# Cosmo mag corrupting women



## Monte

ACTUALLY.

I don't read many women's magazines and I do find them just as idiotic, if not more so, than you guys, but no where in those books does it say a woman has to act that way.

Every time I have glanced over one, it's always said "If you want to accomplish this, you should do this." And some advise is just fucking weird, but a lot of it makes sense no matter how superficially and idiotic.

Wanna make your man jealous because it feels good to have someone fight over you?
-insert answer here-

Want eyes that "pop"?
-insert answer here-

Want to turn your man on at any given moment?
-insert answer here-

None of it says that you HAVE to do these things, it is ADVICE. 

You don't HAVE to follow it, so I don't see what the big hub bub is about.


----------



## Promethea

Monte said:


> ACTUALLY.
> 
> I don't read many women's magazines and I do find them just as idiotic, if not more so, than you guys, but no where in those books does it say a woman has to act that way.
> 
> Every time I have glanced over one, it's always said "If you want to accomplish this, you should do this." And some advise is just fucking weird, but a lot of it makes sense no matter how superficially and idiotic.
> 
> Wanna make your man jealous because it feels good to have someone fight over you?
> -insert answer here-
> 
> Want eyes that "pop"?
> -insert answer here-
> 
> Want to turn your man on at any given moment?
> -insert answer here-
> 
> None of it says that you HAVE to do these things, it is ADVICE.
> 
> You don't HAVE to follow it, so I don't see what the big hub bub is about.


Tell me what it means for someone to "have" to do something. Also, tell me what it means for someone to genuinely _think_ they have to do something. Now tell me if they know the difference all the time.


----------



## Monte

Very good point, but that's not the magazine's fault, if they acquire some independent thought then they won't have to worry about such trivial matters. I can't pity or fight for those who refuse to break free of society's chains.


----------



## Promethea

Monte said:


> Very good point, but that's not the magazine's fault, if they acquire some independent thought then they won't have to worry about such trivial matters. I can't pity or fight for those who refuse to break free of society's chains.


I think the issue is certainly much deeper than marketing tactics for the beauty industry. Thats only a part. This is also somewhat related to a conversation I was having earlier where I mentioned a cycle of art imitating life imitating art imitating life - where the standards, once they reach media, become more perverse but only in subtle ways that seem acceptable at the time. Well eventually the bar is raised and the ideals are surreal compared to what was there when art first began to imitate nature.

Watching it all work together makes me wonder if its really an actual _decision_ people make, to not break free. People are born into this culture without really even knowing an alternative to its ways of life. I think that typically, they just don't know any better. I'd say those who do are either very blessed, or very cursed. Some seem to handle it in stride and not let it get them down. Others like myself seem to just be at war with it all the time. :/


----------



## devoid

Promethea said:


> Women's magazines play on women's fears in order to make them think that they need the "solution" (which is in that magazine of course) to their "problems." They sell an idea of what it is to be someone who is worthy of love, while plugging the idea that its slightly out of reach, no matter what. It keeps people scared.. hooked - playing on their base fears.
> 
> Then its hard even for women who -see- this, because they think they are totally fucked at this point, because its too late; after all, everyone else has climbed aboard this ship. "_I know these standards are wrong, but no man is going to love me if I'm not somewhat of a midriff bearing airbrushed 'whore in the bedroom/good girl in front of the parents' ideal that we have been forced to aspire to_."
> 
> They think sure, I could reject this and look/act the way I want, but then society reinforces the idea that they will be lonely if they do, because the men in our society are being programmed just as much to attain the other half of that ideal - which is work hard enough to have a bank account big enough to impress a conventionally attractive female. You can see it happen all around you so casually - men will reinforce these ideals to each other, when they are sizing women up and nudging their bros to take a look at "that hot chick over there" who of course fits the societal standard of beauty - a standard that has no basis in objective reality.
> 
> It really astonishes me how few take the time to deconstruct the entire sham, and stop living that way, setting up these ridiculous standards and goals. However, I suspect that more do than I think. I have known some who seem to go through the motions and bro out in front of their idiotic friends, but only as an act.. and later reveal a deep insight into this.


Well, like it or not, most of these idealogical standards stem from something real, albeit very far down the line. Makeup can accentuate the features and attract superficial men, eating healthy food can make you *healthy* (not skinny though), and healthy is actually a big turn-on for most men naturally. The problem is that the media takes advantage of these things we already experience and tries to make them sound more serious. If you worry about being overweight, suddenly you're told that you will never have sex again; if your nose is a little large it's apparently "masculine" and therefore you will never appeal to men. Exaggeration is key to destroying someone's self esteem, which as we all know is the easiest way to manipulate people.


----------



## Monte

Fuck thaaat.

I take pride in the fact that I don't allow society's idiots to dictate me. Sure, I know I have to act a certain way at work and at funerals, but that's because I'm getting paid and I don't want anyone to bitch about hurt feelings, but when it comes to guys? I'm going to be me. They can take it or leave it and I think it's sad that so many people are so obsessed with finding "the one" instead of being happy with themselves.


----------



## viva

What alarms me about it the most is that there are _men_ who read Cosmo for relationship tips, in hopes of learning what women want. 

*facepalm*


----------



## Promethea

hziegel said:


> Well, like it or not, most of these idealogical standards stem from something real, albeit very far down the line. Makeup can accentuate the features and attract superficial men, eating healthy food can make you *healthy* (not skinny though), and healthy is actually a big turn-on for most men naturally. The problem is that the media takes advantage of these things we already experience and tries to make them sound more serious. If you worry about being overweight, suddenly you're told that you will never have sex again; if your nose is a little large it's apparently "masculine" and therefore you will never appeal to men. Exaggeration is key to destroying someone's self esteem, which as we all know is the easiest way to manipulate people.


Health is the only quality that I will ever claim as "what most people are -_naturally_- attracted to." Even then there are lots of deviations. Its just the only one that could make sense to me biologically. 

So far as the idea that certain facial features or particular body shapes are inherently more attractive - thats only theory, and not even real hard scientific theory. 

The cultural beauty standards come from status more than natural biological urges, in my opinion. Throughout time and culture they have changed, and have always represented wealth (ex. a more zaftig figure representing more access to food - which you can still see in some poorer cultures around the world). In our culture, the ones with the wealth can attain these very masochistic standards through cosmetic surgery, working out in excess, and taking diet drugs.


----------



## PrettyLush

I'm not embarrassed to admit that I read cosmo and similar magazines, but I never take their advice on relationships seriously. Ever. However, they do have interesting articles about other things like health issues and I do enjoy reading the real life stories. 
The way I see it is that if anyone is dumb enough to actually follow through on advice like making your boyfriend jealous by flirting with other men, then its their own fault for being so stupid in the first place.


