Are we moving away from being "girly" men?

Cabaal

Its something I've been thinking about today.

Given the recent popularity of the Facial Hair & Hats forum - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1103 its got me thinking that are atleast some men going back to the old ways.

The forum has proved extremely popular in relation to a number of users (incl myself) who are moving quickly away from this type of gimmick crap....



and instead switching to what often can be refereed to more manly stuff such as safety razors and straight blades (cutthroats) when it comes to personal grooming.

http://www.giammi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/sotd-2008-05-05.jpg

and

http://www.executive-shaving.co.uk/shavepedia/images/cut-throat-razor.jpg

If you look at the threads in question you'll see that nobody neither cares or wants any of the new loreal face cream that their trying to market at men and instead want old scents and creams that wouldn't be out of place during the 1920's.

The Irish times also recently covered the popularity in these changes to the types of hair cuts and grooming in the 1950's and 60's so I'm curious what are everyone's thoughts on it?

Are at least some men reverting back to a bygone age when it comes to personal grooming and moving away from what the media often refer to as the womanizing of men (men that have as much face creams, soaps and shampoos as women)

OldGoat

I don't see myself as 'reverting back', I never left in the first place.

However I am heartened to see so many look to an older age and spurn the commercialism that has infiltrated the men's products market. The cosmetics companies have been pushing male products for about 20 years now, adding new essential items each year.

I think there are two reasons for the current trend away from the more cosmetic products. First that the main trend in men's fashion is towards a sharp look, suited & booted and that whole retro look is spilling over into shaving and cosmetics. Apart from the straight razor giving a better shave it simply looks better then the plastic thingies.
The second reason I feel that we are ignoring the products is because of the Recessi...Stephen. We are looking for value for money, quality rather then quantity, substance rather then empty promises.

Sad to say there will a move back the otherway again.

There will always be a place for guyliner, manscara, malevarnish or whatever the new current blokeish witticism is. Fashion will change, money will become more readily available and men will want orange skin, false eyelashes and porcelain teeth. Long term we know that the commercial cosmetics companies will win.
20 years ago there was shaving soap, or aerosol cream if you were trendy, followed by a splash of your chosen aftershave. Now there is pre-shave, shave, post-shave, blood stauncher, pore openers, exfoliants and moisturisers and we don't think twice about it.

We have been conditioned. We have been targeted and we have been hit.

trout

A predictable and sensible reaction to the current economic climate ?

Why shell out 20 euro on a shiny but ultimately disposable razor, or hand over hard earned shekels for a face cream composed mainly of marketing, grease and a hint of jojoba ?

People have better things to be doing than primping and preening themselves with unnecessary gloss and scented nonsense.

Maybe it's an age/generational thing too ... in yore 20's you might pay a lot more attention to grooming ... in yore 40's a splash of soap & water will do the same job.

Herbal Deity

Lol.

I'm not going to bother writing a huge analysis of this right now, but read over what you've just written - you guys are just set in your ways.

If anything, the idea that grooming products are inherently feminine is the product of conditioning. For example, men wore makeup until the 1850s.

Let guys be who the fúck they want to be, and go away with your crap about how men should look a certain way.

This is coming from a guy who dresses rather normally. I just have never understood why the metrosexual look is viewed with such disdain by a sizeable amount of other men.

Are women who vote and work "manly" women?

Bottle_of_Smoke

David Mitchell does a great piece on this . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDjZVlqdPdA

Cabaal

trout wrote: »

Maybe it's an age/generational thing too ... in yore 20's you might pay a lot more attention to grooming ... in yore 40's a splash of soap & water will do the same job.

Not sure if thats to be honest, myself and a good few people I know either in early or late twentys have switched to safety razors...why?..well I guess because

- Well they are cheap
- Its not some crap bit of plastic in your hand
- Unlike all the new Gillette "shaving systems" an old safety razor actually doesn't give you ingrown hairs and awful razor burn
- Shaving actually becomes enjoyable and more of a art as you master then skill all over again

Well atleast I think those are my reasons

Otis Driftwood

Like Goaty,I never changed in the first place so dont have to worry about changing back.

Hellrazer

Herbal Deity wrote: »

This is coming from a guy who dresses rather normally. I just have never understood why the metrosexual look is viewed with such disdain by a sizeable amount of other men.

