LARGETONY Blog

Words. I love words. I’m probably letting my geeky side come out of the closet by saying that. But there’s really no place else I could say something like that but here. A lot of the people I know in day-to-day just wouldn’t get it. Granny gets it. But she was a language arts teacher in her day. She’s the one who really spotted and cultivated my fascination with puns.

I also find it interesting to sometimes trace how certain words came about. There’s a word for that. I don’t know what it is. (Just because I like words doesn’t mean I know lots of them. I like cookies, too, but I tend to eat the same kinds.) I heard the other day that the word “metrosexual” is going into the dictionary and it got me thinking about how it breaks down in meaning.

Now, everybody knows it’s a term to describe straight guys who have a sense of style that people consider to be more in line with gay guys. But if you really think about the word itself…it really has nothing to do with it’s definition.

I mean, if you are heterosexual, then you fuck people of the opposite sex. If you are homosexual, then you fuck people of the same sex. Using that logic then, if you are metrosexual, then you fuck…what? People in highly populated cities? People on subway trains? (I guess there is something sexual about a train shooting through an underground tube). But the transportation line of thinking doesn’t work. Otherwise, a bisexual would be someone who has a thing for people on Schwinns. And you know what that would make high-wire circus acts… Unisexuals.

Seems to me that if you have a label that includes the word “sexual,” then it should mean you’re fucking somebody. Who or what are metrosexuals fucking except for their wardrobe and their reflections in the bathroom mirror (why do you think they call it a vanity?)

How come “sexual” is not being used more to describe things that are…um…I don’t know…sexual. Like if you fuck people with big booties you could be a j-losexual. Are you into guys with big thick curved horns? Oh, you dirty rhinoseuxal.

I have admittedly developed a thing for cowboys. Hello. I’m Tony. I am a rodeosexual.

But, since “metrosexual” has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with fashion sense, I guess the door is open for “sexual” to take on new meanings. The first of which being “a sense of style.” Like if you’re sporting a grill and lots of bling, I guess you might be a ghettosexual. If your vehicle is up on blocks, but your house is on wheels, you might be a “rednexual.”

But that’s the cool thing about words and language. With every word spoken and communicated to another, there are subtle changes and shifts in interpretation of the words. Until eventually, they have changed meanings. Or at least added meanings.

“Sexual” won’t stop at just it’s literal meaning. Or it’s new stylized one (with hair product and matching belt.) “Sexual” will evolve to label people who are bonded in many more ways than just who they fuck or what they wear. For example, the word “Catholic” will disappear from English (or at least American) speech in favor of “genuflectual.” The students in high school cooking and sewing classes? Those are Home-exuals. (Some of which will grow up to become “duplexuals”…families in attached housing.)

I don’t know where I’m going to fit into all of this, what my label will be. I’ve always been sort of a square-peg, never fully fitting in a hole (or at least a tight fit you have to force a little. ) I definitely don’t have a strong sense of style. Guess that makes me a fashion-rejectual.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 24th, 2006 at 11:55 pm and is filed under rants. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.