Metro, or Retro, Sir?

When the Murcielago was newly launched, a European based car magazine did a review on it and said that seeing and touching the actual thing is more breathtaking than any published picture of the vehicle can do justice for. Yesterday, at the Dreamcars auto show at the KLCC Convention Centre I did get to touch a Murcielago, but a bit disappointingly the race version of it. It was totally bare with a complete carbon fibre chassis and undoubtedly a faster and meaner machine but I really would’ve preferred to meet the retail version. A ‘dream’ that is still yet to be fulfilled. But, I DID however, realized another part of that ‘dream’ by coming in close contact with its other 3 ‘friends’. The Carrera GT, the Enzo and the Zonda C12. And my, were they gorgeous. Just as the British writer wrote, it surely was more breathtaking seeing those marvelous machines in real life as opposed to any ‘relayed’ form of any media. Just the sheer presence of them was a soul stirrer itself. The only shame was I wasn’t permitted to ignite the engine and take it out for a test drive. But the highlight of the day has to be the driver’s seat of the new Golf GTI which I was able to put my ass in and the whizzing electric side doors of the gigantic Alphard. Whew, those were fun.

Anyway, let’s move on to better things shall we? Yes, beautiful cars are exciting and add in a few scantily clad girls beside them, they would make any boy’s day. But looking at myself standing in the middle of the carshow, a question popped up in my head which I had came upon in a not too distant past. A question not related to high-speed cars but more on a personal level. A question which focuses on the issue of, dare I say it, sexuality. A question bound to be confronted by every man, sooner or later, living in the new millennia.

“Am I a metrosexual or a retrosexual?”

Naturally, I am pretty much infuriated by the person who came up with this argument in the first place. As if I don’t have enough things to think about in my life.

Let me enlighten the situation…let’s start with the definitions….

Now, unless you have a version that was published yesterday, you wouldn’t find any of the definitions in your modern dictionary. I had to scour the web to find a proper explanation. And here’s what I’ve found:

Metrosexual
An urban male with a heterosexual orientation who rejects many macho attributes often linked to masculinity. He adopts many traits often associated with heterosexual females and gay males -- eg expensive hair care, stylish clothes.

Or, another way to put it,

A portmanteau combining "metropolitan" and "sexual", was first used in 1994 by British journalist Mark Simpson, who coined metrosexual (and its noun, metrosexuality) to refer to an urban male of any sexual orientation who has a strong aesthetic sense and spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle. He is the fashion-conscious target audience of men's magazines: Outside Britain, in its soundbite diffusion through the popular media, metrosexual has congealed

Mark Simpson. Now I have a name to hate. Isn’t it funny that journalists are always the focal point when it comes to starting a fiasco?

Now, a retrosexual…

A retrosexual is a man with a generally poor sense of style. It does not refer, necessarily, to boorish men but rather, refers to those who reject the notion of being finicky about one's physical appearance. It is the opposite of a metrosexual.

In layman’s terms, I prefer to use a newspaper article’s definition of the two words (or worlds, I might add). In it, the writer defined a metrosexual as a man who is more of a caring and delicate nature who is comfortable with pink.

…

Pink? Seriously, pink? How could I even begin to comprehend with… haih…pink?

Anyway, retrosexual, which is now viewed as the opposite of metrosexuality, is defined as the common man who are very much emotionally involved with sports and enjoys obscene sex jokes. Now, that I can relate to.

The burning question is right now is what am I? And better still, what do I inspire to be?

It raises a whole new level of dilemma for me personally. I would like to think that I am a retrosexual. I mean, I’d rather be watching Sportscenter than Buletin Utama. And I’ve spent countless mornings looking like a zombie from Resident Evil because I had spent the whole of last night catching the live telecast of a ‘big’ match. Furthermore, having an all boys night out again yesterday reassures me more of my inner self. Playing pool and foosball long into the wee hours of the morning while oogling at women and making obscene sex jokes are just way fun.
But then again, I love dressing up in fine clothes and looking good (despite some of my friends believing otherwise) and nowadays I have a dedicated hairstylist who I spend more than RM100 every time I see him. But no, I am NOT comfortable with pink.

So, what am I? A retro-metro-sexual hybrid? Sounds more like a freak to me. To tell you the truth, I have no bloody idea. And I think most people don’t either when it comes to themselves. As far as Malaysians are concerned I suppose. Ask different people and you’ll get different answers. It is fair to say those ‘lepaking’ at mamak stalls at 3 in the morning wearing their shorts doesn’t own a BMW and wear designer clothes to work? It’s the same as saying those yuppies at Starbucks as not having a favorite sports team. There is no way of telling, is there? As I am putting this together, I was hoping to come something close to an answer but, sorry to say, I’m just as stuck as I had started.

I just realized my profile photo is of Jude Law and, surprise surprise, he’s wearing a suit with a pink shirt. But I just have to say that gross sex jokes are just that funnier…