I could never get the whole metrosexual thing.I mean come on theres blokes out there using fooking hair straighteners now never mind eyeliner and makeup.Now if thats not the sign of a fairy I dont know what is.
When I was growing up you got a beating if you wore pinksalmon
And now every bloke you see in a suit has a pink shirt on.I sent a shirt back to the shop one time because it had a single pink thread running through it.

God be with the days when we wore manly colours like black :D

OldGoat

I've had this argument in other places on Boards and I'm NOT going to go through it again. Suffice to say that colour is not a signifier of sexual preferences homoexual or hetrosexual. Lets avoid going down that line of discussion please.

Cabaal

OldGoat wrote: »

I've had this argument in other places on Boards and I'm NOT going to go through it again. Suffice to say that colour is not a signifier of sexual preferences homoexual or hetrosexual. Lets avoid going down that line of discussion please.

I'd agree colour isn't, however my point is purely down to what type of stuff you use when grooming.
I'd also rather not see this thread end up being some kind of debate ragarding the colour you wear = your sexuality :rolleyes:

My post at the start is not about your sexual but instead is about how the industry itself is girlifying men by pushing alot of what are imho pointless and un-needed products on us and what many of us are rejecting by going back to a past age.

Herbal Deity

Is it necessarily all about commercialism, or is it about looking a certain way, for some kind of arbitrary, bigoted reason?

If it were merely about commercialism, you would have called the thread "Are we moving away from commercialism?".

I must admit, your use of words like "girlifying" is making my blood boil for all kinds of reasons - it's offensive to both men and women.

Hellrazer

OldGoat wrote: »

I've had this argument in other places on Boards and I'm NOT going to go through it again. Suffice to say that colour is not a signifier of sexual preferences homoexual or hetrosexual. Lets avoid going down that line of discussion please.

Old Goat I was pointing out the fact that when I was growing up the colour you wore did actually signify your sexual preferences.I wasnt trying to stir up that line of discussion again-just making the point that its gone the opposite way and even when I ve slagged close friends off over their use of hair straighteners,makeup,wearing pink Im usually told Im not at ease with my sexuality so it works both ways.

Krieg

I used to use lots of cleansers, moisturisers etc (although it was mostly in a vain attempt to cure acne which I have now learned to accept). All those beauty products sit unused on a shelf in my room, which will soon see the bin as I realize how I don't use them anymore.

Upon reading the facial hair forum, I became quite interested. I went and purchased myself a good double edge razor and I love the f*ckin thing! Never thought I would actually 'enjoy' shaving. Im planning on getting a straight cutthroat razor for xmas and seeing how I like it.

I think the different cosmetics was the height of my girlyness, I was never into the pink shirt crap or bleached hair or worn out jeans (lets be honest they were a bit of girly thing although I can already hear disagreement).

As regards to others, well my mates are no better or worse in this manner. Some still have their "girly" things, some never did to begin with. While I cant put my finger on it, I do feel like more and more men are reverting back.

K'Plah!

nkay1985

I find this very interesting. I work in the offices of a manufacturing plant and it's interesting to look around and see the differences. The guys who are 40-50 tend to be clean-shaven and wearing a shirt tucked into pants. Those 30-35 are still clean-shaven but more casual in their dress: cords instead of pants. Then there's the newer wave of guys (which I'm part of). Much more casual in their dress: from polo shirts and cords to jeans and t-shirts. And shaving every day is a thing of the past. Almost anyone I can think of who's under 30 will go from leaving it a few days to shave to having a full beard!

And it's this same generation that the "metrosexual" age was marketed at. So we seem to have turned away from it and facial hair and the like is much more acceptable and commonplace than it has been for quite a while.

Edit:
It seems women are veering away from the clean-shaven man also, if this thread is anything to go by.

bangersandmash

nkay1985 wrote: »

And shaving every day is a thing of the past. Almost anyone I can think of who's under 30 will go from leaving it a few days to shave to having a full beard!

I suppose it depends on where you work. In many professional jobs that probably won't be acceptable. You won't find too many young solicitors or dentists with a few days worth of stubble. Not because they're girly, but simply because it's the norm within the profession. Same will apply in many jobs in the service industry where people are in regular contact with the public.

rcunning03

Cabaal wrote: »

Unlike all the new Gillette "shaving systems" an old safety razor actually doesn't give you ingrown hairs and awful razor burn
/QUOTE]

Can you recommend some as I'm am really sick of razor burn? I originaaly had a gilette mach 3 razor but got burn from that so switched to lidl razors. Didn't burn as much but plenty of cuts, then I switched back to gilette and bought all the pre and post shave crap. Doesn't work still burns like hell

OldGoat

Don't forget that we have a forum dedicated to all things hairyfaced. You'll find all your shaving recomendations over in FH&H The nice folk over there will guide you through your choices.