----------



## snail

I think a lot of the people who read those magazines are younger people who want to feel more grown up. I remember being in high school, seeing one in a friend's room, reading about the detailed sex acts it described, and feeling both disturbed and aroused, because some were things I hadn't thought of, that I wouldn't have considered doing on my own. It made me wonder if, when I finally lost my virginity, I would be boring in bed, so I did what any insecure nerd would have done, and I ended up doing a bunch of research (alone with a stack of books,) until I felt confident that I would seem like I knew what I was doing. It ended up being irrelevant, because I later discovered that every man is completely unique. 

The best way to know what men want is to pay attention to them, not as some abstract concept, not as a stereotype, not as the larger-than-life unappeasable deified prize for being perfect that the magazines use as the perpetual carrot on a string to make us buy their product and feel insufficient, but as individuals who are capable of telling us what actually turns them on, who can sometimes be pleased by very simple things just as we can, who are capable of loving us without needing to be manipulated with games and tricks, who are capable of cherishing our imperfections, who have imperfections of their own. 

I know I talk a lot about how magazines objectify women, but they also objectify men. If women are presented in a way that makes it seem like our main purpose is to please men in bed, men are presented in a way that makes it seem like their purpose is to be won through covert methods of passive control, like the trophy we will receive for playing the game just right. 

There is more to both groups than can fit in any magazine.


----------



## Zster

That cartoon is freakin' fatastic!!!!

Toys, indeed!


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis

Monte said:


> Wanna make your man jealous because it feels good to have someone fight over you?


I'll give you a smack for playing people like toys.



Monte said:


> Want eyes that "pop"?


Brain bleach!



Monte said:


> Want to turn your man on at any given moment?


Grab him by the dick!


----------



## snail

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> I'll give you a smack for playing people like toys.
> 
> 
> Brain bleach!
> 
> 
> *Grab him by the dick!*


LOL!!!
I wonder if this actually works.


----------



## Raichan

Pfft sometimes I get annoyed that mainstream ''beauty'' magazines/media outlets like to articulate so-called generalized and narrow-minded ''relationship advice'' to the point that others accept these things as gospel truths.. Too bad, people aren't all painted with the same 'brush.' In my opinion, these leave no room for critical thinking and more room for people to be brainwashed to accept unrealistic, superficial standards/norms.


----------



## Raichan

Btw this is soo *WTF*



> From cosmopolitan;
> 
> Inside his mind: What he says vs what he means
> Stop stressing, we’ve asked our panel of men to decode what he really means from dating to dieting…
> 
> When you've had a fight
> 
> What he says (even if he thinks he’s right): “I’m sorry”
> What he means: “I’m tired of this argument. Can we have make-up sex now please?”


----------



## Fizz

*Ahem, in the great words of Sir Mix-A-Lot, "If Cosmo says you're fat, I ain't down with dat."*


----------



## chibs

snail said:


> It ended up being irrelevant, because I later discovered that every man is completely unique.
> 
> The best way to know what men want is to pay attention to them, not as some abstract concept, not as a stereotype, not as the larger-than-life unappeasable deified prize for being perfect that the magazines use as the perpetual carrot on a string to make us buy their product and feel insufficient, but as individuals who are capable of telling us what actually turns them on, who can sometimes be pleased by very simple things just as we can, who are capable of loving us without needing to be manipulated with games and tricks, who are capable of cherishing our imperfections, who have imperfections of their own.
> 
> I know I talk a lot about how magazines objectify women, but they also objectify men. If women are presented in a way that makes it seem like our main purpose is to please men in bed, men are presented in a way that makes it seem like their purpose is to be won through covert methods of passive control, like the trophy we will receive for playing the game just right.
> 
> There is more to both groups than can fit in any magazine.


awesome. i was trying to put this exact point in words...

i absolutely hate even reading the headlines:

'men like x'

'men need x'

'secret men dreams uncovered'

etc


male objectification is very real. the fun part is, cosmo & co turn me into a walking coathanger for my dick that is brainlessly attracted to simple visual and physical cues... and 3 pages later they bitch about the very type of male personality they just tried to force on me :crazy:

it's pathetic :bored:


----------



## LotusBlossom

OMG have you all seen this article on Cracked?

7 Psychotic Pieces of Relationship Advice from Cosmo | Cracked.com

with links to the actual articles on Cosmo website 
Tiger Woods Cheating Scandal - How to Get Revenge on a Cheater - Cosmopolitan

so fucking psycho it's unbelievable. RUN!!!!!


----------



## Who

Kayness said:


> OMG have you all seen this article on Cracked?
> 
> 7 Psychotic Pieces of Relationship Advice from Cosmo | Cracked.com
> 
> with links to the actual articles on Cosmo website
> Tiger Woods Cheating Scandal - How to Get Revenge on a Cheater - Cosmopolitan
> 
> so fucking psycho it's unbelievable. RUN!!!!!


 I was about to post that Cracked article, but it looks like you beat me to the punch.

I think it would be both hilarious and horrifying if someone actually took their advice. "Your man is happy? Sex is the only thing that makes men happy! He's cheating on you!"


----------



## LiteratureNerd

You know how I know what my man wants?

He friggin' tells me. 

IT'S THAT SIMPLE, and it saves you hours upon hours of reading one shallow article (that distinctly objectifies both women AND men simultaneously) after another. And a lot of times, it doesn't have to do with sex. Sex is great, but if women actually think that it's the only thing that makes men happy, then they're setting themselves up for a long line of incredibly shallow relationships. 

I grew disgusted with Cosmo in particular when I once read an article in there encouraging women to fake pregnancy in order to get their boyfriends to propose. Aw, HELLLLLL NAW! 

To me, real men and real women don't play the manipulation game, they don't objectify their partners, and they don't treat their partners like they're dispensable. 

So, should we all get together and make a unisex/non-sexual-orientation-specific magazine on how NOT to be a douche? We could call it "Anti-Douche Weekly" or something catchy like that. :happy:


----------



## Eighty

Surely everyone knows it's only psycho women that read these magazines, and *believe *them, anyways? 

I don't think people on this forum realise how special they all are, especially in comparison to the average (note; average) person I meet around here. :happy:


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis

Kayness said:


> OMG have you all seen this article on Cracked?
> 
> 7 Psychotic Pieces of Relationship Advice from Cosmo | Cracked.com
> 
> with links to the actual articles on Cosmo website
> Tiger Woods Cheating Scandal - How to Get Revenge on a Cheater - Cosmopolitan
> 
> so fucking psycho it's unbelievable. RUN!!!!!


At this rate, I believe in their next issue, they will recommend this (don't mind the image; this is just a flashback during something pretty mind-fuckey.):






And yes, this is where you get "Nice Boat."


----------



## strawberryLola

Cosmo and all the other stuff, I don't read. Reminds me of the male version of asklitteboys.com (askmen.com- supposed ones~) and men's muscle mags. And no. not all girls dig guys with swamp man like biceps. Ew.


