The Instigator
avahlicious
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Wierdkp326
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points

Is Metro sexuality a sign of being gay?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,702 times Debate No: 4558
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

avahlicious

Con

I would start this debate for claiming that a metro sexual guy cannot be considered gay for being vain like most women. A metro sexual, I think, is a man who is secure and confident, capable and cool, typically well educated and stylish. Heterosexual with a twist, not gay by any means, but he probably has a few gay friends, and can easily be mistaken for gay by rednecks and jock types. The only straight guy in a fabric store or antique shop who is not being dragged there by a woman. Lastly, it is unfair to a man to be tagged gay for being meticulously aware of his physical appearance.
I am looking for a good argument on this.;D
Wierdkp326

Pro

My opponent has started this debate on stressing that metrosexuality is not a sign, or indicator, of being 'gay'. Now, gay has more meanings than the "homosexual" version in which she stressed. So lets begin by posting the dictionary.com definition of the word 'gay'.

1.having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
2.bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3.given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
4.licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.
5.homosexual.
6.of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.

hmm. "having or showing a merry, lively mood"? That's pretty gay, and not the "I do men and I like it" gay, but gay gay. happy gay. As my opponent has openly acknowledged that a metrosexual is "secure","confident", and "stylish". These very words invoke a merry or lively mood. As a gentleman who regularly hangs out with metrosexual men, it is clear that they are very....very gay (at least by definition 1.

Definition 2 seems to stress that gay is colorful, much like the pink collar in a metrosexual's polo. Perhaps 'showy' could be a representation of the confident way in which a metrosexual can make pink look masculine. indeed, definition two makes metrosexuals totally gay.

Definition 3 is a near perfect match for the stereotypical metrosexual. They sure can be social butterflies. Possibly the nicest and most outgoing of male sex, abounding in every sort of social pleasure one can conceive. Those wonderful gay metrosexuals!

Definition 4 gets a little bit more risque... It would imply that metrosexuals are either perverts or rule breakers (licentious). However, if one were to say that the style of a metrosexual is breaking a social norm that men should be wearing dark green, blue, or red (or maybe that's just my wardrobe, sorry) all the time, reserving pinks, magentas, purples, and that annoying neon yellow for women to wear, then perhaps they are a little licentious. Metrosexuals wear clothing that is striking because most men restrained themselves from wearing it. It breaks some social norms, which clearly leads into why some narrow minded individuals would believe that they are homosexual. Those licentious metros!

Definitions 5 and 6 are the contexts that my opponent intended, so I must acknowledge this. My opponent has admitted that some metrosexuals are gay as well. But my opponent also wants to assert that it is not an indicator, but merely a coincidence that a gay man could be a metro sexual one, and vica versa. There is no study that has been performed observing a correlation between metro sexuality and homosexuality, meaning that BOTH of us are forced to speculate as to whether or not a metrosexual is MORE or LESS likely to be a homosexual than the more common, non metrosexual man.

If there is a correlation between being a metro sexual and a homosexual, whether it be more or less likely, then my opponent is wrong. A negative correlation would mean that being metrosexual makes you less likely to be gay, and therefore is an indicator, much as a positive correlation would imply that one is more likely to be gay by virtue of being metro sexual.

Given the speculative nature of the rest of our debate, I assert that metro sexuality is, in fact, an indicator of being gay (whether that be positive or negative). Metro sexuality challenges a traditional social norm of how men are supposed to be dressed, much as homosexuality challenges the norm of how men are supposed to behave (in bed!). I therefore posit that there is a correlation because the tendency or desire to challenge any social norm is rarely isolated to single behaviors. A person who believes that an institution exists wrongly judging her/him of their behaviors, may further challenge the system by partaking in another behavior/style/action that is socially dissuaded.
Debate Round No. 1
avahlicious

Con

(enters the queen)
Alright, you got me laughed my heart out. Fellow debaters, my opponent, I think, doesn't really know what 'metro sexuality' is. He only defined the meaning of the term 'gay'(which is actually broad in meaning)and correlated it with metro sexuality.

---hmm. "having or showing a merry, lively mood"? That's pretty gay, and not the "I do men and I like it" gay, but gay gay. happy gay. As my opponent has openly acknowledged that a metrosexual is "secure","confident", and "stylish". These very words invoke a merry or lively mood. As a gentleman who regularly hangs out with metrosexual men, it is clear that they are very....very gay."

(Now, you really got your self in trouble this time. The meaning of the word 'gay' here, refers to the mood itself and not the sexual identity. Every individual can express merriment or happiness in various ways, regardless of their gender. LOL. Think, buddy.)

---Definition 2 seems to stress that gay is colorful, much like the pink collar in a metrosexual's polo. Perhaps 'showy' could be a representation of the confident way in which a metrosexual can make pink look masculine. indeed, definition two makes metrosexuals totally gay.

(See? Now, you're out of order. Definition 2 simply refers to the colors and decors that appeals to the eyes; thus, inducing lively mood and merriment to the one who sees it. But still, you cannot prove that a metro sexual man is gay by just wearing pink! Duh?!)