CDfm

Men in the 50s and 60s were very style and clothes conscious. They also used lots of hair and grooming products - i would say much more than we do know.

A good razor and barber was part of being a man.

Except grooming products etc were "tonics" etc. I just think its a more branding thing.

rcunning03

CDfm wrote: »

Men in the 50s and 60s were very style and clothes conscious. They also used lots of hair and grooming products - i would say much more than we do know.

A good razor and barber was part of being a man.

Except grooming products etc were "tonics" etc. I just think its a more branding thing.

Makeup and wigs were all the rage for men in the 18th century. 'Girly' Men
have always existed and probably always will....doesn't make it any less
annoying though.

Herbal Deity

Why is it annoying?

What's wrong with men who want to use grooming products?

This thread is depressing on so many levels...

norrie rugger

Cabaal wrote: »

Not sure if thats to be honest, myself and a good few people I know either in early or late twentys have switched to safety razors...why?..well I guess because

- Well they are cheap
- Its not some crap bit of plastic in your hand
- Unlike all the new Gillette "shaving systems" an old safety razor actually doesn't give you ingrown hairs and awful razor burn
- Shaving actually becomes enjoyable and more of a art as you master then skill all over again

Well atleast I think those are my reasons

I am getting a safety razor soon. Moved back to the cheapo disposable single blade BiC's and getting a great shave and all my ingorwn hairs are fading. No More burn, redness and itchy ingorwn hairs. Ahhhh bliss.

Easier to get a few nicks but well worth it. Looking forward to the Real thing

rcunning03

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Why is it annoying?

What's wrong with men who want to use grooming products?

This thread is depressing on so many levels...

Just is! I'm sure this guy uses grooming products.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

milod

I think many males simply don't have a natural tendency toward grooming. Despite much encouragement and purchasing of products by my g/f, I usually forget to use them.

It's as much as I can do to damp down the more outrageous spikes of hair in the morning before I go out the door. I also shave because the arrival of grey chin hair means my 2 day growth now looks more 'homeless guy' than designer stubble.

I really only remember to 'groom' if we're going out socially - in which case it amounts to after-shave balm and wax in the hair.

The only other grooming, at the behest of her-indoors, is to occasionally pluck the 'old-man-hairs' out of my ears/nose/eyebrows.

Really need to up my game if I want to rival Patrick Bateman...

norrie rugger

i also commented a few months back, on one of the other fora here that chest hair is also making a resurgence

Cabaal

CDfm wrote: »

Men in the 50s and 60s were very style and clothes conscious. They also used lots of hair and grooming products - i would say much more than we do know.

A good razor and barber was part of being a man.

Except grooming products etc were "tonics" etc. I just think its a more branding thing.

Certainly true but it was the men trying to maintain an image and the same goes for around the 1900's, the problem now is marketing companys are trying to sell crap to people and sadly a certain percentage of men believe it.

Cabaal

milod wrote: »

Really need to up my game if I want to rival Patrick Bateman...

Really...you have a few things to do then

My name is Patrick Bateman. I'm 27 years old. I believe in taking care of myself and a balanced diet and rigorous exercise routine. In the morning if my face is a little puffy I'll put on an ice pack while doing stomach crunches. I can do 1000 now. After I remove the ice pack I use a deep pore cleanser lotion. In the shower I use a water activated gel cleanser, then a honey almond body scrub, and on the face an exfoliating gel scrub. Then I apply an herb-mint facial mask which I leave on for 10 minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine. I always use an after shave lotion with little or no alcohol, because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm followed by a final moisturizing protective lotion.

rcunning03

Cabaal wrote: »

Really...you have a few things to do then

My name is Patrick Bateman. I'm 27 years old. I believe in taking care of myself and a balanced diet and rigorous exercise routine. In the morning if my face is a little puffy I'll put on an ice pack while doing stomach crunches. I can do 1000 now. After I remove the ice pack I use a deep pore cleanser lotion. In the shower I use a water activated gel cleanser, then a honey almond body scrub, and on the face an exfoliating gel scrub. Then I apply an herb-mint facial mask which I leave on for 10 minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine. I always use an after shave lotion with little or no alcohol, because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm followed by a final moisturizing protective lotion.

