We now find ourselves in the midst of autumn, celebrating the arrival of sweater weather and counting down the days until winter break. Instagram is full of flaming foliage. Shopping malls hang up Christmas decorations. Age-old debates regarding the pros and cons of the Pumpkin Spice Latte rear their ugly heads. And of course, there’s always the seasonal emergence of a recent fashion trend: lumbersexuality.
“Lumbersexuality,” to state the obvious, is a portmanteau of “lumberjack” and “sexual.” For those of you who aren’t familiar with the term, I assure you that you’re familiar with this male aesthetic. The average lumbersexual can typically be observed wearing a plaid flannel shirt, denim jeans of a non-skinny variety, and Timberland boots. To distinguish himself from an actual woodcutter, he might also add a beanie and thick-framed glasses into the mix. Copious facial hair is a trait that’s celebrated in lumbersexual circles. Beards can be trimmed, or allowed to grow out into a fierce thicket — bonus points for shaving with an axe. I’m sure this description must be ringing bells for you, unless you’ve chosen to shun society and culture, and live alone amidst the raw beauty of the untamable wilderness … in which case, you’re probably a lumbersexual.
To be fair, lumbersexuals have minimal representation on this campus; indeed, boys with a sense of fashion tied into their identity are few and far between at Swarthmore. It’s more common to see nondescript jackets thrown over unwashed graphic tees combined with jeans and worn sneakers. If you catch someone wandering about campus with flannels and facial hair, they’re more likely to be a CS student who didn’t have the opportunity to shave or dress properly that morning, by the grace of a late-night lab. It’s far more common, then, to hear people discuss the lumbersexual aesthetic: “Oh God, that’s how tech-bro-douchebags in Silicon Valley dress every fucking day.” There’s also the occasional “I know everyone shits on it but I low-key think that’s kinda hot.” There is, however, one significant presence on campus that really champions one key component of lumbersexuality, and I think we all know who I’m talking about.
Sixteen Feet, for those among us who have a tenuous grasp on the concept of “social life,” is Swarthmore’s oldest all-male a capella group. They sing, they sway, they wink, and they step to the rhythm of their vocal arrangements of various pop songs. And, to return to the original point of this article, they wear plaid flannel shirts to every performance. It’s my understanding that they command a relatively respectable following; in a sense, they’re one of Swarthmore’s icons. I imagine that the majority of their reputation stems from their talent, but the plaid shirt has become an inseparable element of the group; it seems to be a significant contributor to their alleged charm. Granted, they don’t all carry hatchets slung over their shoulders or stomp around in Timberlands, but recently I’ve been under the impression that certain unnamed members have taken to growing out their facial hair. If our highly esteemed band of merry minstrels serves as any indication, lumbersexuality definitely has some appeal.
To someone who deliberates endlessly on every outfit and agonizes over every stray hair sprouting from his chin like myself, the rise of lumbersexuality is a cultural phenomenon that raises painstakingly shaped eyebrows. What gave birth to this movement? What is its appeal?
It may be a backlash against metrosexuality. Metrosexuality, a concept that arose in the 90s, is the aesthetic of the well-dressed and meticulously groomed man. Everything is slim, clean, and professional. Suit jackets are cut closer to the waist; shirts fit more snugly about the trunk; ties are skinny; slacks cling to the legs. Eyebrows are tweezed; mustaches and beards are either neatly trimmed or nonexistent; hair is carefully cut, permed, combed, gelled, and/or sprayed into a tasteful coiffure. Metrosexuality, then, seems to be the antithesis of lumbersexuality.
Perhaps, then, lumbersexuals scorn the dapper flamboyance of metrosexuals, seeing it as a modern reincarnation of the fops and dandies of a bygone era. Perhaps they’re working towards a reclamation of conventional gender presentation and societal notions of what constitutes a “manly man.” One could even go as far as to say that they’re pushing the boundaries of fashion. Redefining what it means to be chic. Turning rugged charm into the new “je-ne-sais-quoi.” “We don’t have to wear tailored shirts and paisley pocket squares to be fashionable,” a lumbersexual might say, if pressed for an explanation of their aesthetic. “We’re bringing manly back.”
Like any good Swarthmorean, I feel obligated to hypothesize that this pushback against dandified fashion trends stems from a masculine insecurity; a squeamishness of anything that suggests homosexuality. These sentiments can be distilled down to “Dressing well is occasionally associated with a craving for dicks, and I am not secure enough in my own masculinity to dismiss such absurd and superficial notions. Let’s come up with a new aesthetic that looks unequivocally manly, and insist that it’s chic.” And thus lumbersexuality was born; metrosexuals would no longer have a monopoly on style.
Ironically, metrosexuality itself is a reactionary aesthetic that protests the idea that refined taste and a strong fashion sense are exclusive to homosexuals. Claiming to be a metrosexual is essentially an attempt to distinguish oneself from his gay fellows in fashion: “I might dress well, but I’m not gay!” The perceived need for this distinction in itself smacks of homophobic motivations.
In that sense, lumbersexuality may actually be a more innocuous aesthetic movement than metrosexuality. Lumbersexuals are moving away from one style of self-presentation; in the end, it’s a superficial change. By contrast, metrosexuals are maintaining a style of self-presentation, while attempting to reject the homosexuality associated with it. This has the potential for much greater harm; by drawing a line between metrosexuals and homosexuals, thereby creating an “us vs. them” perspective, an implication of homosexuality as an alien and undesirable trait inevitably emerges.
So it’s possible that in the grand scheme of things, lumbersexuality isn’t such a bad thing. Sure, the movement might be the result of an effort to reinforce norms and binaries, but it might also be that some men are just more comfortable dressing a certain way and don’t want to be seen as slobs for it. I mean, let’s face it — flannel shirts and relax-fit denim are a hell of a lot easier to wear than suits and cardigans and jeans that cut off circulation to your dangly bits. Or, maybe well-dressed men are becoming a dime-a-dozen (I mean, not on this campus), and people want something entirely different and fresh and new. It isn’t necessarily an act of internalized homophobia intended to reinforce gender binaries, or whatever other kind of evil is on the straight/white/cis/etc. agenda. I mean, it might be. But as long as no one’s pressuring me to grow a beard or wear looser pants, I’m willing to give lumbersexuals the benefit of the doubt.