----------



## Promethea

strawberryLola said:


> Cosmo and all the other stuff, I don't read. Reminds me of the male version of asklitteboys.com (askmen.com- supposed ones~) and men's muscle mags. And no. not all girls dig guys with swamp man like biceps. Ew.


askmen.com is truly vile. Shameless misogynistic undertones in that drivel.


----------



## Stephen

*The machine must die.*



snail said:


> I know I talk a lot about how magazines objectify women, but they also objectify men. If women are presented in a way that makes it seem like our main purpose is to please men in bed, men are presented in a way that makes it seem like their purpose is to be won through covert methods of passive control, like the trophy we will receive for playing the game just right.


You talked about how every man is unique, and how important it is for us to listen to each other in our relationships, and I found that absolutely heartwarming. I would expand upon this by pointing out that there's a radius effect from this war that the ad media has been waging on women for decades. I tend to be kind of skeptical of the motivations of anything large and monolithic like this industry, and I wonder how deep and dark the whole thing goes. Yes, they're defying, and therein destroying, the natural order of attraction and human interpersonal understanding in their drive to score dollars from our pockets. Are we talking about an industry whose ills are deeper yet? Is there an awareness present in it, a recognition or even a plan, wherein women are demeaned and insulted and those who care for them find themselves struggling to understand their own drives? I have no doubt this is what's happening, as I've experienced it myself by leafing through such magazines and wondering, "is this really something she _wants_ me to purchase, do, or ask for?"



Fizz said:


> *Ahem, in the great words of Sir Mix-A-Lot, "If Cosmo says you're fat, I ain't down with dat."*


This is perfect. Yet another great example of how all of it is sold to us as part of our shared culture and heritage, something that must never be placed in the hands of those who are paid to do it. Music was once _art_. The same artist once used the lyric "My anaconda don't want none unless you got bun, hon." Both are a simplified sabotage, another salvo fired, into our collective perception of what it means to be a person who wants to touch another person in human society.



Raichan said:


> Pfft sometimes I get annoyed that mainstream ''beauty'' magazines/media outlets like to articulate so-called generalized and narrow-minded ''relationship advice'' to the point that others accept these things as gospel truths.. Too bad, people aren't all painted with the same 'brush.' In my opinion, these leave no room for critical thinking and more room for people to be brainwashed to accept unrealistic, superficial standards/norms.


Agreed. It's coming from every direction. Boys and girls grow up with it. They see it on television, hear it in songs while riding in the car with mommy and daddy, and they get it through peer pressure every day at school. One day, they're handed their first Seventeen magazine, and things become even more dangerous. The images and the printed word seem real, logical, and trustworthy. It's right there in black and white, isn't it? How can it not be true?

There's little provided by society to girls in the way of critical thinking, either. That's left to the parents, who've been raised in the same environment, and are generally going to be clueless. When do I, personally, begin talking to my daughter about my values and how they relate to what kind of woman she grows up to be? How do I filter for everything, when her grandmother gives her a Barbie doll and I bristle at what kind of an image that reinforces in her growing mind? How do I explain this to a six year old, that I can't buy her a certain toy on the principle of what it represents, when her extended family will buy them for her anyway? The problems here are so deeply integrated into our social and personal existence that it feels just absolutely hopeless at times. What a disaster we've been presented with when the best hope we have is that girls, when they grow to an age where they learn critical thinking, can be introduced to this key problem in the environment they're growing in. I know the damage can be undone, but it seems like a fundamental change has to be made in the machine.

:angry:


----------



## Paradox of Vigor

Most all kinds of makeup on women is disgusting anyway. My vote is to get rid of Cosmo completely. Clothing styles and makeup(if that's what it even is) are terrible to get very far into. Anyone who needs clothes on their to express who they are have nothing to express.

Besides, if a woman is clean and not obese, chances are they are slightly more attractive than the average woman, IF they are not wearing makeup. 

Women who look natural(besides body hair) are automatic 6/10 for me when most are 5. I just want to cuddle with them then, and especially give them a massage. *wink* But it's not like I would EVER say that. hahaha.

Maybe if the Cosmo-obsessed people rid themselves of idiocy they can build some actual character huh?

Such magazines are degrading, and probably blasphemous anyway. Women were meant to be natural, because that is when they are the most beautiful.


----------



## Promethea

Paradox of Vigor said:


> Women who look natural(besides body hair) are automatic 6/10 for me when most are 5. Women were meant to be natural, because that is when they are the most beautiful.


Really cherrypicking what is ok "naturally" here, saying that body hair isn't ok. I would love to hear the rationale behind that. Yeah, makeup is unnatural, but so is shaving her body hair. So yeah. Explain please? Because you are just saying that one silly societal standard is wrong, but another is ok. Thats just your arbitrary preferences.

And your disgusting rating scale for women is every bit as degrading as these magazines.


----------



## Ormazd

This line in the Cracked article made me laugh: "Constant, ceaseless fear of judgment is the backbone of any successful relationship or totalitarian government."


Whenever I read a "Men's" or "Women's" magazine I feel like I'm stepping into some hideous alien world. I can never stay for long.

And as for body hair, I never understood why women shave their legs like it's the most important thing "Omg I haven't shaved my legs for THREE WHOLE DAYS!". When girls bring up the shaving of leg hair I often try to ask why they shave their legs in the first place while trying to plant the idea that having hairly legs is *not* a bad thing. I indeed have a humorous article related to this topic, I'll try to find it sometime...


----------



## LotusBlossom

What Promethea said.

Another point I'd like to add - men think they want a woman who doesn't wear makeup, but when they really see a woman not wearing makeup they run the other way. Most of the time it's because the makeup is badly applied, or they use colours which are too garish and uncomplementary to their complexion or they just use way too much.

You assume that the only and only reason any woman could possibly want to wear makeup is to attract men, which is not true. A lot of women love this because it's fun, it's just one of these little things we can do everyday that's fun and washes off. Maybe I can do a smoky eyes and nude lips one day and then red lipstick another day. 

And don't forget that a lot of men you see on TV wear makeup. Not just actors but TV presenters and politicians. It's just put on in a way that is not immediately apparent to you.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor

Promethea said:


> Really cherrypicking what is ok "naturally" here, saying that body hair isn't ok. I would love to hear the rationale behind that. Yeah, makeup is unnatural, but so is shaving her body hair. So yeah. Explain please? Because you are just saying that one silly societal standard is wrong, but another is ok. Thats just your arbitrary preferences.
> 
> And your disgusting rating scale for women is every bit as degrading as these magazines.


Hmm, that's funny I recall giving a compliment to every woman in the world. Hahaha, but I guess I didn't. 

Yea I know they are arbitrary preferences, so what? I just do not like makeup. Did I insult somebody or something?