Are you not worried that by being that clean, you are reducing your body's ability to fight disease and infection?

Fair play and respect to you for the amount of exercise you do and eating healthy but I'd be worried about being too sterile and unable to fight infection and the money you have to spend would freak me out as well.

Still, to each his own and it's nothing new, Roman men were always getting oiled up and using perfumes and compared to the amount of Make up and effort some men went through in the 18th century. It's not even that excessive now.

Personally I think all those lotions you buy are just bull semen with heavy marketing behind them, but I can't prove that and I don't care really. I won't use those products.

OldGoat

rcunningham, Cabaal was quoting from a book called American Psycho which was popular back in it's time. Though it might be fun to see if he really is capable of doing 1000 situps.

Wibbs

"Girly" men or men who were very particular about their appearance were more common in history than not. Makeup was very common. Wigs, jewelry ditto. No suggestion of girliness at all. Even the romans who were mostly all macho and hard as nails, were big into personal grooming. The celts loved the oul all over max factor, jewelry and spiky hair. Ditto the vikings. Look at the neck torqs in the national museum. Bling aint in it. They'd shame any rapper out there. P diddy would never show his face again.:D There are tribes today who will postpone a battle if its raining as it'll ruin their makeup and ornate head dresses. Apparently those guys went for modern womens cosmetics with gusto as they gave better colours and coverage and didnt run so much. "You wanna learn about our culture? Fine but lets discuss the pros and cons of the new rimmel line first":D Funny old world. The 17th century? Bloody hell. Wigs and makeup and mad colours and clothes. Men going crazy trying to out peacock each other.

Both sides are grand. The businesses trying to exploit that though, theyre another thing. TBH I dont think men will get into that as much as women or it'll take a helluva lot longer. We are on average less looks conscious than women.

norrie rugger

it is the companies who are pitching 'groomed' as clean but anything else as not caring about yourself that really gets to me

rcunning03

OldGoat wrote: »

rcunningham, Cabaal was quoting from a book called American Psycho which was popular back in it's time. Though it might be fun to see if he really is capable of doing 1000 situps.

I was wondering, thought the world had gone mad for a minute. Anyway as Homer would say DOH!

DarkJager

I think the media protrayal of men has had a big impact on the swing back to more manly things.The male species seemed to be going down a slippery slope, when these posers with manbags and manicured nails starting showing up. The very idea of being "male" was turned into some sort of joke for marketing departments, creating an image that we're somehow too stupid to do the most mundane things because we're "men". They pushed that idea way too far (RSA campaign for example) and now men have simply had enough of it.

I get the feeling that a lot of males are fed up with the stereotyped image portrayed of us, and are now swinging back towards the "alpha" mindest. This world needs both male and female personalites, not a horrid make up wearing, bag carrying crossbreed of both sexes.

Macha

DarkJager wrote: »

This world needs both male and female personalites, not a horrid make up wearing, bag carrying crossbreed of both sexes.

Please explain the benefits of clearly defined gender roles.

rcunning03

taconnol wrote: »

Please explain the benefits of clearly defined gender roles.

Variety

Macha

rcunning03 wrote: »

Variety

Sorry that doesn't make sense. If anything, removing clearly defined gender roles means more variety as we don't just have A) men and women.

DarkJager

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry that doesn't make sense. If anything, removing clearly defined gender roles means more variety as we don't just have A) men and women.

Exactly, variety. If every situation or problem was viewed only through a male perspective it would be trouble. If every situation or problem was viewed only through a female perspective, there would also be trouble. Both sexes have their strong and weak points, different patterns of thinking and logic, different opinons.

Macha

DarkJager wrote: »

Exactly, variety. If every situation or problem was viewed only through a male perspective it would be trouble. If every situation or problem was viewed only through a female perspective, there would also be trouble. Both sexes have their strong and weak points, different patterns of thinking and logic, different opinons.

I agree with what you say but I just don't see the value of having such defined roles and definitions of men and women.

Putting people into boxes is not very productive and can seriously alienate those who feel they don't fully fit into one or the other. And then you open up the whole issue of what the definitions of men and women are and how much those definitions reflect reality or are self-fulfilling definitions.

DarkJager

taconnol wrote: »

I agree with what you say but I just don't see the value of having such defined roles and definitions of men and women.