---Definition 3 is a near perfect match for the stereotypical metrosexual. They sure can be social butterflies. Possibly the nicest and most outgoing of male sex, abounding in every sort of social pleasure one can conceive. Those wonderful gay metrosexuals!

(You lost it this time, buddy. Fellow debaters, you know what I mean.)

---Definition 4 gets a little bit more risque... It would imply that metrosexuals are either perverts or rule breakers (licentious). However, if one were to say that the style of a metrosexual is breaking a social norm that men should be wearing dark green, blue, or red (or maybe that's just my wardrobe, sorry) all the time, reserving pinks, magentas, purples, and that annoying neon yellow for women to wear, then perhaps they are a little licentious. Metrosexuals wear clothing that is striking because most men restrained themselves from wearing it. It breaks some social norms, which clearly leads into why some narrow minded individuals would believe that they are homosexual. Those licentious metros!

(I can accept the word 'rule breaker', because metro sexual men are modern and open to social innovation, but not perverts! In actuality, metro sexuality has nothing to do with sexuality at all. A metro sexual is just a man who cares a great deal about outward appearance and sensitivity. He is a meticulous, fashion-conscience, fabulous dresser, and decorator himself, who appreciates all the femininity coming from every pore of womankind. He would never think of making love to a man, and knows exactly how to please a woman affectionately, sensually, verbally, and sexually! Definitely not licentious because they are not homosexual who prefers same gender for sexual activities!)

---Definitions 5 and 6 are the contexts that my opponent intended, so I must acknowledge this. My opponent has admitted that some metrosexuals are gay as well. But my opponent also wants to assert that it is not an indicator, but merely a coincidence that a gay man could be a metro sexual one, and vica versa. There is no study that has been performed observing a correlation between metro sexuality and homosexuality, meaning that BOTH of us are forced to speculate as to whether or not a metrosexual is MORE or LESS likely to be a homosexual than the more common, non metrosexual man.

(FYI, being metro sexual or not, a man can be a homosexual if he prefers to become one. The indication of being a homosexual cannot only be observed in the way a man dresses, talks or behaves, etc.. To sum it all, metro sexuality is all about being vain and meticulous in physical appearance and lifestyle. Breaking conventions (referring only to fashion sense) is considered to be very manly. It should not be associated with homosexuality, because as I've said a while ago, metro sexuality has nothing to do with sexuality at all. So, I'd say that metro sexuality is not an indication or sign of being a homosexual.)

VOTE FOR CONS!!! :D
Wierdkp326

Pro

Ah, Avah, Somehow, we appear to be in agreement, while still disagreeing...odd. I brought out the definition of the word gay specifically because that is what this debate is about. This debate is about whether or not being a metro sexual can serve as an indicator for being gay. I noted that the word gay has several contexts, and made it a point to use them in each context as I defined them.
My earlier statement about "very...very gay" was specifically geared towards saying that metro sexuals are merry and lively, precisely what the definition 1 was intending. It appears that you misinterpretted my explanations, thinking that I meant only the homosexual context in every definition.

Regardless, my intent was clear. Even if I could not, somehow, state that metro sexuality implied homosexuality, I could demonstrate that a metro sexual fits the definition of gay in other contexts. You have already stated that metro sexuals are stylish and confident, which are 'showy' attributes. Those very attributes would then make "gay" a proper term to explain a metro sexual.

"Wow, Dave, you are looking really gay today!" would be a delightfully appropriate statement to say to a confident metro sexual while hanging out around the water cooler in the office. Indeed, in these contexts, a metro sexual can indicate being gay.

As for the context that I am sure you truly intended, homosexuality, I noted that neither of us could definitively say that metro sexuality is an indicator of homosexuality, because a study has not been performed. However, if a study were performed and it indicated a correllation between a person being a metro sexual and a homosexual at the same time, then you would be wrong. This would be irregardless of whether or not that indicated a person was MORE or LESS likely to be gay from being a metro sexual.

Given this, I must speculate that a person being a metro sexual is an indicator of being a homosexual, and that that correlation is either positive or negative. I would assume that this occurs not in any causal factor (aka. being a metro sexual does not "turn" you gay), but merely as a coinciding factor.

I assert that this coincidence comes from subtle desires to counter the status quo or norm. Someone who is gay (whether this be a choice thing or not, it's not important), he/she is defying a social norm. Defying one social norm, though it doesn't necessarily CAUSE more defiance, is still a reasonable justification to break other norms. An unusual meticulous desire to "look good" or stylish, moreso than the common man, is not an unreasonable attribute to take on.

We both appear to agree that "gay" is not a bad thing, regardless of whether or not someone is so. But, if you must assert that the homosexual context of gay is in no way related to how they choose to present themselves, you must determine a good reason why the two cant be correlated in some way.

