Every few years or so there is an attempt by the fashion industry to persuade men that what is lacking from their lives is a handbag. The latest efforts have been dubbed man-bags, a term which sounds oddly testicular and that’s will never sound attractive.

Various celebrities have been photographed carrying Mulberry or Louis Vuitton man-bags and it seems it’s even possible they paid for them themselves. The idea, of course, is that other men who are not famous will see well-known footballers and actors sporting their man-bags and will then want to fork out an exorbitant sum to get one for themselves.

Well, that’s how it usually works, and with phenomenal success, in the world of women’s fashion. But I don’t think the male consumer is quite so easily bagged. First of all an example for all men out there, if you see a snapshot of David Beckham carrying a Louis Vuitton clutch bag, I would hope your first reaction is not to gasp with envy and immediately run to your local mall to purchase that very bag.
But there is also a more fundamental, I should even say biological problem with the man bag. Most women leave the house prepared for all emergencies short of a nuclear war. If, for instance, you need a packet of mini-tissues, a breath mint or a first aid kit, a good place to look for them would be inside a woman’s handbag.

By contrast, men prefer, on the whole, to travel light: keys, wallet, phone and that’s it, unless there is a specific task involved. And if they need anything extra, they can always ask a woman.

This may seem sexist but there’s a reason for the natural male aversion to carrying bags. And it’s not because they end up leaving them in the bar. It’s because they make men feel more vulnerable. Put simply, men want to limit external baggage, and no matter what fashion says man-bags should only contain what men are already carrying around before they leave the house.