----------



## Paradox of Vigor

Kayness said:


> What Promethea said.
> 
> Another point I'd like to add - men think they want a woman who doesn't wear makeup, but when they really see a woman not wearing makeup they run the other way. Most of the time it's because the makeup is badly applied, or they use colours which are too garish and uncomplementary to their complexion or they just use way too much.
> 
> You assume that the only and only reason any woman could possibly want to wear makeup is to attract men, which is not true. A lot of women love this because it's fun, it's just one of these little things we can do everyday that's fun and washes off. Maybe I can do a smoky eyes and nude lips one day and then red lipstick another day.
> 
> And don't forget that a lot of men you see on TV wear makeup. Not just actors but TV presenters and politicians. It's just put on in a way that is not immediately apparent to you.


If women trully put makeup on "just for fun". Then I can take steroids, "just for fun". I don't care about looking good and strong right? I just took it for fun. Okay yes, my side is a bit extreme and isn't exactly the same, but it is a similar concept, and I bet Freud would back me on this one anyway. XD


----------



## LotusBlossom

Do I even need to explain to you why your analogy sucks?


----------



## Stephen

*No blood for beauty products.*

Since we're on the subject of makeup, let me talk about "the natural order of attraction," which I totally failed to explain in my earlier post in my exhausted haze last night. I was having almost the same conversation with @Ecky last night before I spotted this thread, about how in defiance of ancient nature we all are at all times.

This may be something of an oversimplification on my part, but I know that some views on this include the argument that that in society's definition of human attraction which is not timeless is invalid. My argument to Ecky was that the nature of our species is, in a way, defied by clothing, fragrances, and even frequent bathing. Western culture in particular is also highly concerned with chemical artifice. This includes makeup to an extent but also reaches out into other things, like deodorant. I've read some reasonably compelling arguments that blanketing ourselves with scents masks our natural pheromones to some extent, manipulating the senses of others and concealing our natural compatibilities. The conversation I had with him extended even into the process by which we now meet prospective mates on the Internet, which strips away some natural properties of attraction while accentuating other properties that may have not been as important in ancient times.

To be clear, I recognize that we are no longer primitive man, and some amount of what I'm talking about above has come from a drive toward what some consider an unhealthy level of hygiene focus that cripples our immune systems, a subject I'm still undecided on. I wear cologne sometimes, and I bathe and wear deodorant daily. _Sometimes I even shave_. To be sure, these things don't have to be used for what the manufacturer claims we "must." They can be for our own enjoyment. There's also an argument to be made here that our society is now massive and connected in a way we can only assume no ancient civilization was, so meeting our match face to face while naked, unwashed, and covered in hair could readily be called impractical.

What I'm saying is that we can work outward from the argument that the ad media is killing our nature for money. We can say that we've retreated from the basics of connecting with one another through what we may or may not want to call "human progress," and I'm not particularly convinced this is a healthy direction for us as people.

In short, obviously the ad media wants us to lie to ourselves, but I think it's in our design to not believe it when we lie to nature. I draw some amount of hope from this.

Bleh, I keep adjusting the wording on this, and I feel like it's not getting at exactly what I want it to. The point is that I don't think that beauty products are inherently bad or wrong, only that the system by which they're sold to us, with need and fear being key elements of the campaign, represents a violation of what our nature wants from attraction.


----------



## fairytales

When I was younger I would buy into these magazines and take their messages to heart. Thankfully since ive grown up I now realise what utter rubbish they are and how its in their interest to make women feel bad about themselves..much like the model industry and cosmetics


----------



## LiteratureNerd

@Stephen: I think I see where you're coming from. Things like fragrances and makeup, in my mind, have the same primitive implications, honestly. And, really, humans have been wearing makeup and using fragrances/cleanliness for thousands of years. This isn't really anything new to the modern world - it's just mass marketed more. People prefer certain fragrances because of how they react with their own natural pheromones (for instance, my perfume smells completely different on me than it does on my best friend). In some ways, these things are meant more to enhance rather than cover up completely. They're not always used as such, though. 

Honestly, I think there's a very basic, primitive purpose to enhancing all these features that are associated with sex and sexual arousal. No matter how advanced and "enlightened" we get, we're still hard-wired to make ourselves attractive to potential mates. Sure, not all of us want to reproduce, but it's pretty difficult to deny that basic urge to partake in the "practice." :happy: 

I'd say it was like nature shows where you see animals flaunting bright colors or giant red asses to attract mates, but that seems a bit crude...

Nevertheless, I find it incredibly wonderful that my boyfriend loves it when my face is clean and I'm in my baggy t-shirt and pajama pants. Why? Because it means he accepts me no matter what I look like - in my "natural" state AND in my "unnatural," makeup-wearing state. According to Cosmo, of course, that would mean he's cheating on me. Then again, according to Cosmo, if he blinks or sneezes or wears mismatched socks, that also means he's cheating on me. 

And does anybody else notice that the "77 NEW HOT SEX TIPS" are pretty much the same as the "101 HOT SEX TIPS" that were in the previous issue? And the issue before that? And so on? I mean, how many different ways can you possibly word the description of reverse cowgirl??


----------



## Stephen

Kayness said:


> Another point I'd like to add - men think they want a woman who doesn't wear makeup, but when they really see a woman not wearing makeup they run the other way. Most of the time it's because the makeup is badly applied, or they use colours which are too garish and uncomplementary to their complexion or they just use way too much.


While I agree that many men who say they want a woman without makeup don't *really* want a woman without makeup, it is not a universal truth. I know that if I'm with a woman, I want her to be happy and comfortable, because that's what appeals to me. If makeup is what helps her do that sometimes, that's OK. If not, that's fine too. I'd hate to think she was doing either specifically for my benefit.



Paradox of Vigor said:


> If women trully put makeup on "just for fun". Then I can take steroids, "just for fun". I don't care about looking good and strong right? I just took it for fun. Okay yes, my side is a bit extreme and isn't exactly the same, but it is a similar concept, and I bet Freud would back me on this one anyway. XD


You've made your argument and broken it in the same breath. Comparing painting one's face to injecting steroids in one's body is kind of an irresponsible analogy, and I can see you already know that. I would also advise against the argument that Freud would agree with you. Not everyone considers Freud an infallible source of wisdom.



LiteratureNerd said:


> And, really, humans have been wearing makeup and using fragrances/cleanliness for thousands of years. This isn't really anything new to the modern world - it's just mass marketed more. People prefer certain fragrances because of how they react with their own natural pheromones (for instance, my perfume smells completely different on me than it does on my best friend). In some ways, these things are meant more to enhance rather than cover up completely. They're not always used as such, though.
> 
> Honestly, I think there's a very basic, primitive purpose to enhancing all these features that are associated with sex and sexual arousal. No matter how advanced and "enlightened" we get, we're still hard-wired to make ourselves attractive to potential mates. Sure, not all of us want to reproduce, but it's pretty difficult to deny that basic urge to partake in the "practice." :happy:
> 
> I'd say it was like nature shows where you see animals flaunting bright colors or giant red asses to attract mates, but that seems a bit crude...


