You seem to be implying that metrosexuals are necessarily not homosexual. That is decidedly not the case, according to the guy who coined the term.
And ammosexuals are like metrosexuals in that they are all about the display of their obsessions (clothes vs guns).
100% this.
I’m a member of the “gun culture”; I have many guns, a ton of ammo (literally), etc. But I don’t have an emotional attachment toward any of it. On the other hand, I have met a few people in the gun culture who seem to have an… unnatural attachment to their tools & hardware. I steer clear of them.
I am usually on the “anti” side of the gun debate. I don’t use “ammosexual” and would not mourn its loss. It’s dumb and cringey.
Regardless of who coined the term, the term as its used today includes being heterosexual.
Language does evolve, and once someone coins a term it takes a life of its own.
Nor do I. But that’s not the point. I have yet to hear sound reasons for banning its use.
And that slippery slope would demand that this board allow the use of at least one racial, and at least of homophobic, slur.
Unless I missed something, a “metrosexual” was supposed to be a heterosexual man who exhibited “feminine” behaviors (like being fashion conscious, being meticulous in one’s grooming, an enjoying shopping). These feminine behaviors were associated, in men, with homosexuals. A “metro-” is a gay-acting “hetro-” – you can see the play on words.
The term embodied so many assumptions about gender norms and sexual orientation that I’d be rather surprised if it hasn’t become viewed as offensive.
I’d be rather surprised if it didn’t start out with the intent to be offensive.
Nope. Verbatim from the guy who coined the word (my emphasis):
The typical metrosexual is a young man with money to spend, living in or within easy reach of a metropolis – because that’s where all the best shops, clubs, gyms and hairdressers are. He might be officially gay, straight or bisexual, but this is utterly immaterial because he has clearly taken himself as his own love object
Naah. Sorry, you can be exclusively descriptive for a word that’s naturally evolved (although I can find dictionary cites that don’t say it’s exclusively straight men), but for a specific made-up term with a precise known origin, you have to give weight to the originator. Not exclusive weight (I still say gif with a hard G) but quite a bit. That a patriarchal system has since related the word to exclude gays isn’t something we need to resign ourselves to.
You can read the original article where it appeared for yourself, and see that wasn’t it at all.
Most of the times I’ve heard it used it was coming out of the mouths of the ‘Beer, beef, and bullets’ type of American conservative.
FWIW (from the NY Times link above):
So what were “metrosexuals” anyway? For those who were cryogenically frozen before “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” first debuted that year, metrosexuals were a supposed new breed of aesthetically-attuned straight men promoted by trend forecasters like Marian Salzman and epitomized by the soccer star David Beckham, who “paints his fingernails, braids his hair and poses for gay magazines, all while maintaining a manly profile on the pitch,” as Warren St. John wrote in this much-discussed Styles feature.
Is “gundamentalist” ok, or does that trigger (so to speak) people’s religious sensitivities?
Bit of a sidetrack here, but for a lot of posters, it seems we’re heading down the old ‘how reprehensible do you want to be’ Pit thread. IE - we’re trying to decide in (especially) non-Pit forums how insulting we can be to general classes (that aren’t protected) of people.
Personally I’m ambivalent, and already stated my opinion upthread about the specific term from the OP. But this feels a LOT like trying to find a way to be as offensive as possible without provoking a mod response or rules lawyering 101, rather than following a general ‘don’t be a jerk’.
I would -definitely- suggest, per my analysis of why the original thread went off the rails so fast, is that (outside of the Pit) we try to avoid using such terminology in the title or OP of a thread. Because that IMHO poisons the well, and invites nothing but counterattacks rather than discussion. In the thread proper? I don’t worry so much, as the conversation and arguments is going to evolve naturally, and people can and will exchange snark freely.
Agreed. I’m never going to accept that it’s appropriate to impose a blanket ban on mockery or satire of (say) religious beliefs because it hurts people’s feelings. Mockery and satire are a legitimate and important strategy in pushing back against stupid and harmful ideas. But mocking grandma’s beliefs at grandpa’s funeral certainly makes you a jerk, and adopting a tone of mockery or satire with a believer who is attempting to engage in a good faith debate of substantive issues arguably does too.
But some people here seem to be opposed to the use of the term ammosexual to mock the likes of Thomas Massie because somehow that’s insulting to anyone who supports private gun ownership. That seems equivalent to a claim that mockery of young-Earth creationism is insulting to all people with any religious belief.
Yes, but we are also debating whether or not certainly classes of people deserve to be protected from insult. I assume that we can freely insult serial killers, child molestors, and people who talk at the movie theater. I advocate that we can put those who work to prevent keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal and/or irresponsible into that category. People who do fetishize their guns, and consider their access to them to be more important than the safety and well being of society.
So sure, using it against people on the board should be verboten. Using it in breaking news certainly can seem a political jab. Using it to describe people who carry their AR-15s into a restaurant in order to protest against their no-gun policy seems entirely fair.
Thank you, very reasonable.
Thank you, that’s a good perspective.
If your goal is to mock someone, you probably want to start your thread in the pit. At any rate, you shouldn’t be presenting it as if it’s a breaking news topic in MPSIMS.
No, I don’t think we are. At least, I don’t think the moderation had anything to do with that. If you want to talk about that, I suggest you start a new ATMB thread, because it’s not really relevant to this one.
Since when is it out of bounds to mock a public figure outside the Pit? I hope you’re not suggesting that mockery and satire as rhetorical devices to oppose stupidity can have no place in any serious discussion outside the Pit here.