Article

Sexualities
2016, Vol. 19(1/2) 64–82
Looking at the label: ! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
White-collar men and the sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1363460715583607
meanings of sex.sagepub.com

‘‘metrosexual’’
Erynn Masi de Casanova
University of Cincinnati, USA

Emily E Wetzel
University of Cincinnati, USA

Travis D Speice
University of Cincinnati, USA

Abstract
How do men feel about the ‘‘metrosexual’’ label? How do their views relate to changing
norms of masculine self-presentation and increasing acceptance of ‘‘out’’ gay men? We
interviewed 30 US white-collar men, who generally expressed ambivalence about the
social category of metrosexual and claimed that the practices associated with it were
now the norm, while differentiating between the labels of gay and metrosexual. We
argue that metrosexuality raises new possibilities for gay-straight alliances and more
varied performances of heterosexual masculinity, at work and beyond. However, these
developments seem to reinscribe rather than reconfigure power relations privileging
heterosexual men.

Keywords
Masculinity/masculinities, men, metrosexual, sexual orientation, white-collar

Introduction
It’s a very, very fine line between how a well-dressed gay guy dresses and how a well-
dressed non-gay guy dresses . . . I’m sure people have called me a metro[sexual] . . . I
mean I’m a typical New York person, so it wouldn’t surprise me. (Jonah, 31, white,

Corresponding author:
Erynn Masi de Casanova, Department of Sociology, University of Cincinnati, PO Box 210378, Cincinnati, OH
45221-0378, USA.
Email: erynn.casanova@uc.edu
Casanova et al. 65

straight-identified, corporate recruiter, native New Yorker interviewed in San

Francisco)

British journalist Mark Simpson invented the term ‘‘metrosexual’’ in the 1990s, defin-
ing it as ‘‘a single young man with a high disposable income, living or working in the
city’’ who had a narcissistic, consumerist approach to crafting his physical appearance
(1999 [1994]: 207). This description could be applied to many white-collar men work-
ing in US cities, such as Jonah, whose quote highlights the themes of sexuality, urban
location, and appearance that we explore in this article. We argue that the emergence
of metrosexuality and the attendant broadening of socially accepted performances of
masculinity maintains rather than challenges hierarchies of gender and sexuality. This
study of white-collar men’s interpretations of metrosexuality represents an empirical
intervention in the often disembodied conversations about masculinities.
While today the term may be used less frequently – its heyday seems to have
been the early 2000s – ‘‘metrosexual’’ still circulates as a social category applied to
styles of interaction and self-presentation (Shugart, 2008), yet is rarely studied. Of
special interest to those who study gender and sexuality is the relationship between
the metrosexual and other ideal types of masculinity in the contemporary United
States. The scant literature addressing metrosexuality is abstract, theoretical, or
focused on analyses of popular culture (e.g., advertising, reality television). No one
has asked men what they think about the metrosexual and whether this term is
relevant to them. Our study builds on previous scholarship, as we find that men’s
definitions of metrosexuality often reference media discourses.
We pose two related questions: 1) How do white-collar men think about and use
the term ‘‘metrosexual’’; and 2) How does this label relate to existing (self-)classifica-
tions such as ‘‘gay’’ and ‘‘straight’’? We interviewed US white-collar men about self-
presentation, dress, and consumption in order to explore the ways that they conceive
of and perform masculinity, particularly in work contexts. In these conversations,
the cultural figure of the metrosexual allowed and inspired men to talk about sexu-
ality, idealized versions of masculinity, and anxieties about appearance. Men’s
accounts also touched on geography and relationships between gay men and straight
men. Before examining how metrosexuality fits into the puzzle of white-collar mas-
culinity in the US, we discuss some existing scholarship on masculinity, gender, and
sexual orientation.

Theorizing masculinities
Theoretical foundations
Gone is the notion that masculinity is a fixed, narrowly-defined concept, as
described by Chafetz’s (1974) seven types of masculinity, or Brannon’s (1976)
four characteristics of manhood. Scholars now understand masculinity as having
multiple expressions and performances. The oft-cited pioneer of this field of study
is Raewyn (née RW) Connell, whose 1995 book simply titled Masculinities
66 Sexualities 19(1/2)

introduced the concept of ‘‘hegemonic masculinity’’ as well as the tradition of plur-

alizing ‘‘masculinity’’ to indicate that there are different ways of embodying male
gender in modern society. Adapting Gramsci’s (1971) idea of hegemony, Connell
defined hegemonic masculinity as the dominant form of masculinity in a given soci-
ety at a particular point in history, and as the linchpin of gender inequality. Connell
later refined the concept in order to prevent misunderstandings of hegemonic mas-
culinity. Rather than being monolithic or totally determinative of men’s gender
experiences, hegemonic masculinity coexists with ‘‘multiple masculinities,’’ even in
the practices of one man or group of men (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005).
In the US and Europe (as in other parts of the world): ‘‘gay men are subordi-
nated to straight men by an array of quite material practices’’ (Connell, 1995: 78).
In addition, gay masculinity is perceived in these societies, according to Connell, as
the opposite of heterosexual masculinity; the dividing line was clear and straight
men enjoyed higher status at the expense of gay men. Connell and Messerschmidt
also highlighted the need to understand the ‘‘regional and local constructions of
hegemonic masculinity’’ (2005: 849); this has been done in subsequent studies (e.g.
Ward, 2008), but seldom with a comparative focus that allows differences between
regions and localities to surface.