I understand your very well thought-out argument, but I'm resistant to the implication that something being ancient, or shared with animals, gives it an automatic pass for today. I'll say that it's great that you're happy with how you're operating, enhancements or decorations and all. My problem is with the manipulation of fear the machine is using to make us think we *need* these products to be happy, and that they're meant to impress others.



LiteratureNerd said:


> Nevertheless, I find it incredibly wonderful that my boyfriend loves it when my face is clean and I'm in my baggy t-shirt and pajama pants. Why? Because it means he accepts me no matter what I look like - in my "natural" state AND in my "unnatural," makeup-wearing state.


I'm very happy for you. I think that kind of pure acceptance is as wonderful as it is rare. I hope we can all find such an experience in our lives. :happy:


----------



## LotusBlossom

whoever is going to be with you is a lucky lady indeed


----------



## Promethea

Stephen said:


> To be clear, I recognize that we are no longer primitive man, and some amount of what I'm talking about above has come from a drive toward what some consider an unhealthy level of hygiene focus that cripples our immune systems, a subject I'm still undecided on. I wear cologne sometimes, and I bathe and wear deodorant daily. _Sometimes I even shave_. To be sure, these things don't have to be used for what the manufacturer claims we "must." They can be *for our own enjoyment*. *There's also an argument to be made here that our society is now massive and connected in a way we can only assume no ancient civilization was, so meeting our match face to face while naked, unwashed, and covered in hair could readily be called impractical.*


Well if you are going to say that its no longer practical to embrace -all- of those more natural things, because of societal standards, then where does it actually stop? People are more likely to get a job if they are "thin" and "attractive" - so by your reasoning, it could simply be considered adaptation to give in and try to fit the standards as much as possible in order to be "successful."

I also disagree with the "must" vs. "for our own enjoyment" comment. Its certainly not for our _own_ enjoyment, but for others who are conditioned by culture to enjoy. Beauty standards create more hoops that we have to desperately jump through not so we can more easily look in the mirror, and say "i'd fuck me" - but so we can feel like we are "good enough" for someone else. 

I remember seeing a lotion commercial a while back, where they were getting on about how this lotion can make your armpits smoother and less rough. I was thinking are you fucking kidding me. We already have to preen so much, now we have to worry about how soft our armpit skin is?!?! Really?! - And yes, when these standards are set, there are people who are more than willing to add these minutes to their exhausting beauty ritual, and if you do not, then you are sort of left behind while the bar keeps on raising. And I'm not talking about the bar raising in a way that represents some objective truth in beauty people are going after - but rather more and more -ridiculous- standards that are created in order to *sell beauty products*. Your man isn't going to get a stiffer erection if your armpits are a little softer. Its all hogwash. But keep introducing all of these little things, and it creates a whole package. I saw a good example of this on "Jersey Shore" (wholly repugnant show, but I like to watch these trainwrecks from a sociological perspective). Well, these guys were going on about "aw nah bro shes nat that haaat." So I examined this girl, and realized that she has the same type of build that they go after. Shes got a symmetrical face that people would consider conventionally attractive. There were just a few things missing, that the "hot" girls had: her makeup was modest and her hair was natural. These "guids" have made an association between overdone hair/makeup, and sex. And it totally makes sense as to why they could. It was a very interesting find. The more fakey and overdone, the more its associated with sexuality in their culture. 

Anyway, I'll also add that a person can be perfectly clean and hygienic without shaving. Shaving can actually cause cuts, abrasions, rashes, and ingrown hair. A persons natural pheromones are also held more, in the places where body hair naturally grows, if its not removed.


----------



## LiteratureNerd

Stephen said:


> I understand your very well thought-out argument, but I'm resistant to the implication that something being ancient, or shared with animals, gives it an automatic pass for today. I'll say that it's great that you're happy with how you're operating, enhancements or decorations and all. My problem is with the manipulation of fear the machine is using to make us think we *need* these products to be happy, and that they're meant to impress others.


Magazines like Cosmo and all the mass amounts of adverts we're bombarded with every day do a really excellent job of making it seem like we can't be complete without 7-foot long eyelashes and bright red (read: clown) lipstick. I don't think it completely has to do with some evolutionary need to engage in the sexy rumpus - I think that's a small part of it, and I think it's also a lot of what you said. And I certainly wouldn't give it a free pass - no matter how you look at it, they're placing so much importance on the surface that it seems to render all the things that matter irrelevant. It's incredibly easy to make money off of people's insecurities, and very, very lucrative. 

I'll truthfully admit that I color my hair, that I wear a little makeup, and that I shave. It's vanity on my part, pure and simple - I'd be a hypocrite if I pretended otherwise. Is it my number one priority in life? No. We all have some vanity to some extent...what magazines like Cosmo do that I don't appreciate is make it seem as if it's the most important thing in life...or that you'll never amount to anything unless you constantly look good (or act like a total psychobitch, according to Cosmo). I think they give us very unrealistic expectations for ourselves and each other (men and women). They'll have a whole article about how you should be happy with yourself at any size and shape, and right after that you'll be bombarded with ads for weight-loss products, breast enhancers, and botox treatments. It's a bit sickening.

Not to mention those quizzes are just ridiculous...


----------



## LiteratureNerd

Promethea said:


> I remember seeing a lotion commercial a while back, where they were getting on about how this lotion can make your armpits smoother and less rough. I was thinking are you fucking kidding me. We already have to preen so much, now we have to worry about how soft our armpit skin is?!?! Really?! - And yes, when these standards are set, there are people who are more than willing to add these minutes to their exhausting beauty ritual, and if you do not, then you are sort of left behind while the bar keeps on raising.


I saw that, too! My first thought was, "Are you people serious?!" and my next was, "Gee, I wish I such a lack of better things to do in my own life that my biggest worry would be whether or not my armpits are smooth enough." Oy.


----------



## Stephen

Cleo said:


> I can't believe the doctors office would have such a stupid magazine in the waiting room.


I agree. I think a professional owes it to their clientele to make some attempt at consideration for taste.



Cleo said:


> I don't know how much you weigh, but women are supposed to be squishier and soft. That is what estrogen does to us. I am envious of women who have that extra cushion in their skin.


While I have every appreciation for soft and squishy, I think saying what women are "supposed to be" can be taken as a criticism of those who are not. This, in my opinion, is the same as saying the reverse.



Hardstyler said:


> I hate sex orientated magazines. People should read magazines for intellectual pursuits.


I expect there are magazines about sex that are responsible and filled with useful information for those who do like to read and think about sex, which is a healthy and positive thing. If you're talking about the magazines mentioned in this thread, I agree: I don't think Maxim, Cosmo, or Glamour are responsible in any way. I will acknowledge that they are useful in soaking up a ton of my time posting on PerC. :tongue:


----------



## pinkrasputin

Stephen said:


> I agree. I think a professional owes it to their clientele to make some attempt at consideration for taste.


