Here is a serious question. Or, at least serious enough to warrant a heated discussion among my pals’ brunch table yesterday (and inspire the word “Cosmopoli-man”). We’d been taking turns listing off our 2012 ideals: the jobs and vacations we’re dreaming of taking, spring coats we’re already eyeing, and finally, guys to date. That’s where the two dominant types emerged: the rusty, outdoorsy guy or a city-slicked sophisticate.
Now, I’m a firm advocate for cabin porn, and as far as my personal fashion politics are concerned, flannel is forever. But when it comes to the type of person I’d want seated across a dinner table from me – I’m less concerned with Brawny-man looks than you might think.
What self-respecting city-dweller wouldn’t be thrilled with someone who can both whistle a cab and direct said cab to a delightfully tacky hole-in-the-wall tacqueria? To be able to swap LES horror stories like old pals – or gain insight into the man’s soul via his favorite eyeglass shop?
Then again, an outdoorsman has a whole bunch of tricks under those casually rolled-up sleeves of his that would undoubtedly come in handy, like when I want a custom farm table for my dining room or need help pitching a tent on those bi-decade camping trips my family insists on taking.
As my friends and I found, what this question boils down to is how much you desire the interests and/or knowledge types of the person you’re dating to be different from you own. So in that case, I leaned toward the less different, more familiar nature knowledge of an outdoorsman. But while I obviously appreciate well-worn work boots on a guy, the lumberjack look has officially been co-opted by urban stylists. And that means, yes, the GQ cosmo-man, too. Proof that you can’t judge a guy by his flannel. At least not while it’s still a trend.
So which is more attractive to you? A guy who knows his way around the woods? Or a man who can take you to every bar named after the woods?
Image [via]