Multiple masculinities
Demetriou elaborated on Connell’s work, arguing that hegemonic masculinity was
not only influenced by, but co-opted, certain aspects of marginalized masculinities
such as those associated with less-privileged men (e.g., racial/ethnic minorities and
gays; Demetriou, 2001: 346). This selective incorporation of alternative masculi-
nities leads to the emergence of ‘‘hybrid masculinities’’ that actually serve to rein-
force hegemonic versions of masculinity by making them ‘‘dynamic and flexible’’
(Demetriou, 2001: 348). Other authors have since explored Demetriou’s concept of
hybrid masculinities, reaching different conclusions. Bridges and Pascoe (2014)
describe competing scholarly interpretations of this hybridization, each of which
investigates the relationship between masculinity and power. According to Bridges
and Pascoe (2014), some scholars argue that hybrid masculinity removes men from
the grip of hegemonic masculinity: hybrid masculinities thus aim to dismantle the
hierarchical structure of masculinity and allow various forms of masculinity to be
valued. Anderson’s (2002) study of gay athletes reported that they felt accepted by
their teammates, so long as they contributed positively to the team. The mere
existence of gay male athletes – and their acceptance in certain contexts – chal-
lenged hegemonic masculinity in a way that disrupted its power. More recently,
Anderson has theorized ‘‘inclusive masculinity,’’ positing that as homophobia
within a culture decreases, multiple masculinities can be respected equally (2011).
This is a significant shift from earlier theories of hegemonic masculinity, which
argue that one form of masculinity trumps all.
Bridges and Pascoe (2014) also discuss the view that hybrid masculinities can
reinforce, reproduce, and perpetuate hegemonic masculinity. By employing aspects
Casanova et al. 67

of various masculinities, men are able to use gendered scripts to demonstrate alter-
native forms of masculinity while maintaining power. Arnold Schwarzenegger,
known first for his bodybuilding successes (embodying traditional masculine
toughness), was later able as an actor to perform a softer version of masculinity
(Messner, 2007). His gentler character in the popular film Kindergarten Cop could
exist only after he had played the hyper-masculine cyborg assassin in The
Terminator. Messner (2007) analyzes the implications of this hybrid form of mas-
culinity, particularly as Schwarzenegger entered the political arena, where he was
able to present either of these masculine images as what Messner playfully calls
‘‘the Governator.’’
This interpretation of hybrid masculinity has the most insidious consequences
for divergent masculinities. Borrowing from various masculinities, men are able to
display hegemonic and non-hegemonic ideals in homosocial contexts, where mas-
culinity is most at stake, and where men are likely to embody hegemonic ideals
most profoundly (Kimmel, 1996). Yet because non-hegemonic masculine perform-
ances – of which hybrid masculinity is just one example – require legitimation by
other men, these performances in the presence of men may involve risk. (In other
contexts, men might have more to gain by approximating more compassionate or
caring non-hegemonic ideals).1 In this conception, hybrid masculinity does not
necessarily challenge hegemonic masculinity, and the audiences for these perform-
ances matter.
Hegemonic masculinity, then, is understood as bending rather than breaking,
which extends its reign. It incorporates just enough of marginalized masculinities so
that men who don’t share in all the benefits of hegemonic masculinity still accept it
and even believe in it. In his analysis of hybrid masculinities, Steven Arxer argues
that not only do multiple masculinities exist, but there exists a ‘‘plurality of hege-
monic masculinities’’ (2011: 416). The range of masculinities that are performed by
gay men is just as wide as the range of masculinities performed by heterosexual
men. But since gay men do not claim heterosexuality as part of their gender iden-
tity, they perform masculinity in ways that are different from their straight
counterparts.

Masculinity and sexual identity

Academic work on gay masculinities often focuses on multiple identities in estab-
lished subcultures (e.g. Nardi, 2000). David Halperin’s 2012 book How to Be Gay
illuminates the different ways gay men come to ‘‘fit’’ under a common label in the
eyes of most of society. For Halperin, being gay has little to do with sexual behav-
ior; rather, gay identities stem from a sense of shared culture. Because gay men
share no single ethnicity or national heritage, a collective consciousness forms from
existing culture. Part of this identity is a gay aesthetic (Halperin, 2012), and the
kind of sixth sense (commonly referred to as ‘‘gaydar’’) for identifying people as
gay, sometimes based solely on physical appearance. Of course, gay culture con-
tains many subcultures. Among these, scholars have studied bears, leather culture
68 Sexualities 19(1/2)

and clones, identifying the ways that gay culture is constructed as flexible, much in
the same way as masculinity is increasingly flexible (Campbell, 2004; Hennen, 2005;
Kimmel, 1996; Levine, 1998; Manley et al., 2007; Mosher et al., 2006;
Wright, 1997).
Gay and straight masculinities are not completely opposed; they are in contact
with each other, and sometimes in cahoots. This is perhaps especially true of gay
and straight men in the corporate world, who share similar social class status and
work in similarly-structured organizations. What does the overlap between gay and
straight performances of masculinity mean for friendships, or workplace relation-
ships, between gay and straight men in the white-collar world of our interviewees?
Dwight Fee explores friendships between gay and straight men, arguing that the
two groups ‘‘share more experiences than is commonly thought’’ (2000: 44). Based
on interviews with gay and straight men whose friendships cross boundaries of
sexual orientation, Fee shows how both sets of men benefit from these relation-
ships. He claims, somewhat hyperbolically, that such friendships blur the borders
separating straight and gay men as collectives, ‘‘scrambling or redirecting the gen-
dered systems or signifiers that have historically positioned sexuality (or sexual
orientation) as the determinant of gender’’ (2000: 61).
Building on Demetriou’s (2001) theory of hybrid masculinities, and drawing on
interviews with an eclectic group of mostly straight men, sociologist Tristan
Bridges’ recent work shows how these men borrow elements of gay culture and
even (sometimes jokingly) describe themselves as ‘‘gay’’ (2014: 61). Bridges finds
this phenomenon mostly among white men, and calls these borrowed styles ‘‘sexual
aesthetics,’’ a concept that includes but is not limited to dress or other bodily
practices. Bridges argues that this borrowing reinforces rather than weakens the
line dividing gay and straight. Our analysis of metrosexuality answers the call to
researchers to study ‘‘the diverse ways in which gay aesthetics are understood and
utilized by straight men’’ (Bridges, 2014: 80).

Scholars meet the metrosexual

In the first academic book on metrosexuality in sports and media, David Coad
wrote that ‘‘a short and concise definition would be inevitably partial’’ and that
metrosexual has ‘‘extensive and multilayered’’ meanings (Coad, 2008: 18–19).
Popular culture is where metrosexual definitions and debates first gained traction.
Not surprisingly, the existing research focuses on popular culture, rather than
everyday men’s understandings of metrosexual. For example, scholars have ana-
lyzed the now-defunct US television program Queer Eye for the Straight Guy
(Miller, 2005; Shugart, 2008), and sports stars as exemplars of metrosexuality
(Coad, 2008; Wickman and Langeland, 2013). Perhaps the dearth of scholarly
literature on metrosexuality signals that metrosexuals or pop culture products –
or both – are seen as outside the purview of serious scholarship.
There is debate over whether the metrosexual category is exclusive to heterosex-
ual men (Wickman, 2011), as implied by the way that the two words almost rhyme.
Casanova et al. 69

Jan Wickman (2011) identified two underlying themes or aspects of the metrosex-
ual that are connected and sometimes confused: the ‘‘aesthetic’’ and the ‘‘erotic.’’
Aesthetic metrosexuality involves a heightened attention to ‘‘appearance, fashion,
and grooming with an element of conspicuous consumption,’’ whereas erotic
metrosexuality ‘‘refers to the overt eroticization of the (male) body as a visual
pleasure in mainstream media . . . and a certain open-mindedness regarding same
sex desire’’ (Wickman, 2011: 117–18).
It is important to note Simpson’s original emphasis on high income as a criterion
for being a metrosexual and Wickman’s mention of ‘‘conspicuous consumption.’’
Popular and scholarly discussions of the term often invoke consumption practices
associated with middle- and upper-class men, including gay men.3 Some writing
about the metrosexual emphasizes how marketing professionals use this classifica-
tion to identify new markets and products to sell to them (Shugart, 2008; St. John,
2003). Shugart (2008) claims that metrosexuality was a ‘‘fad,’’ but one that did
important discursive work, reconciling what she calls ‘‘commercial masculinity’’
(based on consumption) and ‘‘normative masculinity,’’ which disdains a concern
for appearance. Scholars generally present metrosexuality as expanding the socially
acceptable performances of masculinity while maintaining social inequalities rooted
in the rejection of femininity and gay self-identification (Morrish and O’Mara,
2004; Shugart, 2008). Our findings similarly suggest that while men increasingly
see metrosexuality as innocuous or ‘‘typical,’’ its emergence has not shaken up, but
rather reinscribed, traditional power relations that privilege straight men over gay
men and over women. The difference lies in our study’s analysis of men’s accounts
rather than media products. Bringing men’s own voices to the fore, our work con-
tributes to the literature on masculinity and gender performance.

Methods
This paper draws on interviews with a diverse group of 30 white-collar men in
Cincinnati, New York City, and San Francisco, in which the word ‘‘metrosexual’’
was explicitly discussed. These form part of a larger sample of 71 interviews with
white-collar men, and three supplemental interviews with military veterans, on the
subject of work dress. In some cases, the first author (who conducted all interviews)
brought up the term ‘‘metrosexual,’’ but in most cases, the interviewee used it first.
The first author recruited participants beginning with personal and professional
contacts in the three cities. Most interviews were conducted with people whom the
first author did not previously know, and by the end of the study, most participants
were several degrees removed from the author’s initial contacts. The goal was not
to obtain a random sample, but to recruit a group of men diverse in age, race/
ethnicity, occupation, and sexual orientation, employed at for-profit companies in
the three study locales.4
Of the 30 interviewees, 37% worked in New York City, 30% in Cincinnati, and
33% in San Francisco. Most (23 out of 30) identified as white, with some using
more specific or colloquial terms, such as ‘‘white Jewish’’ or ‘‘WASP.’’5 Three men
70 Sexualities 19(1/2)

identified as black/African American, one as (Asian) Indian, one as Afro-

Caribbean, and one as Filipino. Seven of the 30 interviewees (23%) identified as
gay, including residents of each city. Participants represented a range of occupa-
tions, including: sales and marketing, healthcare administration, finance, recruit-
ing, IT, and architecture/design (one was retired from a career in sales). The
youngest participant in this sample was 24, and the oldest was 71; the average
age was 39. These men were typical of the larger group of interviewees, in that
the proportion from each city was roughly equal, most identified as white, and a
variety of occupations and ages were included. All names used here are
pseudonyms.
Recorded interviews were transcribed by the first and second authors, a research
assistant, or a professional transcription service. We used NVivo software to iden-
tify interviews in which the term ‘‘metrosexual’’ appeared. Interview data were
coded and analyzed based on themes drawn from the literature, and we then
used open coding to allow other themes to emerge organically from the data.
We focus here on the three most common themes in the interview accounts.

Findings
Three themes surfaced in interview accounts: 1) men’s definitions of metrosexu-
ality; 2) urban geography/place; and 3) the relationship between metrosexual,
gay, and straight labels. First, men in our study had varying definitions of metro-
sexual, both negative and positive. Second, the metrosexual is associated with
cities, and the label’s use depends on geographic location. Third, the links
between metrosexuality and sexuality are complex and relate to men’s gender
and sexual identities, gay/straight interactions, and the level of acceptance of
non-straight sexualities in their social and professional environments. Of these
themes, only the third is addressed in the existing academic literature on
metrosexuality.

Men’s definitions of metrosexual

Centering our study on the corporate workplace allows us to examine an everyday,
but high-stakes, setting for self-presentation. Unlike previous scholarship on
metrosexuality, our analysis prioritizes men’s definitions and experiences rather
than media or celebrity examples. As with other potentially stigmatizing categories,
the imaginary lines separating metrosexuals from non-metrosexuals are alternately
blurred and highlighted in interview accounts. The metrosexual was often the man
who went just one or two steps further than the interviewee in the care and display
of his body.
Lay descriptions depict metrosexual men as being more ‘in touch with their
feminine side,’ and some research participants used this language. Some scholars
reject this reductionist definition, partly because of the essentialist idea of femin-
inity it suggests. Academics and journalists writing about the metrosexual
Casanova et al. 71