Putting people into boxes is not very productive and can seriously alienate those who feel they don't fully fit into one or the other. And then you open up the whole issue of what the definitions of men and women are and how much those definitions reflect reality or are self-fulfilling definitions.

Would you expect a woman to do heavy construction work? If you remove the defintions of the roles, there is no reason why women would not be expected to undertake such tasks regardless of the fact they are not physically capable of undertaking such work.

rcunning03

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry that doesn't make sense. If anything, removing clearly defined gender roles means more variety as we don't just have A) men and women.

I don't think so, I think the whole point of the metrosexual marketing campaign is to eradicate any difference between men and women. Having differences between the sexes makes life more interesting as you can be a slighty different person when your with a women or a group of lads.

The reason why cosmetics companies have started to target men is cause they have bled every cent then can out of women. They made a porportion of women very self concious about the way they look and now they want to move onto a new market and make some men as self concious as they have made some women.

It's all nonsense and marketing crap. I bought all the pre and post shave crap from gilette and it does nothing. My face still feels like it's on fire after having a shave, so I'm going to switch to an old school type razer as I've heard they are very good and make shaving enjoyable.

All that said though I don't like all the male grooming stuff but it's being going on for millenia and I would always defend somebody's right to spend their own money on whatever they like, even if it makes them look like an orange lightbulb.

OldGoat

Gentlenmen, we are drifting here. Back to the original topic please.

Macha

DarkJager wrote: »

Would you expect a woman to do heavy construction work? If you remove the defintions of the roles, there is no reason why women would not be expected to undertake such tasks regardless of the fact they are not physically capable of undertaking such work.

I'm talking about cultural roles. Removing cultural definitions doesn't mean ignoring physical realities.

rcunning03 wrote: »

I don't think so, I think the whole point of the metrosexual marketing campaign is to eradicate any difference between men and women. Having differences between the sexes makes life more interesting as you can be a slighty different person when your with a women or a group of lads.

No, if anything the marketing campaigns set up a very specific definition of a man that all men *should* aim for. I wouldn't consider it very similar to the ideal that's set up for women - perhaps the only similarity is that both ideals require spending silly amounts of money on silly things.

rcunning03 wrote: »

The reason why cosmetics companies have started to target men is cause they have bled every cent then can out of women. They made a porportion of women very self concious about the way they look and now they want to move onto a new market and make some men as self concious as they have made some women.

Absolutely, but let's not forget that historically, men have been culturally allowed or even obliged to make more of an effort with their appearance. If you look at even just European fashions down the centuries, men's clothes were quite frilly and complicated. The renewed focus on men's appearances is just that - renewed.

While I don't approve of the current trend to get men to worry about their appearance as much as women do, I do welcome the fact that men are increasingly allowed (so to speak) to spend some time on their appearance if they so wish - although of course it's always hard to know how much they really want to and how much they feel obliged to.

rcunning03

taconnol wrote: »

I'm talking about cultural roles. Removing cultural definitions doesn't mean ignoring physical realities.


No, if anything the marketing campaigns set up a very specific definition of a man that all men *should* aim for. I wouldn't consider it very similar to the ideal that's set up for women - perhaps the only similarity is that both ideals require spending silly amounts of money on silly things.


Absolutely, but let's not forget that historically, men have been culturally allowed or even obliged to make more of an effort with their appearance. If you look at even just European fashions down the centuries, men's clothes were quite frilly and complicated. The renewed focus on men's appearances is just that - renewed.

While I don't approve of the current trend to get men to worry about their appearance as much as women do, I do welcome the fact that men are increasingly allowed (so to speak) to spend some time on their appearance if they so wish - although of course it's always hard to know how much they really want to and how much they feel obliged to.

It depends on the person themself. If it makes them feel more comfortable about themself, then fine, some men would enjoy the routine of getting themselves ready in the bathroom, whereas I want in and out as quickly as possible.

As to the subject of the thread, yeah, I think there is begining to be a backlash against it. For pratically every social movement you will have another movement opposed to it and the next generation like to do things slightly different to the previous generation.

With the recession I think a lot of people feel silly about the amount of money they spent on all sorts of crap including cosmetics and there is a bit of a backlash against it, but then other men enjoy getting ready before going out and sure it helps keep people in jobs by buying the products.

As long as the government don't start introducing laws banning mancare products or forcing us to use mancare products, I don't really care, I find it a little annoying but it wouldn't stop me liking anyone if they used mancare products.

