"That's almost good enough to love the idea, and yet... I don't know what about catering to male egotism is so liberating, even if that indulgence is carried off by other men. "
[...and then lots more terrific stuff]
Yeah, the more I think about it the less promising this seems. Look at it this way, what about a show in which five lesbians tell a woman how to dress so she can look better ...and snag more guys? ....Not tenable I think. No more tenable than having five gay guys do the same for a hetero. Gay men don't know what women like; they know what gay men like. Women like men to be clean, in good physical shape, and casually well-dressed. A good hair cut is great (and I have always personally found bald men to be sexy--but those who comb their hair over the balk spot, pathetic). Other than that, a woman does not want a man to be so done over that he becomes competition. She doesn't want to have to fight with him over the mirror or bathroom time. There needs to be a few rough edges so that the woman has a reason to live! Right?
If I ran into a hetero guy that was as soignee as many gay men are, I would instantly worry about anal retentiveness and control issues.
So I conclude that the point of the show is to ridicule both the groomers and the gromee. This seems to be often the point of reality shows, which is why I don't like them very much.
As for the larger issue that our gay friends can be a liberating influence -- I don't understand why someone has to be gay to liberate me. While it is true that one of the most liberating experiences I've ever had was having sex with a woman; this was sex, not dress up. At any rate, I note in parting that the most outrageous stereotypes are maintained precisely in the gay communities, so much so that they seem to be wearing uniforms. Nothing liberating in that either.
Now I must go and wax my legs. Sniff...
Joanna