emphasize the use of this label by marketing professionals in order to identify new
markets and products. However, many participants did not attribute the existence
of the metrosexual stereotype solely to marketing schemes, arguing that it was
probably exploited rather than created by Madison Avenue.
So how does the average white-collar man define this term, and how often does
he hear it in his daily life in and outside of work? We encountered a range of
opinions on what metrosexual means and whether it is a positive label or an
insult. Surprisingly, sometimes individual men expressed conflicting opinions on
whether metrosexuality was a good or a bad thing. Despite this variation, partici-
pants highlighted dimensions of the stereotype that resemble ‘‘aesthetic metrosexu-
ality’’ (Wickman, 2011). A typical description came from Dave, a white 24-year-old
finance professional in Cincinnati, who said a metrosexual was ‘‘always a hundred
percent concerned with [his] appearance all the time.’’ While Mark Simpson’s (1999
[1994]) original definition of metrosexuality entailed being young and single with
high disposable income, the participants in this study never mentioned age, marital
status, or income as defining the metrosexual.
Negative definitions of the metrosexual included someone who ‘‘spends far too
much time in front of the mirror’’ or takes two hours ‘‘putting down [his] hair every
morning,’’ and the gym-tanning-laundry proponents on the MTV reality show
Jersey Shore. Luke, a straight white man in his 30s who works in Manhattan,
described the negative image memorably: being a metrosexual implied ‘‘an obses-
sive concern with appearance . . . to the point where it was almost like annoy-
ing . . . come on . . . Be a man.’’ This resistance to the aesthetic rigors of
metrosexuality seems to be based on the idea that part of the privilege of being a
man in US society lies in not being judged on appearance in the way that women
are. Voluntarily giving up that privilege can cause a man to be looked down on by
other men. As Dave, who identifies as heterosexual, put it, ‘‘I think you could be
ostracized if you were on [the] extreme of always so well-manicured.’’ These men
seem to adhere to standards of hegemonic masculinity, which devalues practices
classified as feminine – particularly when performed by men.
While many interviewees recognized and articulated negative definitions of
metrosexuality, some also expressed positive opinions. One of these was Rohan,
who migrated to the US from India as a teenager, and said he wouldn’t mind being
called metrosexual:

I think it’s a compliment [laughs]. You know . . . you would say it to a person who
dresses very nicely . . . who does care about their appearance . . . I don’t see anything
wrong with that . . . they’re doing it for themselves or whatnot. And I don’t think it
should be taken in a bad way . . . if some people do call that to me, I wouldn’t take it in
a bad way. I would be like, ‘‘sure.’’ It doesn’t matter to me.

David Coad (2008) discounts the explanation that metrosexuality is about men
adopting ‘‘feminine’’ practices and orientations. However, Graham, a Cincinnati
interviewee who works in marketing and is interested in the creation of new
72 Sexualities 19(1/2)

strategies to attract male customers, employed this language in his definition. The
metrosexual, Graham said, was ‘‘somebody who was well put together, that was in
touch with their feminine side, I think was the mark – . . . was the way the advertis-
ing tried to sell it.’’ While it seemed that he started to refer to metrosexuals as a pre-
existing market for products, he shifted his explanation, stating that advertisers
were trying to create this market by invoking a nascent metrosexual prototype – a
strategy he thought reductionist yet somewhat effective. Graham was one of many
participants who expressed ambivalence about the metrosexual. While he saw it as
a negative term and refused to self-identify as metrosexual despite being a meticu-
lous dresser, he thought that appearance mattered for men at work, and approved
of what he perceived as increased social pressure on men to look good.
Participants’ invoking both positive and negative connotations of the metrosex-
ual label raises questions about the proper way to perform masculinity/masculi-
nities. The contradictions in men’s views and definitions support scholars’ claims
that socially acceptable performances of masculinity are broadening, and that
hybrid forms of masculinity exist alongside support for hegemonic or traditional
ideals.

(Metropolitan) location, location, location

The prefix ‘‘metro-’’, and Simpson’s original definition, refer to an urban location
where this image or identity is cultivated and recognized. Cities are also important
to the development of white-collar identity, as sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in
his 1950s classic White Collar: ‘‘white-collar workers are city people . . . The city is
their milieu and they are shaped by its mass ways’’ (2002 [1951]: 250). Three types
of geographical comparisons emerged in participants’ discussions of men’s dress
and metrosexuality: between urban and non-urban areas, between different cities in
the US, and between the US and Europe.
Their urban location constrains and shapes these white-collar men’s dress deci-
sions, in combination with their occupational sector and positions in the corporate
hierarchy. Interviewees generally agreed with stereotypes that position New York
as a center of fashion and formal dressing, San Francisco as laid-back and tolerant
of different dress styles, and Cincinnati as provincial (or, according to some,
unfashionable). Pete, a gay man in his 30s who worked for a retail company in
San Francisco, described his everyday life as taking place in a ‘‘metropolitan
bubble’’; within that bubble, fashion and dress mattered more than elsewhere.
According to interviewees’ accounts, more men in big cities than non-urban men
embody the metrosexual stereotype, yet escape being classified as metrosexuals. A
dress decision that might cause a man to be labeled metrosexual – or homosexual –
in a small town in what some would call Middle America might fall in the
‘‘normal’’ range in a place like New York City. RJ, a young white man in mar-
keting, grew up in a small town in the Midwestern US, and today works in
Manhattan. Gesturing toward the pink espadrilles he wore to our interview, RJ
said: ‘‘if I were to wear something like [this] in the Midwest, I’d be a little more on
Casanova et al. 73

guard for some sort of [negative] comment.’’ Being in a city enables certain types of
masculine embodiment that may not be socially acceptable in non-metropolitan
contexts.
Conducting comparative research in three US cities, we saw definite local and
regional differences in men’s descriptions and practice of work dress. And, given
the geographic mobility of white-collar, middle-class Americans, interviewees with
knowledge of different places were able to point to the diversity of style norms
across cities and regions. Several Cincinnati participants used the word ‘‘conserva-
tive’’ to describe not just their city, but the entire Midwest region. Daniel, a white
man in corporate retail, said of Cincinnati:

I just think you’re looking at a Midwestern town that’s going to be conservative by

nature. You go to New York, you go to L.A., San Francisco, it’s going to be differ-
ent . . . ‘cause they’re much more trendy, and we’re just a little bit more conservative
here.

