Dude (looks like a lady)

Masculinity should hit the right button for most women
It seems though, femininity can work too

Justin Bieber sporting "meggings"Meggings, or leggings for men as sported here by Justin Beiber are apparently the latest “hot new trend in menswear” following on from other metrosexual triumphs such as mantyhose and the perhaps more prevalently successful man-bags, man-purses and manscaping.

Sexual attraction is deeply embedded in our evolved instincts, women are attracted to masculinity and vice versa. Metrosexuality runs counter to this and though plenty deride the trend, enough of society buys into it sufficiently to make it at the very least a profitable business.


They all prefer this melancholy, literary man

In 1881 Gilbert and Sullivan’s Patience  premiered in London, an opera satirising the young urbanite men of the day who simpered their way around London trying to appear like Oscar Wilde (without, of course, understanding just why Oscar Wilde was like Oscar Wilde).

In the 1970s the Glam Rock fashion had men aping the likes of David Bowie and Gary Glitter (without, of course, necessarily understanding why David Bowie was like David Bowie, or Gary Glitter like Gary Glitter).

Fashions are typically aspirationally driven; they don’t reflect a prevailing mindset, rather the popularisation of a single mindset. Pick any generation and you’ll probably find a feminising men’s fashion somewhere. Metrosexuality has had its day before. Doubtless it will again.


Clothes don’t maketh the man

The characteristics of sexuality that we ascribe to modes of dress are of course not evolutionary; they are merely cultural. In centuries past there were times when men typically wore tights, wigs and make-up. And if you think a skirt is for girls there’s many a red-blooded kilt-flaring Scot who’d be happy to set you straight.

If you think a skirt is for girls there’s many a red-blooded kilt-flaring Scot who’d be happy to set you straight
However these culturally ascribed characteristics don’t come and go with the same fluidity as fashion trends. To us, meggings and mantyhose are a feminised mode of dress. And what about manscaping? Or women arranging play-dates for their bromancing husbands and boyfriends?

As Patience concludes, the soldierly men win their maidens while the foppishly affected Bunthorne is left on the shelf. Real life does not appear to be imitating art.


It takes two babe

There’s a duality to this, in that both men and women have to buy into it for it to work. And I think there are a couple of dualities underpinning it.

Why would men regard feminising their appearance as enhancing their attractiveness? The aspirational aspect of fashion is certainly at work here. By appearing like the men we regard as attractive and successful we acquire an air of the same.

And there’s a duality to the “attractive” part of this too. A man’s view of what is attractive is coloured both by his own sense of masculinity and by the femininity he himself finds attractive. Most men don’t care for body hair on a woman, for example, so it’s not unreasonable for them to consider it unattractive on themselves.

This may explain why some men buy into it, and buy into androgynous role models too. But what about women?


Boys and men

In my godparent’s marriage, my godmother very much wore the trousers. When she died her husband, who between mother and wife had his life run by a woman for over eighty years, simply couldn’t cope. He fell apart completely and died a few months later.

A friend of mine’s wife recently left him. Her husband, who between mother and wife had his life run by a woman for over forty years, simply couldn’t cope. He fell apart completely and committed suicide a few weeks later.

For men to take a “submissive” role in a relationship is nothing new, but it’s far from the classic hunter-gatherer-protector role that they’ve evolved to take. Yet many women seem entirely comfortable with it.

Some mothers are hopelessly dominated by their children after all, so why not also hopelessly dominate their partners?
And I think the key to this is the duality of the pair-bond that women form with their family. Traditionally they’re “led” by their partner but “lead” their children, however they can naturally form either role in any of those particular pair bonds. Some mothers are hopelessly dominated by their children after all, so why not also hopelessly dominate their partners?

This may then account for how women can comfortably switch gender roles with their partners.

I can’t help wondering though just how good the sex would be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *