claiming you were an officer in the armed forces and you have no idea what a twink is? :-|

As to you other comment - I guess a pic like this must really turn you on, hmmm?