Über, Metro, Salzman, and the Paris subway.

Remember way back when there were just men and women? Either you were a man who had sex with a woman, or you were a woman who had sex with a man. You two weren’t required to share much else, amorous love being a 20^th century invention. Gay men were unfortunate, not because they were gay, but because the idea in itself was so unacceptable and irrational that it was a trend that never really took off until the second half of the previous century. And so they probably lived frustrated lives.

Fast-forward to the 21^st century: yesterday November 16 in the airplane I look at the French edition of ELLE magazine and read on the cover page: “Virils mais pas machos: les nouveaux hommes nous plaisent” It roughly translates to “Manly but not Macho: we like the new men.” I open to the article and read about the discovery (?) or creation (?) of a new male type: the übersexual.

So what has happened in this last century? We now have open-out-of-the-closet gay men, bisexual men, hairy-macho-football-loving men, metrosexual men, and now übersexual men (am I forgetting any?). For this last species to make it into the world reference women’s magazine, it must exist, and must be interesting.

The ‘übersexual’ appellation was invented by the New York trendspotter Marian Salzman, the woman who popularized the concept of metrosexuals in America two years ago (it already existed in Europe before that). So what makes an ‘übersexual’? According to Salzman, the über is the most attractive, most dynamic, most complete man of his generation. The über man is absolutely confident in his masculinity and doesn’t need to express or hide himself with esthetics (as opposed to the metrosexual). Additionally, he holds balanced relationships with women: the übersexual is neither too friendly nor too macho. Finally, and this is supposedly the most important part, he behaves like a man (minus the machismo) and is a definite supporter of feminism. He essentially considers himself a true equal to women. He is, concludes Marian Salzman, the ideal man.

The problem is that as we get increasingly specific in the characterization of men, we’re going to have to find a word to describe each penis-carrier on this planet. Seriously, what separates a Metrosexual from an Übersexual? From what I’ve understood, the only serious difference is that the metrosexual has a much keener interest in esthetics and is as much in-love with himself as with women. But if you take definitions of the word metrosexual, you will find that both are manly, both care about women, both treat them as equals, and both are confident with their masculinity (the metro to the extent that he doesn’t mind exploring his more feminine traits, as illustrated by the surge in pink clothes). It’s just that two months ago, the metro guy was the ideal guy. And now he’s not.

Now a lot of guys who are still struggling with the idea of metro will have a hard time understanding über. I who was a convinced and exuberant metro am now lost. All my close friends, especially those from High-School, know I am an uncompromising feminist. And I love different women in different ways; the friends, the close ones, the potential relationships, the potential hoo-ups… That would qualify me for über. But God knows I’m crazy about esthetics: I don’t have a make-up kit and don’t spend an hour in front of the mirror, but I spend a lot of money into maintaining a well refurbished and extravagant wardrobe. And I certainly am, if not in-love, at the very least extremely pleased with myself. So I’m heavily metro.

ELLE said the last difference, which is more of an observation rather than a difference, is that über’s tend to have powerful/influential women companions. Indeed, Mr. Pitt had Ms. Aniston and now has Ms. Jolie. Likewise, Mr. Vincent Cassel (French actor) has Ms. Monica Bellucci (lucky bastard…). BUT, and this is a big but, we all know who the reference Metro is, right? David Beckham. The straight guy who not only paints his nails, but paints them pink. Yet do you recall who his wife is? Victoria Spice. She who was even more famous than he when they got married. Yet Beckham can’t be über, otherwise who would be left to define metro? Or is he? For if he is, then über and metro are like two identical twins, one who likes likes progressive house, the other who likes deep house. (for you techno-illiterate readers, think of two identical twins, one who likes hip-hop, the other who likes gangsta rap)(I can’t believe I just said that). Basically it’s the same thing, just with a different flavour.

But what’s the point of all this? Why all the characterizations? Are we one day going to walk outside with banners saying “metro” or “über”?... Actually last week I custom-made a cap saying “beaucoup metrosexy”, so I suppose that answers my question. But I’m a freak, and I feel I need to behave like that in this distastefully bland society (sorry America, but your straight guys are hopelessly tasteless). And do all of these characterizations really exist? If you looked at a list of metro’s a year ago, you would have read the names “George Clooney, Brad Pitt…” and if you read Salzman’s list of über’s you’ll read “Clooney George, Pitt Brad…”.

More importantly, why are all these appellations and characterizations coming now? Is it a sudden social interest in men, or have men suddenly decided to be different? Now, all of a sudden, we find out that even if two men are die-hard football fans with hair on their chests, one is pro-feminist movements while the other is apathetic, if not anti-feminist. So what does that say? If we went back just 10 years ago, were all manly men anti-feminist? And if not, why weren’t they a separate category until Ms. Salzman made them so? Basically, my question is: why are we looking into it now, and not before?

It might seem very childish or irrelevant for me to ask this question, but I don’t think it is. Think about it: I’m going to be categorized by some Advertising and Marketing company on Madison Avenue in NYC, and certain products are going to be targeted at me. I’m going to be regrouped, whether I like it or not, with people like me. I will continue getting Spring Break in Jamaica ads in my mailbox and Viagra, Cialis, and Penis elongation e-brochures in my Hotmail account. This will certainly affect how I am, how I think, and what I believe (no man being an island). So I’d like to know why all of a sudden people are putting an effort into understanding if I’m a guy in-love with himself and pro-women or a guy not in-love but still pro-women. Then again, I can stop paying attention to all this nonsense and focus on just being myself, whatever definition that may be. But I’m a human, and want to know the (oh-so-tiny) repercussions my existence has on society. I am not an island, and want to know the nature of my links with other entities around me. It will enable to understand and control myself better.

And a question I will throw out there, but cannot (or at any rate will not) answer is this: do profiles describe reality, or do people change to fit the profiles? I’ll tell you right now I like the über profile: will I change myself in order to fit it? Will others?

Personally, though I like the definition of über better and would like to be a member of the club, I’ll stick to metro. It really sounds better (it’s more urban, more fashionable, and more reminiscent of the subway at Paris), so I think I’ll just say I’m metro and behave whichever way I’d like to. I suppose the important thing, if you want to be either (and even if you don’t want to) is to treat women equally, not be macho, believe in oneself, and enjoy life. I’m personally a fan of loving yourself, for as Oscar Wilde said, “to love oneself is the beginning of a lifelong affair.” It’s part of my trademark arrogance, which I fully embrace and which enables me to love others better. By the way, Wilde was gay, wasn’t he? Hahaha. Ciao.