Daniel’s statement comparing Cincinnati to the other cities in this study6 demotes
this metropolitan area of about two million people to a mere ‘‘town’’ in relation to
larger, more globally-oriented metropolises.
Participants who were raised in Europe, or who had spent time there, were
struck by the differences in appearance and dress between Europe (specifically
Britain, France, Germany, and Italy) and the United States. Interview accounts
give the sense that many behaviors and preferences labeled metrosexual in the US
would not be seen as remarkable or unusual in Europe. Moreover, those who
accepted or performed practices that could be stereotyped as metrosexual enjoyed
their association with European styles, which they saw as superior. Cosmopolitan
style sensibilities and behaviors (e.g., shopping for clothes in Europe) were seen as
desirable by men who stated an interest in dress and fashion. Their ideal version of
masculinity involved the consumption of luxury, sophisticated, or hip/cool goods,
often purchased in other countries or in shops that were seen as outside the
mainstream.
Geography also mattered in men’s exposure to the term ‘‘metrosexual’’ at the
time of the interviews, with some claiming to hear and use the term less than
others. Men in Cincinnati and New York were more likely to indicate that the
term ‘‘metrosexual’’ – and even the need to label or call out men as metrosexual –
had lost steam since it exploded into public consciousness in the early 2000s.
Echoing the Midwest and East Coast men, Pete from San Francisco responded
when asked about the metrosexual: ‘‘Whatever happened to that guy? [laughs] I
don’t know.’’ The idea that the metrosexual is extinct may be the result of nor-
malization, a process by which metrosexual style has become the new norm for
many middle-class men in urban centers. Yet this attitude was much less preva-
lent in the San Francisco sample: nearly two-thirds of the San Francisco partici-
pants stated they heard the word ‘‘metrosexual’’ on a regular basis, including at
work.
74 Sexualities 19(1/2)

If practices associated with metrosexuality are becoming less marked, why does
a global city such as San Francisco lag behind this trend? Why are San Francisco’s
white-collar men still using and hearing the term more than those in the other two
cities we studied? One plausible explanation is the prevalence of gay men in San
Francisco, where 15% of the city’s population identifies as non-heterosexual, com-
pared to the estimated national average of 3.5% (James, 2011; Gates and Newport,
2013). Because the term metrosexual does connote gayness and/or effeminacy, at
least for some of our interviewees, it is possible that, more so than for their coun-
terparts in New York and Cincinnati, (self-)labeling straight men in San Francisco
as metrosexual protects them from being labeled gay. There are other possible
reasons for this geographic difference. In an urban location where nearly every
man’s heterosexuality is questioned at some point (an accurate description of San
Francisco, according to some men interviewed there), straight men’s hold on hege-
monic masculinity may be less crucial to their social standing.
The high representation of gay men in San Francisco has possible implications
for the research participants’ work lives. Heterosexual men in San Francisco, as
strategic actors in corporate settings, may find it useful for their careers to befriend
or at least have positive working relationships with gay white-collar men. Gay men,
stigmatized in the wider society regardless of their degree of social acceptance in a
particular urban locale, may also see the benefits of forming social bonds with
straight men in the workplace. Thus the term ‘‘metrosexual,’’ especially in San
Francisco, may be used as a bridge that allows professional men with common
interests to connect across the divide of sexual orientation.

Putting the ‘‘sex’’ in metrosexual

‘‘Metrosexual’’ invokes sexual orientation or sexuality, ending as it does, in -sexual.
The question of how much metrosexuality connotes sex or sexuality, however, was
highly contested among the men in this study. Generally speaking, the interviews
demonstrated three types of opinions about the relationship between heterosexu-
ality, metrosexuality, and gayness.
First, some men claimed that metrosexuality was unrelated to sexuality or sexual
orientation. Nicholas, a Cincinnati interviewee who works in a design field, com-
plained, ‘‘I don’t like the word ‘cause I don’t think it has anything to do with
somebody’s sexuality.’’ Louis, a New York interviewee, recounted:

This morning, this guy sitting over there [points] referred to me as a metrosexual. I was
like, [scolding voice] ‘don’t call me that.’ That’s – First of all, nobody uses that term
anymore . . . And it’s like, it has nothing to do with sex anyway, so I don’t understand
that whole thing.

These white, straight-identified men, who in other parts of our conversation

expressed some stereotypically metrosexual interests such as fashion and clothing
Casanova et al. 75

construction, strongly rejected the sexual connotations of ‘‘metrosexual,’’ perhaps

to avoid being the target of mean-spirited accusations of gayness. The lesser
sting of the metrosexual label in recent years likely has to do with the distinctions
such as these that have been made between metrosexuality and homosexuality.7
That is, hegemonic masculinity is flexible enough to include metrosexuality, but
still marginalizes activities and identities that are marked unequivocally as
homosexual.
Second, we found that the term metrosexual can be used to label gay men who
are still in the closet. In this conception, metrosexual is a form of camouflage for
straight-identified men. Ian, a gay man in his 50s who worked in corporate retail,
claimed that the label had its origins in the gay community:

Metrosexual started off as a derogatory term for straight men who were really gay.
They probably had a boyfriend. They probably, you know, edged into the gay com-
munity somehow or other, but when you saw them on the street, they had a wife and
kids. They had a very strong, uh, gay sensibility. They had a fashion sense. They had
all the classic gay marks and yet they were living this straight lifestyle. And so that
term was really used in a derogatory way [by gay men] for men who were too timid to
be themselves.

