The market for men's toiletries has risen by 800% in seven years, according to a not very interesting news piece in today's Observer. This isn't surprising. Pre-Beckham, anyone who rubbed anything other than mud, coal or Brut into their faces was obviously gay; or a 'poof,' a word you don't hear too often these days.
Let's be clear. This growth isn't driven by men. It's driven by 'guys.'
Who deemed it socially acceptable to use the word 'guy' or 'guys' to describe men?
'Guys definitely want to look younger and they're interested in having the tools to do so,' said Brian Boye of Men's Health, offering up a cheap quote in the piece. It's an utterly offensive term, applied to the most inoffensive of people. 'Guys.' The Lynx brand managers always used to refer to them, implying sophistication, a clutch of Coldplay albums, skinny lattes and a flat in Battersea. The sort that think it's acceptable to write 'hey,' to another man in an email.
In 100 years time they'll be no genitals left on the planet.
I can say nothing about the title that the title does not say for itself.
All encompassing and brilliant.
Posted by: Douglas | May 05, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Indeed. My Dad thought I was "a gay" when I told him I wanted to be able to go to work wearing jeans and a pair of Converses. I think there is a whole army of 'blokes' (blokes is OK right?) out there who are just waiting to be mobilised and then complain about 'marketing types' who wear jeams and converses to work mobilising them. These are probably the same blokes who say that "advertising doesn't work on me". Brilliant.
Posted by: Tim | May 06, 2008 at 03:25 PM
Isn't the term metrosexual for this type of guys/blokes?
Posted by: Dee | May 16, 2008 at 07:17 PM