Handsome Bob

I never really changed. I do have little things that I do that I suppose could be described as "metrosexual". I do use a man bag for uni, but that's nothing to do with posing, I just find man bags to be easier on the shoulders and easier to carry. I'm bald too and I tend to shave me head a two days or so in order to keep it tight but again I only do that because if I didn't I'd be sporting a back and sides with a bald patch on top.

Metrosexualism doesn't bother me, I'd only ask though that since I don't rip on them for being "girly", that they would show me the same courtesy and not harass me for not using moisturisers or for wearing baggy jeans. Or the worst one, for apparently not looking after myself!

rcunning03

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I never really changed. I do have little things that I do that I suppose could be described as "metrosexual". I do use a man bag for uni, but that's nothing to do with posing, I just find man bags to be easier on the shoulders and easier to carry. I'm bald too and I tend to shave me head a two days or so in order to keep it tight but again I only do that because if I didn't I'd be sporting a back and sides with a bald patch on top.

Metrosexualism doesn't bother me, I'd only ask though that since I don't rip on them for being "girly", that they would show me the same courtesy and not harass me for not using moisturisers or for wearing baggy jeans. Or the worst one, for apparently not looking after myself!

If they start ripping you by all means take the p*ss out of them for being girly. If they start the slagging, they can't complain when you slag back.

schween

GeorgeNdururi wrote: »

nor would i allow one of my sons either.

How would you stop that?

Anyways, I like to keep clean shaven and that but I don't get paying a fortune for L'Oreal and Clarins to wash your face when a simple face wash will do.
You don't need to spend a fortune to shave.

Wibbs

DarkJager wrote: »

Would you expect a woman to do heavy construction work? If you remove the defintions of the roles, there is no reason why women would not be expected to undertake such tasks regardless of the fact they are not physically capable of undertaking such work.

Neither am I. Better get fitted for a bra so. Do they do 38 a?:D

Thats the thing there's already variety and if a guy wants to go mad on skin toning products I say knock yourself out. Though Id say the same to him as I's say to women, moisturise, stay out of the sun, exercise and eat a good diet. Will do mountains more than anything in a fancy jar.

Handsome Bob

rcunning03 wrote: »

If they start ripping you by all means take the p*ss out of them for being girly. If they start the slagging, they can't complain when you slag back.

Yeah but if you are in the minority among them they can just say "you're not comfortable with your sexuality", and if they are really tightly wound that you are being "homophobic". Can't be having those kind of insults being thrown at me in the presence of women. :pac:

rcunning03

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Yeah but if you are in the minority among them they can just say "you're not comfortable with your sexuality", and if they are really tightly wound that you are being "homophobic". Can't be having those kind of insults being thrown at me in the presence of women. :pac:

You might need to think about hanging around with different people. They are the ones not comfortable with their sexulaity and if they start going on about homophobia cause you defended yourself when they slagged you, regardless of being metrosexual or any other classification, the main thing is, they are just p*icks.

Plenty of women want a more traditional sort of man instead of some hybrid that cries everytime it breaks it's nails. Woman who prefer girly men aren't going to want real or traditional style men. So you should ask yourself if you really care what any of them think.

If they start kicking off about homophobia when you slag them back that's when you need to go full out on the homophobia and show them the difference between homophobia a slight ripping.


Dont take any crap from any of them

Herbal Deity

DarkJager wrote: »

I get the feeling that a lot of males are fed up with the stereotyped image portrayed of us, and are now swinging back towards the "alpha" mindest. This world needs both male and female personalites, not a horrid make up wearing, bag carrying crossbreed of both sexes.

What is inherently feminine about bags or makeup?

That's what's irking me the most about this thread, the use of the word "girly".

It'll be a happy day when all that can be described as "girly" are physiological female features.

rcunning03

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What is inherently feminine about bags or makeup?

That's what's irking me the most about this thread, the use of the word "girly".

It'll be a happy day when all that can be described as "girly" are physiological female features.

Yeah, lets all live in a bland monotone world where everybody is exactly the same and nobody talks to anybody cause they're afraid of causing offence.

DarkJager

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What is inherently feminine about bags or makeup?

That's what's irking me the most about this thread, the use of the word "girly".

It'll be a happy day when all that can be described as "girly" are physiological female features.

What's inherently feminine about handbags or make up? Perhaps the fact that they have always been womens items?

I mean if you start incorporating items that are foundationally feminine in nature into the male lifestyle, where do you stop? Will we see guys 5 years down the road using tampons as well?