Given this understanding of the etymology of ‘‘metrosexual,’’ Ian thought it

humorous that the word had come to be used so widely, with some straight men
taking on the label willingly. He remembered three men with whom he had worked
at a previous company, who gleefully called themselves metrosexuals. Breaking out
into laughter, Ian recalled his interactions with these men he suspected of being
gay, despite their claims to heterosexuality: ‘‘their meaning was ‘I’m fashionable’
and all this . . . [and] my meaning is just, ‘you haven’t come out yet. You’re just a
midlife crisis waiting to happen.’’’ There seems to be some agreement
among scholars and laypeople that the category of metrosexual is reserved for
heterosexual men, which implies that the idea of a gay metrosexual is redundant
(Coad, 2008).
Whether or not ‘gay metrosexual’ is an impossible social type, some interviewees
saw the use of the term as a more socially acceptable way of calling someone gay.
Gay men were most likely to claim that ‘‘metrosexual’’ was used to mean ‘‘gay’’ in
certain situations – particularly in the workplace. This was relevant to participants
Adam (Cincinnati) and Jacob (New York), who were both white, gay men in their
20s who were not ‘‘out’’ in their workplaces and were at risk of being labeled
metrosexual. Jacob said: ‘‘My boss calls me a metrosexual. That’s funny because
he doesn’t know that I’m gay. It’s like, you know, if you could put two and two
together, you would probably figure it out.’’ Jacob’s boss, who is older than he is,
and presumably straight, knows that in contemporary corporate America, it is
okay to call someone metrosexual, but not okay to call them gay. The separation
between metrosexual and gay (which several interviewees insisted upon) makes
76 Sexualities 19(1/2)

using the word in and outside the workplace so acceptable that it could be used to
hint at gayness, but allow the speaker an out if challenged on his use of the word.
The third way that men interpreted the links between gay, straight, and metro-
sexual relates directly to academic discussions of multiple or hybrid masculinities.
Some men felt that the category of metrosexual opened up a space for straight men
who were interested in fashion and did not want to be stereotyped as gay. As
Daniel put it, ‘‘when the word ‘metrosexual’ came out . . . [men] could get away
with being more trendy and fashion[able] without people looking at them that
way.’’ Domingo, a straight man interviewed in San Francisco, echoed this senti-
ment: ‘‘that’s where that whole metrosexual thing came [from], right? Try to elim-
inate that . . . ‘If you dress good, you’re gay.’ No, you’re just a metrosexual.’’ The
difference from more traditional forms of hegemonic masculinity is still noted, but
the man being labeled is not placed in the category of gay or homosexual and thus
not excluded from the privileges of hegemonic masculinity.
The word metrosexual, according to some research participants, can be used
without the intention of classifying someone as gay, and yet still be interpreted in
this way by the target of the labeling. Joseph, a 32-year-old African American who
identified as straight, told this story:

I think paying attention to dress and style was never really looked upon as a negative
thing . . . First time I was called a metrosexual, I had never even heard the word before.
I got offended ‘cause I’m like, you know [laughs] . . . ‘‘What you trying to say?’’ But
then, you know, when they explained it, I was like, ‘‘Ohhh . . . Maybe that’s me? I
don’t know.’’ I think they were trying to define a man who, uh, takes his appearance
and . . . I don’t know, he may [slight pause] get his fingernails done, or he may . . . which
I don’t do that, but I’m just saying, he may do that, so I think they were just trying to
use it as a [slight pause] defining word versus insulting me. I didn’t take it as an insult.

This exchange is illuminating. Joseph embraces the label metrosexual, but only
after initially being upset by it because he thought it meant he was being called
gay. He ‘‘didn’t take it as insult’’ only after he figured out exactly what his inter-
locutor intended with this ‘‘defining word.’’
Other men acknowledged that metrosexuality involved an aesthetic that was
not consistent with traditional straight masculinity, but that was not entirely gay
or feminine either. Barney, a straight white financial consultant in his late 30s
from San Francisco, claimed that women he had dated had ‘‘teased [him] a little
bit’’ about his attention to fashion and style, and he recalled one ex-girlfriend
saying ‘‘you are the gayest-dressing straight guy that I know.’’ While he insisted
this was a compliment, and that he didn’t mind, he momentarily put himself in
the shoes of other men who identified more with traditional masculine ideals:
‘‘some people might have . . .’’. He began, but did not finish this sentence, imply-
ing that some people (read: some heterosexual men) would not be as nonchalant
at being labeled metrosexual given the connotations of gayness accompanying
such a label.
Casanova et al. 77

Conclusion: Normalization, new masculinities, and bridging

differences
As metrosexuality influences mainstream ideals and practices related to men’s
bodies, corporate norms of appearance keep pace. Behaviors and knowledge pre-
viously thought of as the domain of metrosexuals are now so common among
white-collar men as to be unremarkable. Those of us who have overheard earnest,
public discussions among men on the virtues of flat-front trousers or expensive
salon haircuts are witnesses to normalization. The normalization of metrosexuality
– despite its nebulous definition and white-collar men’s hesitance to claim the label
for themselves – is evident in these interview accounts. The metrosexual phenom-
enon remains relevant because it ‘‘elevated the standards’’ for men’s appearance, in
one interviewee’s words.
Many participants in Cincinnati and New York saw the term ‘‘metrosexual’’ –
and its use to classify men – as ‘‘passé.’’ The use of the term, especially in these two
cities, has diminished even as the practices that it formerly denoted become more
common. The men’s insistence on separating metrosexual from gay facilitates this
normalization: having metrosexual tastes or proclivities, or even identifying as
metrosexual, does not equate to the adoption of a gay identity. These white-collar
men do not feel completely free to dress and look as they choose, however.
Interviewees performed complicated balancing acts as they aimed to be seen as
masculine, yet present an image that co-workers, bosses, and clients would see as
appropriate and professional – well-dressed yet not extravagant, well-groomed yet
not excessively ‘‘manicured,’’ neither out-of-date nor overly trendy. Men who con-
form to these new norms stand to gain socially and materially, for example, attract-
ing romantic partners who appreciate the metrosexual look, or being seen as more
promotable at work. Despite these potential benefits, normalization creates new (or
heightened) social pressures on men when it comes to appearance and dress.
San Francisco-based interviewees were more likely than those from the Midwest
or East Coast sites to say that the word ‘‘metrosexual’’ was still openly used and
that they encountered it regularly. Some explanations for this difference relate to
this city’s reputation as a gay mecca and the greater likelihood that straight men in
such an environment will be erroneously identified as gay. In San Francisco, then,
the metrosexual remains a more meaningful social classification, as an innocuous
answer to the question, ‘‘Is he gay?’’ Straight men in San Francisco may choose to
adopt the label, perhaps in a strategic attempt to gain rapport with gay associates,
or to protect themselves from being assigned more stigmatized non-heterosexual
labels.
Research participants held contradictory views on what types of men fit inher-
ently unstable definitions of metrosexuality. These ambivalent accounts show that
ideas about what constitutes acceptable masculine performance are currently in
flux. ‘‘Hybrid masculinities’’ are indeed emerging, as recent research has found.
Over time in the US, gay identities have become less frowned upon, and appear-
ance-related behaviors previously stereotyped as gay have become normalized,
78 Sexualities 19(1/2)