 As a someone who also provides a service, I had to pipe in. A professional only owes _the service_ to it's clients. Not magazines. Having magazines around available for you is an extra guest service they are providing. Often the mags are donated too. 

However, I do tend to only keep those magazines around that only reflect my business or my values and my client's ages.

That still doesn't mean my choices are going to be according to everyone else's values or standards. 

I just wanted to throw that in there in case anyone _assumes_ the doctor has to provide you with magazines and before you go off on them about what type they provide.


----------



## cam3llia

In terms of shaving, I think that if females are expected to get rid of body hair because it's a "norm", then males should too. 

I see guys wearing shorts, with hairy legs, and I'm thinking "Eww...."

Our society has a long way to go in terms of gender equality. The sad part is that the majority of feminists are being replaced by a new generation of girls who are taught at a young age that the ideal women is one that is "desirable to men." As a result, they strive to be "pleasing" to men, therefore objectifying themselves. And of course men will treat them as such.


----------



## pinkrasputin

Wow. People are really "should-ing" all over this thread.


----------



## chibs

cam3llia said:


> In terms of shaving, I think that if females are expected to get rid of body hair because it's a "norm", then males should too.
> 
> I see guys wearing shorts, with hairy legs, and I'm thinking "Eww...."
> 
> Our society has a long way to go in terms of gender equality. The sad part is that the majority of feminists are being replaced by a new generation of girls who are taught at a young age that the ideal women is one that is "desirable to men." As a result, they strive to be "pleasing" to men, therefore objectifying themselves. And of course men will treat them as such.


so, your point is objectification should be gender neutral?

btw. most men tend to be somewhat hairy. it's boys that aren't.


----------



## chibs

pinkrasputin said:


> Wow. People are really "should-ing" all over this thread.


you shouldn't say that.


----------



## Invidia

Cleo said:


> But don't you think all of these things influence people's values, especially at a young age. It gets hard to say how you feel about something morally, even when there is so much scientific evidence that supports it, when it goes against society. But I guess that is life.


I didn't address whether or not it influences people's values in my post, I said personally that they didn't affect mine. I'm also not defending the material they put out, all I was saying is that I don't believe their intention is to do that, but rather to make money, and they simply cannot see past their wallets to realize the damage they do.


----------



## Cleo

I think its hot when men have hair on their legs and protruding eyebrows. Thats testosterone and it makes me hot.


----------



## Cleo

Stephen said:


> I agree. I think a professional owes it to their clientele to make some attempt at consideration for taste.
> 
> 
> 
> While I have every appreciation for soft and squishy, I think saying what women are "supposed to be" can be taken as a criticism of those who are not. This, in my opinion, is the same as saying the reverse.
> 
> 
> 
> I expect there are magazines about sex that are responsible and filled with useful information for those who do like to read and think about sex, which is a healthy and positive thing. If you're talking about the magazines mentioned in this thread, I agree: I don't think Maxim, Cosmo, or Glamour are responsible in any way. I will acknowledge that they are useful in soaking up a ton of my time posting on PerC. :tongue:


Yeah, there are different faucets of femininity and I want to be the most estrogenic girl possible. 

But, I was also trying to help her feel better about her weight.

And it is true that everybody has different characteristics that different people would find attractive.


----------



## Cleo

pinkrasputin said:


> As a someone who also provides a service, I had to pipe in. A professional only owes _the service_ to it's clients. Not magazines. Having magazines around available for you is an extra guest service they are providing. Often the mags are donated too.
> 
> However, I do tend to only keep those magazines around that only reflect my business or my values and my client's ages.
> 
> That still doesn't mean my choices are going to be according to everyone else's values or standards.
> 
> I just wanted to throw that in there in case anyone _assumes_ the doctor has to provide you with magazines and before you go off on them about what type they provide.


Well of course medical professionals don't have to provide extra services, but depending on how they present their business influences whether or not people will come back.


----------



## Invidia

Cleo said:


> Well of course medical professionals don't have to provide extra services, but depending on how they present their business influences whether or not people will come back.


If I were self-employed, and someone decided they were not coming back to my business based on a magazine that offended them, I would say good riddance.

There is this quote, you can't please all the people all of the time...

There is some free will involved. If you dislike a certain type of magazine, simply don't read it.


----------



## Cleo

sRae said:


> If I were self-employed, and someone decided they were not coming back to my business based on a magazine that offended them, I would say good riddance.
> 
> There is this quote, you can't please all the people all of the time...
> 
> There is some free will involved. If you dislike a certain type of magazine, simply don't read it.


I am not really talking about just magazines, but the whole environment including magazines. I would be much more impressed with an office, if it were clean, had professional and polite staff, and decent taste in reading materials and pictures. I have worked at certain places before where those types of magazines were not allowed and that was just one peice to management holding a professional atmosphere. When you let cracks like that set in to the workplace, it leaves room for people to start behaving accordingly.

You can't please everyone, but to minimize displeasing too many people is to not appear taking a stance in any direction.


----------



## Stephen

pinkrasputin said:


> As a someone who also provides a service, I had to pipe in. A professional only owes _the service_ to it's clients. Not magazines. Having magazines around available for you is an extra guest service they are providing. Often the mags are donated too.
> 
> However, I do tend to only keep those magazines around that only reflect my business or my values and my client's ages.
> 
> That still doesn't mean my choices are going to be according to everyone else's values or standards.
> 
> I just wanted to throw that in there in case anyone _assumes_ the doctor has to provide you with magazines and before you go off on them about what type they provide.


Certainly, the doctor is not required to provide magazines. I also agree that I would not provide these kinds of magazines, especially in a waiting room that may have children or young girls in it. I'll adjust my statement to say that if I were a professional, and had a waiting room, I would be extremely cautious about what magazines I provided, regardless of my clientele. This would mean excluding things like Cosmo, Glamour, and Maxim.



pinkrasputin said:


> Wow. People are really "should-ing" all over this thread.


If I did this, I apologize. I'm still working on learning how to effectively debate logically in an Internet forum.



chibs said:


> so, your point is objectification should be gender neutral?


I think her point was that if it's logical to expect women to have to shave themselves, then equality would require the same of men. I agree with her point, and also with yours that objectification is wrong regardless of who it's happening to.



Cleo said:


> Yeah, there are different faucets of femininity and I want to be the most estrogenic girl possible.
> 
> But, I was also trying to help her feel better about her weight.
> 
> And it is true that everybody has different characteristics that different people would find attractive.


I like that, faucets of femininity. It appeals to me to think of woman as something liquid. Before anyone hates on me for this, be aware I haven't thought about why. :laughing:

I'm glad you came to the thread, @Cleo. It's nice to have you and @sRae here. I'll add that it's more exciting than the ISTJ forum, if a bit less relaxing. :happy:



Cleo said:


> Well of course medical professionals don't have to provide extra services, but depending on how they present their business influences whether or not people will come back.


