Over a decade ago in a flourishing economy and with the media in tow, a term hijacked the popular culture and forced many men to define or to redefine themselves. The fashion industry banked on this phenomenon and envisioned a completely new male customer to sell to: the Metrosexual.

Metrosexual
Main Entry: met·ro·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: \ˌme-trə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: metropolitan + -sexual (as in heterosexual)
Date: 1994
: a usually urban heterosexual male given to enhancing his personal appearance by fastidious grooming, beauty treatments, and fashionable clothes
— metrosexual adjective
— met·ro·sex·u·al·i·ty \-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\ noun

I personally didn’t understand its relevance, or its attraction (and I still don’t; then again, I am European-born).  I didn’t understand how it should define a new type of well-put-together American male, and subsequently many men globally. The concept of a clean aesthetic –some of its key characteristics: well-fitting clothes, stylish haircuts, toned skin, and weekly manicures – doesn’t reinvent the wheel in any shape or form.  You may look more polished and perfectly groomed, but it doesn’t compare to the rugged American masculinity exemplified a generation earlier by Burt Reynolds in his 1972 Cosmopolitan centerfold.

(Burt Reynolds – 1972)

In retrospect, since the late 1970s and 1980s, fashion advertising began to blatantly objectify and to sexualize men. Fashion designers such as Gianni Versace and Giorgio Armani in Milan, Jean-Paul Gaultier and Thierry Mugler in Paris, Calvin Klein with his collaboration with the photographer Bruce Webber in New York, all, shamelessly heralded a new breed of polished beefcakes as the new ideal of masculinity. In these cases, the overtly homoerotic factor legitimized the style, helped push the frontier where no self-identifying straight male had dared to venture before. Burt Reynolds’ butch moustache and hairy chest were shorn and replaced by a fresh-face hair-less tight-body Adonis. A clean esthetic pursuit became the new Holy Grail… for gay males at first, then models and sport figures, and now the public at large.

(Giorgio Armani – 1986)

By the time “Metrosexual” arrived on the scene and was legitimized as a dictionary term in 1994, metrosexuality had become the new “black”. You couldn’t escape it, even if you tried; its omnipresence in the media was undeniable –talk show host Oprah Winfrey couldn’t get enough of men who fit either the metrosexual or ‘down-low’ bandwagon, and comedian Kathy Griffin even came up with a sketch-routine on finding out if your potential boyfriend was metrosexual or simply gay by peering into his fridge (Perrier, champagne, foie gras and caviar would send you to the gay gallows, except if European/foreign… would Canadians get a free pass?). Why was this term suddenly so important and given so much airtime? Beats me!

Historically, western-European men only began to ‘dress-down’ in the mid-19th century as a result of the industrial revolution, hence “the great masculine renunciation”. With their newly developed bourgeois uniform, gentlemen followed the pendulum of fashion, updating their “little black suit” and fastidiously tweaking themselves at the barbershop –where their heads, like topiaries, followed the constant changes in facial ‘manscaping’ of the day. Hands and feet, all beautifully accessorized, followed the well-polished trends. Self-expressions of style were done subtlety.

(Regnault – 1851)

Elegance was an obligation to any man worth his salt. Urbanites dutifully reeked, purchased and calculated elegance. After all, in the United States, great land of opportunities, the industrial revolution allowed many to successfully climb the social ladder regardless of prior birthright. The great taste-makers/dandies of the 19th century –Beau Brummel, Boni de Castellane, Edward VII of England, amongst others—led the way for Hollywood leading men like Douglas Fairbanks, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, even John Wayne, to lead style onto the masses deep into the 20th century. This formula is still visible today, just open magazines in your dentist’s waiting room, check out blogs or iPhone applications… you still know who wears what, but now you know where to get it and for how much!

What has changed recently, with a large section of the male population, is a blatant disregard for boundaries and imposed labels. It is now much more difficult to tell who is what and to which group one is associated to, as styles favored by various groups now generously overlap. Generation Y (one of the largest components of this new consumer base: the under 30 group), like the youth-quake of the 1960s, is inducing change. But unlike the Youth Generation of the 1960s that thrived on modernity and social optimism, Generation Y and its neighboring groups all march to their own drums while ignoring the greater social picture. These perceivably “selfish individuals” are redefining the way the fashion industry approaches the male customer.

The current men’s collections in Milan and Paris exemplify this diversity and sliding scale effect of the current taste. Labels, such as “Metrosexual”, don’t seem to hold any relevance anymore. “Individuality” is now the new label, if not a label, an unrelenting state of mind.

(Ann Demeulmeester – 2011)

The latest Milan and Paris menswear collections presented a never-ending smörgåsbord of diversity, with a macadam of tailored looks varying from the traditional, directional to the sensational. Moneyed “Classic Resort” looks –what we think of when talking about chic men– graced many collections from Burberry, Salvatore Ferragamo to Hermès. Others experimented with colorful patterns/motifs, such as Roverto Cavalli, Kenzo and Missoni; Giorgio Armani, Jill Sander and Dsquared opted for separates in vivid hues. Dior Homme, Jean-Paul Gaultier and Raf Simmons reinterpreted the potential casualness of masculine suits by pairing tailoring with looseness; whereas, Ann Demeulmeester and Yves Saint Laurent spun around the traditional silhouettes. We shall see if the more extreme experimental looks of Balenciaga, Rick Owens or Raf Simmons will fancy the adventurous customers.

(Jill Sander – 2011)

On that note, Givenchy even dropped the “leopard” bomb with a well-turned suit entirely conceived from head to toe in leopard print.

(Givenchy – 2011)

Could a generation who grew up witnessing the changes of sartorial acceptability by selected sub-cultures (namely, Gay culture) and raised on the internet, be the litmus test for today’s democratic sartorial modernity? I would have to say yes. And frankly, it is about time, we have been waiting for you!

Written by: Stéphane Houy-Towner