partly through the metrosexual phenomenon. Some straight interviewees did not
mind being mistakenly identified as gay because of their personal style, even con-
sidering it a compliment. Yet gay masculinities are still stigmatized, and many
straight men resisted being labeled gay (or metrosexual, if used as a euphemism
for gay).
Our data do not enable us to fully theorize the relationship between increasing
social acceptance of gay identities and social acceptance of metrosexuality, but we
see these trends as related. Corporate men’s accounts provide empirical evidence of
the selective incorporation of ‘‘gay’’ aesthetics and tastes into hegemonic mascu-
linity, as Demetriou (2001) theorized and Bridges (2014) documented. Not all men
engaged in this borrowing, but it was seen as common and acceptable. It is worth
noting that interviewees of color were more likely than white participants to
embrace a metrosexual identity. These men are already associated with margin-
alized masculinities, and thus have less to lose by claiming alternative, less-tradi-
tional gender identities. They also may be more accepting of the metrosexual label
as it fits with stereotypes about black and Latino men as skilled or flashy dressers
who can pull off feminized styles without diminishing their masculinity in the eyes
of others (Bordo, 1998; Craig, 2002).
Straight men’s willingness to entertain or embody the metrosexual image could
be seen as a way of symbolically sharing some of the privileges of hegemonic
masculinity with gay men, without significantly altering power relations among
men. The corporate world in which our research participants spend much of
their time is important to understanding the implications of their interview
accounts. In such a setting, strategic alliances between some gay and straight
men, facilitated by metrosexual-identified behaviors and shared knowledge and
interests (cultural capital) could increase individuals’ status and networks (social
capital). Of course, gay and straight men could form cross-group friendships – or
friendly working relationships – for reasons other than metrosexuality. In addition,
we must not overlook gay men’s experiences of homophobia and institutional
discrimination, and critiques of their performance of masculinity. However,
straight and gay men’s bonding over fashion and other concerns could lead to
amiable workplace relationships and the kind of personal preferences and oppor-
tunity offers that are associated with upward mobility and job security in the cor-
porate world. We see the cultivation of these bonds as a strategy for personal career
advancement rather than a collective rethinking of masculine norms or a challenge
to hegemonic masculinity.
If metrosexuality can act as a new means of linking gay and straight men across
boundaries of sexual orientation, what are the possible consequences? One critique
of the theory of hegemonic masculinity argues that rather than obliterating or
completely subjugating alternative, marginalized masculinities, hegemonic mascu-
linity shores itself up by incorporating select aspects of these ‘‘other’’ masculinities
(Demetriou, 2001; Pascoe and Bridges, 2014). By doing this in a symbolic way,
rather than granting equal social power to marginalized men, members of the
dominant group – white, middle-class, heterosexual men – actually strengthen
Casanova et al. 79

their own hegemony and maintain gender inequality, defined as the power of men
as a class over women as a class.8
We agree that straight men’s ‘‘reliance upon gay aesthetics expands ‘acceptable’
performances of straight masculinity, but does so without challenging’’ structural
inequalities among men or men’s dominance over women (Bridges, 2014: 80).
Perhaps gay corporate men have already been using links to straight men to
advance members of their own sex at the expense of women (as heterosexual
men have typically done), but new possible cross-boundary relationships may pro-
vide them with more power to enforce these preferences. Our argument here runs
counter to the assumption that establishing gay-straight alliances will help to trans-
form the way that sexuality and gender operate in work environments (Rumens,
2011). Future research into gay-straight interactions among men at work can ascer-
tain whether these alliances exist and how they matter for workplace politics.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Charles Phelps Taft Research Center at the University of Cincinnati for funding
some of the data collection for this project. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers, and to all
the people who have listened to presentations of this work over the past few years, providing
helpful feedback and asking the important questions. This article draws on data and argu-
ments made by the first author in her book, Buttoned Up: Clothing, Conformity, and White-
Collar Masculinity (ILR/Cornell University Press, forthcoming 2015).

Notes
1. ‘‘Other contexts’’ here could include women-dominated or mixed-gender settings, or
settings associated with marginalized masculinities. In a study of the Promise Keepers,
a Christian men’s group, Donovan (1998) reveals the potentially damaging consequences
of some more flexible masculinities. In group meetings, men share their concerns, insecu-
rities, and fears with one another as a way to bolster their confidence, and in turn create
new ways of establishing masculine power over their families.
2. For more in-depth discussion of gay/straight identities and class, see the Spring 2011
special issue of Sexualities.
3. The criteria for inclusion were that a man be over 21 (past college age) and employed full-
time for a private company; as we were interested in the experiences of men employed in
corporate settings and for-profit enterprises, we excluded employees of government agen-
cies and non-profit organizations, and the self-employed, who may hold similar class
standing but are differently positioned in the contemporary capitalist structure.
4. We purposely selected cities from three different geographic regions of the US:
Cincinnati, in the Midwest region; New York, on the East Coast; and San Francisco,
on the West Coast. This sample also strategically includes cities of different sizes, with
different industrial/economic makeups. As we anticipated, important differences emerged
across the study sites, each of which has a unique local dress culture.
5. One participant who would probably be classified as white in everyday interactions in the
US identified as Jewish and by the national origins of his immigrant ancestors. WASP is
an acronym for White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
6. Daniel was not the only non-New York interviewee to place New York on a fashion
pedestal; San Francisco interviewees also saw New Yorkers as more fashionable than they.
80 Sexualities 19(1/2)

7. To use Wickman’s (2011) terminology, this is the separation of the ‘‘aesthetic’’ and
‘‘erotic’’ aspects of metrosexuality.
8. ‘‘Although ‘softer’ and more ‘sensitive’ styles of masculinity are developing . . . [they do
not] necessarily contribute to the emancipation of women; in fact, quite the contrary may
be true’’ (Messner, 1993: 725).

