(Untitled)

[redoctober87]

Hmmm...Some clarification.

Metrosexuals DO NOT EXIST. Guys who look good and take care of themselves do not need a special name. I dont get what is so special about that. I'snt that what you are supposed to do anyway? i can sure as hell bet that if a guy wasn't in some form or fashon a "metrosexual", he would definetly get a special name: "Eww!"

Comments

Isn't this all just semantics?

[miss_bronte]

People are people
So why should it be
You and I should get along
So aw-full-ly. . .

Sorry. Had a Depeche moment.
I don't think metro was ever meant to be insulting; its exigesis was during the Howard Dean campaign, and it highlighted the desire of urban young men to be well-groomed. And, yes, stereotyping of any ilk is wrong, wrong, wrong, but these are terms that only have power if they are GIVEN negative energy. So. . .my theory is this. . .a person's saexual identity is inextricably linked with his or her persona, and whatever terminology he or she claims is valid from his or her perspective. Not trying to engage in a debate on moral relativism, but I think that we tend to classify and objectify enough as a culture. I'd love to see an end to the inter-group squabbling over labels and categories.

Have a nice day! Thanks for your help this afternoon!!!!!!

Re: Isn't this all just semantics?

[miss_bronte]

"Saexual" looks so much sexier than "sexual", eh? I love typographical errors. Oh, and look--this netted you another comment!!!!

Just an excuse for another comment.

[drtchocky]

We should all typo more often. It's good for the soul.

Re: Just an excuse for another comment.

[drtchocky]

And we should draft the word "typo" into the dictionary.
As a verb.

Re: Just an excuse for another comment.

[drtchocky]

And we should begin more sentences with conjunctions.