Agreed. I once asked the customer service department of a small donut chain owner, by email, why they chose to put a poster supporting a political candidate in their window, and they sent back an email mocking and ridiculing me. They didn't need a third strike on that one.



sRae said:


> If I were self-employed, and someone decided they were not coming back to my business based on a magazine that offended them, I would say good riddance.
> 
> There is this quote, you can't please all the people all of the time...
> 
> There is some free will involved. If you dislike a certain type of magazine, simply don't read it.


I think for me it would depend on what offended the person. I'm obviously already on a certain side of the fence with the Cosmo thing, and my current solution would already be to just make sure if my daughter picked that up to take it away from her. But I don't think I've ever seen Cosmo at a doctor's office. I'll have to check on this next time.

I've been surprised for years at the fact that the content shown on the cover of Cosmo is considered OK for the check-out line at the grocery store.


----------



## Invidia

> I think for me it would depend on what offended the person. I'm obviously already on a certain side of the fence with the Cosmo thing, and my current solution would already be to just make sure if my daughter picked that up to take it away from her. But I don't think I've ever seen Cosmo at a doctor's office. I'll have to check on this next time.


I agree 100% with your sentiments. However, even if they are there, why not simply take steps to ensure your daughter doesn't look at them? Or even use them as a chance to discuss why a girl should not have to look or behave how those magazines say they should? Maybe I am just being idealistic again, but I would hope that merely a glance at a magazine on a waiting room table wouldn't completely derail my daughter's opinion of herself and women in general. 

P.S. I am not good at debating either. When I am on topic, I state my opinions pretty bluntly and fear that can come across as anger or offense online. I am usually good at seeing both sides of an issue, and I respect everyone's opinions and their right to them. Unfortunately, at times I merely disagree 

Oh, and thank you for the invite to this thread, it is a very good and relevant topic to discuss


----------



## Stephen

sRae said:


> Or even use them as a chance to discuss why a girl should not have to look or behave how those magazines say they should? Maybe I am just being idealistic again, but I would hope that merely a glance at a magazine on a waiting room table wouldn't completely derail my daughter's opinion of herself and women in general.


That's an excellent idea. Rather than simply pretending they don't exist, I can use them as a tool to help her begin on a path toward critical thought. Someday she can be here on PerC annoying the hell out of everyone with this stuff instead of me.



sRae said:


> P.S. I am not good at debating either. When I am on topic, I state my opinions pretty bluntly and fear that can come across as anger or offense online. I am usually good at seeing both sides of an issue, and I respect everyone's opinions and their right to them. Unfortunately, at times I merely disagree


Could have fooled me. You dropped into this thread and brought a valuable new perspective: the one of the advertisers.



sRae said:


> Oh, and thank you for the invite to this thread, it is a very good and relevant topic to discuss


No regrets, even if you do turn out to be the enemy. :laughing:


----------



## Invidia

> That's an excellent idea. Rather than simply pretending they don't exist, I can use them as a tool to help her begin on a path toward critical thought. Someday she can be here on PerC annoying the hell out of everyone with this stuff instead of me.


I think it is good to educate on things such as this, if nobody tells a girl she _doesn't have to_ look or behave a certain way to fit a mould, then won't she be even more susceptible to falling for their garbage when she inevitably stumbles upon such ideas? I want my daughter to be prepared for such things... and I do know how you feel about her rather not seeing them. I constantly fight myself so that I do not become overprotective of my daughter, as I was overprotected growing up. I want to keep her innocent, but not naive. It is a fine line, and I will probably not be able to always successfully walk it, but that is my goal. 



> Could have fooled me. You dropped into this thread and brought a valuable new perspective: the one of the advertisers.


It is something I unfortunately have experienced first hand. As a designer I get these orders quite frequently - "The clients want relevant content. Find something, I don't care what, but we need to keep them happy." We have website where we download canned copy from, 90% of which is useless crap. But it looks so nice and legit when in print! I also have issue with having to build ads that I know are deliberately deceitful, as I feel I am propagating the deceit, even if it is merely my job to follow orders. It is tough having such high ideals at times >_<



> No regrets, even if you do turn out to be the enemy.


Just remember, "enemy of my enemy is my friend." It will all come back around, and we'll be on the same side eventually  the best debates are the ones that change minds, and both parties come out enlightened.


----------



## Stephen

sRae said:


> I think it is good to educate on things such as this, if nobody tells a girl she _doesn't have to_ look or behave a certain way to fit a mould, then won't she be even more susceptible to falling for their garbage when she inevitably stumbles upon such ideas? I want my daughter to be prepared for such things... and I do know how you feel about her rather not seeing them. I constantly fight myself so that I do not become overprotective of my daughter, as I was overprotected growing up. I want to keep her innocent, but not naive. It is a fine line, and I will probably not be able to always successfully walk it, but that is my goal.


I have this magnet on my fridge.










I put it there to remind me that it's my job to make sure she's ready to smash, since I'm mommy now. :crazy: At least she'll be a step ahead of some.



sRae said:


> It is something I unfortunately have experienced first hand. As a designer I get these orders quite frequently - "The clients want relevant content. Find something, I don't care what, but we need to keep them happy." We have website where we download canned copy from, 90% of which is useless crap. But it looks so nice and legit when in print! I also have issue with having to build ads that I know are deliberately deceitful, as I feel I am propagating the deceit, even if it is merely my job to follow orders. It is tough having such high ideals at times >_<


I worked as a graphic designer for a few years as well, and there were times I had to make page layouts for things that weren't in my area of interest as well. I was, fortunately, never put in a position to make something that I felt was very directly and deliberately deceitful. -_- I remember a couple of times having to work on ads for strip clubs. I know I never wanted to shake those customers' hands. *shudder*



sRae said:


> Just remember, "enemy of my enemy is my friend." It will all come back around, and we'll be on the same side eventually  the best debates are the ones that change minds, and both parties come out enlightened.


I've had a lot of refinement of my opinions happen in this thread, and I've most enjoyed hearing from the women who've replied what their personal experiences of the impact of things like this on their lives. What's been the most valuable for me is those who've shared how they handle these issues with regard to their daughters.


----------



## Invidia

@Stephen I think I've contributed all I can at the moment to this thread, I look forward to reading more responses  thanks for the discussion. At the end of the day we're on the same side as far as Cosmo goes


----------



## pinkrasputin

Stephen said:


> I have this magnet on my fridge.


Funny, I have this one 








:crazy:


----------



## Stephen

pinkrasputin said:


> Funny, I have this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :crazy:


*slow-motion midair high-five*


----------



## chinotto

Cleo said:


> I am not really talking about just magazines, but the whole environment including magazines. I would be much more impressed with an office, if it were clean, had professional and polite staff, and decent taste in reading materials and pictures. I have worked at certain places before where those types of magazines were not allowed and that was just one peice to management holding a professional atmosphere. When you let cracks like that set in to the workplace, it leaves room for people to start behaving accordingly.
> 
> You can't please everyone, but to minimize displeasing too many people is to not appear taking a stance in any direction.