(also, dont ask them to vote for you until the LAST round) ;-)
Debate Round No. 2
avahlicious

Con

I understand that my opponent was just trying to find a common point between metro sexuality and being gay. But some of the meaning given are not actually related to the topic that made some of his statements hard-selling. On the other hand, I must admit that the topic of this debate needs to be rephrase. It was suppose to focus on the idea that metro sexuality is a sign of being homosexual and not the term 'gay' as an emotion.

---I assert that this coincidence comes from subtle desires to counter the status quo or norm. Someone who is gay (whether this be a choice thing or not, it's not important), he/she is defying a social norm. Defying one social norm, though it doesn't necessarily CAUSE more defiance, is still a reasonable justification to break other norms. An unusual meticulous desire to "look good" or stylish, moreso than the common man, is not an unreasonable attribute to take on.

(Now we're having another topic to debate with, I think. What I was actually trying to stress out is that 'defying social norm' won't make you less of a man; thus, becoming a gay. Who are actually the people whom we consider metro sexual? Celebrities, professionals... all men who needs to be meticulous with their appearance, right? David Beckham, Tom Cruise, Alex Rodriguez, etc... [sorry for name dropping] Does anyone think of these men as gay? NONE. Why? Because their jobs or status in the society give them the license to be vain.

My opponent wants to assert that metro men is more likely to be gay because of breaking norms. Alright, gay people and metro men are both defying norms, but in very different ways. Gays [homosexuals] go beyond a norm of having to like or to lust after the opposing gender and even trying to live like a woman, while metro men are only open to the innovations in the society [simply relating to the fashion sense]. Metro men still do what common men do, except for plunging into a stylish manner which CONVENTIONAL PEOPLE cannot appreciate.)

Fellow debaters, let us be open-minded. [giggles] VOTE FOR CONS!!! ;)

VOTE FOR CONS!!!

VOTE FOR CONS!!! Hahaha...
Wierdkp326

Pro

Again, I believe you a missing my point. I did not say that being a metrosexual causes homosexuality. Rather, I said something completely different.

"I would assume that this occurs not in any causal factor (aka. being a metro sexual does not "turn" you gay), but merely as a coinciding factor." (me, round 2)

What this means is that being a metrosexual does not MAKE you gay, but under conditions where I would be forced to guess the sexual orientation of a man, I asserted that my probability of correctly guessing would change if I knew he was a metrosexual. Seeing as how there is no study to determine whether or not there is a correlation between being metro sexual and gay, I speculate that the odds would, in fact change. Should that be the case, then my opponent is wrong.

As the debate topic implies, we are discussing whether being a metrosexual was an indicator (sign) of being gay. This holds no requirements that one causes the other, but merely that they can go hand in hand.

I also never asserted that being a homosexual made someone less of a man, nor did I assert that with metrosexuality. However, it is strange that my opponent says that gay people will "live like a woman". Those people are called "trans gendered" individuals who believe that they were born a woman in a man's body. Conventionally, they should not be looked at as gay, because they identify themselves as women (which would make them straight). But, that's a bit of a tangent.

Regardless, this has been a rousing debate, and it has been a pleasure debating you avah!

My turn: Vote PRO while he goes and plucks his nose hairs.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by aquajet16 8 years ago
aquajet16
Ok for all you kids here. I AM A METROSEXUAL MYSLF BUT I AM STRAIGHT. Just to say my stance as one of "them" :D
Posted by DoubleXMinus 8 years ago
DoubleXMinus
"He is a meticulous, fashion-conscience, fabulous dresser, and decorator himself, who appreciates all the femininity coming from every pore of womankind. He would never think of making love to a man, and knows exactly how to please a woman affectionately, sensually, verbally, and sexually!"

Lol, it's hilarious that something you've said on a debate site for the purposes of arguing your point would fit just as well and better on a dating site under "What you look for in a man:"

Litho is right in saying all of this doesn't really matter, but I think what sparked the idea in your mind, Ava -- is when you realized you found metrosexual men boundlessly attractive and couldn't stop thinking about either just one, or how "sexy" they are in general....
Posted by Lithobolos 8 years ago
Lithobolos
What a stupid debate. Metro sexual is just some stupid fad term created in the last ten years for "straight men who are stylish". It is nothing but an accumulation of stereotypes based on sexual orientation. Who cares about this stuff? The same people who by People magazine!
Posted by sonofzapp 8 years ago
sonofzapp
I agree, not all metrosexuals are gay. Though the line between metro and homo sexuality is sometimes hard to point out, it doesnt always mean that the guy is gay. [lol y da hell is there a homo ad up]
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
avahliciousWierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Wayne 8 years ago
Wayne
avahliciousWierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by pickpocket094 8 years ago
pickpocket094
avahliciousWierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by avahlicious 8 years ago
avahlicious
avahliciousWierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
avahliciousWierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DoubleXMinus 8 years ago
DoubleXMinus
avahliciousWierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
avahliciousWierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
avahliciousWierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Wierdkp326 8 years ago
Wierdkp326
avahliciousWierdkp326Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03