References
Anderson E (2002) Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic
environment. Gender & Society 16(6): 860–877.
Anderson E (2011) Updating the outcome: Gay athletes, straight teams, and coming out in
educationally based sports teams. Gender & Society 25(20): 250–268.
Arxer SL (2011) Masculine power: Reconceptualizing the relationship between homosoci-
ality and hegemonic masculinity. Humanity & Society 35: 390–422.
Bordo S (1999) The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private. New York:
Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Brannon R (1976) The male sex role—and what it’s done for us lately. In: Brannon R and
David D (eds) The Forty-nine Percent Majority. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 1–40.
Bridges T (2014) A very ‘gay’ straight? Hybrid masculinities, sexual aesthetics, and the chan-
ging relationship between masculinity and homophobia. Gender & Society 28(1): 58–82.
Bridges T and Pascoe CJ (2014) Hybrid masculinities: New directions in the sociology of
men and masculinities. Sociology Compass 8(3): 246–258.
Campbell JE (2004) Getting It On Online: Cyberspace, Gay Male Sexuality, and Embodied
Identity. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Chafetz JS (1974) Masculine/Feminine or Human? Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
Coad D (2008) The Metrosexual: Gender, Sexuality, and Sport. Albany: SUNY Press.
Connell RW (1995) Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell RW and Messerschmidt JW (2005) Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the con-
cept. Gender & Society 19(6): 829–859.
Craig ML (2002) Ain’t I a Beauty Queen? Black Women, Beauty, and the Politics of Race.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Demetriou DZ (2001) Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and
Society 30(3): 337–361.
Donovan B (1998) Political consequences of private authority: Promise Keepers and the
transformation of hegemonic masculinity. Theory and Society 27(6): 817–843.
Fee D (2000) ‘One of the guys’: Instrumentality and intimacy in gay men’s friendships with
straight men. In: Nardi PM (ed.) Gay Masculinities. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Gates GJ and Newport F (2013) Gallup special report: New estimates of the LGBT popu-
lation in the United States. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/160517/lgbt-percen-
tage-highest-lowest-north-dakota.aspx
Gramsci A (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York:
International Publishers.
Halperin DM (2012) How to be Gay. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Hennen P (2005) Bear bodies, bear masculinity: Recuperation, resistance, or retreat? Gender
& Society 19(1): 25–43.
James SD (2011) Gay Americans make up 4 percent of population. ABC News. Available at:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/williams-institute-report-reveals-million-gay-bisexual-
transgender/story?id=13320565
Casanova et al. 81

Kimmel M (1996) Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York: The Free Press.
Levine MP (1998) Gay Macho: The Life and Death of the Homosexual Clone. New York:
New York University Press.
Manley E, Levitt H and Mosher C (2007) Understanding the bear movement in gay male
culture: Redefining masculinity. Journal of Homosexuality 53(4): 89–112.
Messner MA (1993) Changing men and feminist politics in the United States. Theory and
Society 22: 723–737.
Messner MA (2007) The masculinity of the Governator: Muscle and compassion in
American politics. Gender & Society 21(4): 461–480.
Miller T (2005) A metrosexual eye on queer guy. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies
11(1): 112–117.
Mills CW (2002 [1951]) White Collar: The American Middle Classes (50th Anniversary
Edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
Morrish L and O’Mara K (2004) Queer eye for the straight guy: Confirming and confound-
ing masculinity. Feminist Media Studies 4(3): 350–352.
Mosher CM, Levitt HM and Manley E (2006) Layers of leather: The identity formation of
leathermen as a process of transforming meanings of masculinity. Journal of
Homosexuality 51(3): 93–123.
Nardi PM (ed.) (2000) Gay Masculinities. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Rumens N (2011) Queer Company: The Role and Meaning of Friendship in Gay Men’s Work
Lives. London: Ashgate.
Shugart H (2008) Managing masculinities: The metrosexual moment. Communication and
Critical/Cultural Studies 5(3): 280–300.
Simpson M (1999 [1994]) Metrosexuals: Male vanity steps out of the closet. In: It’s a Queer
World: Deviant Adventures in Pop Culture. New York: Harrington Park Press,
pp. 207–210.
St. John W (2003) Metrosexuals come out. The New York Times, 22 June.
Ward J (2008) Dude-sex: White masculinities and ‘authentic’ heterosexuality among dudes
who have sex with dudes. Sexualities 11(4): 414–434.
Wickman J (2011) Review of The Metrosexual: Gender, Sexuality and Sport by David Coad.
Men and Masculinities 14(1): 117–119.
Wickman J and Langeland F (2013) Metrosexuality as a body discourse: Masculinity and
sports stars in global and local contexts. In: Jafar A and Casanova EM (eds) Global
Beauty, Local Bodies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 125–150.
Wright L (1997) Theoretical bears. In: Wright L (ed.) The Bear Book. Binghamton, NY:
Haworth Press, pp. 1–21.

Erynn Masi de Casanova is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of

Cincinnati. Her work has appeared in journals such as Gender & Society,
Ethnography, and Women’s Studies Quarterly. Dr Casanova’s 2011 book,
Making Up the Difference: Women, Beauty, and Direct Selling in Ecuador, was
the recipient of the National Women’s Studies Association’s Sara A. Whaley
Book Prize. Her second book, exploring men’s work dress in corporate America,
is entitled Buttoned Up: Clothing, Conformity, and White-Collar Masculinity.

Emily E Wetzel is a PhD student in Sociology at the University of Cincinnati.

Her dissertation research focuses on hip-hop culture and the management of
82 Sexualities 19(1/2)

middle-class black identity among youth in a predominantly black space. She has
acted as a research mentor for the Summer Undergraduate Mentor Program at the
University of Cincinnati.

Travis D Speice is Assistant Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences at The Christ
College of Nursing and Health Sciences. He is also a doctoral candidate in
Sociology at the University of Cincinnati. His research focuses on the management
of gendered and sexual identities of gay men in various social spaces. He was a
recipient of a Charles Phelps Taft Research Center Dissertation Fellowship, and
two-time recipient of the Norris Johnson Teaching Fellowship.