Daily Mail Spornosexual Shocker Update
Confused and Confusing 'Clarifications and Corrections'
Since, more than two months on, it still hadn’t been corrected, I contacted the Daily Mail yesterday about their baffling February feature 'Meet the Spornosexuals: Male Body Trend is back for 2025 and it has an extreme twist' which failed to credit me, and spectacularly mangled the metrosexual-spornosexual timeline in the intro - asserting that ‘spornosexual’ is “a vintage moniker from the 90s”.
The Mail is, I should mention, the UK’s best-selling newspaper, and its website one of the most visited in the world - and ranked very highly by search engines.
I found a contact email for ‘corrections’ on this ‘Clarifications and corrections’ page. Which bears this encouraging rubric:
At the Daily Mail we take great pride in the quality of our journalism. All our journalists are required to observe the Editors’ Code of Practice and the Mail is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the new regulatory body for the Press set up in response to the Leveson Inquiry. We aim to correct any errors as promptly as possible.
In my clarifying and correcting email, I pointed out, with helpful screenshots, that the sources mentioned in their article - and the first result on Google - all clearly state that I coined the term 'metrosexual' in 1994, and 'spornosexual' in 2014, not "the 90s".
The DM replied promptly and courteously, if anonymously, informing me that:
'I can confirm the article has been updated to credit you for the terms 'spornosexual' and 'metrosexual'.
We appreciate you taking the time to contact us and trust this resolves your concerns.'
So, with my faith in the Fourth Estate restored I gaily went to have a gander at the updated article.
And discovered that all the original inaccuracies remain uncorrected. However, a confusing credit has been added to the end of a confusing and inaccurate sentence.
I guess though I should just be thankful that they mentioned my name.
And spelt it right.
Update 9/6/2025
Against my better judgement, I made one last attempt to get The Mail to correct its article… correctly:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thanks for your reply and your update.
However, your article remains inaccurate, and somewhat confused/confusing.
It still refers in the second and third paragraphs to spornosexual as 'a vintage moniker from the 90s' and states that the name was 'first understood to be coined in [sic] some 30 years ago'.
To reiterate what I stated in my previous email, with supporting screenshots/references:
According to multiple sources, including those mentioned in your feature, I coined the term 'metrosexual' in 1994. And 'spornosexual' in 2014 not in "the 1990s" as your article states.
I received a prompt, apologetic reply - this time not from an anonymous 'Mail Editorial' account as previously, but from a named chap - one who is, moreover, 'Global Head of Compliance, Online Publications'. Which sounds important. And ‘legal’.
He proved very helpful and professional.
'Dear Mr Simpson
I’m sorry that you have had cause to write to us again. I agree that the article as amended was entirely unclear and made very little sense. I have made some clarifying changes which should properly and sensibly attribute the phrases to you, at the appropriate dates, and I apologise for the confusion caused.
I have also raised the matter to the reporter’s editor for her awareness.
I trust that this should address your concerns, however if I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me directly.'
I replied that I appreciated his corrections and clarifications. Here's the corrected section from the updated article:
As you can see, this time it is not only accurate but in English. It's also nice - but entirely appropriate - that my name is now mentioned twice.
It may be indicative of the state of legacy media today, even at at a paper that initially survived and even thrived on the transition to 'online', that the (very young-looking) author of the original, confused, inaccurate and badly-written article is described on the Mail website as a 'Senior Femail Reporter'.