I am somewhat displeased/offended by the vision of femininity / womanhood in your avatar. But you can't please everyone. 

Cosmo et al perpetuates a lot of unfortunate gender & sexuality stereotypes, but also offers some refreshingly blunt information on sex and gendered experience. I'd rather have some information out there and get the conversation started then none at all? I think? Plus it's good for a laugh if you have any functioning rational faculties. : )

And I don't read it unless I'm in a waiting room.


----------



## Cleo

chinotto said:


> I am somewhat displeased/offended by the vision of femininity / womanhood in your avatar. But you can't please everyone.
> 
> Cosmo et al perpetuates a lot of unfortunate gender & sexuality stereotypes, but also offers some refreshingly blunt information on sex and gendered experience. I'd rather have some information out there and get the conversation started then none at all? I think? Plus it's good for a laugh if you have any functioning rational faculties. : )
> 
> And I don't read it unless I'm in a waiting room.


Well as far as the barbie for an avatar, I don't know if you have noticed but I am not trying to be professional on Perc. 

I would rather start a conversation about something other than sex, especially if you have crazy patients.

I don't think I need to know anything blunt about sex. Men are pretty good about getting the ball rolling if you know what I mean.


----------



## Stephen

chinotto said:


> I am somewhat displeased/offended by the vision of femininity / womanhood in your avatar. But you can't please everyone.


That's funny that you mention that! The first time Cleo came to visit us in the ISTJ forum, I'm ashamed to say I made a snap judgment, one that did not favor her, on the basis of her having a Barbie doll for an avatar. And this from a guy with a stupid robot cartoon character! :sad: I have since learned that she's a bang-up lady who I respect a great deal. Sorry I did that, Cleo.



chinotto said:


> Cosmo et al perpetuates a lot of unfortunate gender & sexuality stereotypes, but also offers some refreshingly blunt information on sex and gendered experience. I'd rather have some information out there and get the conversation started then none at all? I think? Plus it's good for a laugh if you have any functioning rational faculties. : )


I also think that it's important for us to have open and casual discourse on sexuality, particularly in a culture like this that so often tries to stifle that kind of expression in the name of "decency" and even faith. I think this kind of repression is often balanced heavily against women, as well: it seems to me that there's a definite bias against women being sexual, as compared to men. In that respect, Cosmo has great potential to represent women in a positive, empowered, and even sexual light.

I still don't think that Cosmo is any kind of a trustworthy or accurate source for such information as it stands right now. From my own experience of flipping through the magazine, I have the impression that weeding through to find even the smallest piece of valuable sexual information that might serve a woman could be exhausting. I've learned a lot of real, valuable information about sexuality and physiology from various places on the Internet (not _those_ kinds of places, lol) without having to wrestle with the gallons of misinformation surrounding such things in Cosmo.

I have to admit that it can be very, very funny to read in a "holy fuck I can't believe they're saying this" kind of a way. :laughing:



chinotto said:


> And I don't read it unless I'm in a waiting room.


Last time I was in a waiting room I tried to read Entertainment Weekly, and I didn't know any of the stars or shows. Since I had my TV turned off, I've gotten so out of touch with what's on. /derail


----------



## Promethea

I have a pirate currently as my avatar. I aspire to steal as much booty as possible.


----------



## Cleo

Promethea said:


> I have a pirate currently as my avatar. I aspire to steal as much booty as possible.


Innapropriate. I have been corrupted.


----------



## Cleo

Stephen said:


> That's funny that you mention that! The first time Cleo came to visit us in the ISTJ forum, I'm ashamed to say I made a snap judgment, one that did not favor her, on the basis of her having a Barbie doll for an avatar. And this from a guy with a stupid robot cartoon character! :sad: I have since learned that she's a bang-up lady who I respect a great deal. Sorry I did that, Cleo.
> 
> 
> 
> I also think that it's important for us to have open and casual discourse on sexuality, particularly in a culture like this that so often tries to stifle that kind of expression in the name of "decency" and even faith. I think this kind of repression is often balanced heavily against women, as well: it seems to me that there's a definite bias against women being sexual, as compared to men. In that respect, Cosmo has great potential to represent women in a positive, empowered, and even sexual light.
> 
> I still don't think that Cosmo is any kind of a trustworthy or accurate source for such information as it stands right now. From my own experience of flipping through the magazine, I have the impression that weeding through to find even the smallest piece of valuable sexual information that might serve a woman could be exhausting. I've learned a lot of real, valuable information about sexuality and physiology from various places on the Internet (not _those_ kinds of places, lol) without having to wrestle with the gallons of misinformation surrounding such things in Cosmo.
> 
> I have to admit that it can be very, very funny to read in a "holy fuck I can't believe they're saying this" kind of a way. :laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I was in a waiting room I tried to read Entertainment Weekly, and I didn't know any of the stars or shows. Since I had my TV turned off, I've gotten so out of touch with what's on. /derail


Thats ok, thanks for what you said at the end. I feel the same way about you.


----------



## Stephen

Cleo said:


> Thats ok, thanks for what you said at the end. I feel the same way about you.


This is turning into a love fest. DOES NOT COMPUTE.

:crazy:

/derail. For reals this time.


----------



## Stephen

Promethea said:


> I have a pirate currently as my avatar. I aspire to steal as much booty as possible.


Have you been drinking again?


----------



## Promethea

Stephen said:


> Have you been drinking again?


It was a statement about how silly it was to judge someone based on their avatar. : P


----------



## pinkrasputin

Stephen said:


> That's funny that you mention that! The first time Cleo came to visit us in the ISTJ forum, I'm ashamed to say I made a snap judgment, one that did not favor her, on the basis of her having a Barbie doll for an avatar.


Yes, so please don't judge my waiting room based on my Cosmo mag. :crazy:



> I have since learned that she's a bang-up lady who I respect a great deal.


"bang-up" lady??


----------



## Stephen

pinkrasputin said:


> "bang-up" lady??


You haven't heard that expression?


----------



## pinkrasputin

Stephen said:


> You haven't heard that expression?


No, I haven't. And I'm usually up on my Shakespeare so I'm surprised I lack the refinement. :tongue: It just sounds weird to me, sorry.


----------



## Stephen

pinkrasputin said:


> No, I haven't. And I'm usually up on my Shakespeare so I'm surprised I lack the refinement. :tongue: It just sounds weird to me, sorry.


*bang-up*
*–adjective* _Informal_.
excellent; extraordinary.

source


----------



## OrangeAppled

Stephen said:


> Which brings back the earlier discussion I think, where we were talking a little about the rest of the media and its impact. TV, toys, music, movies, all of it can do a lot of damage to our perceptions, and most of it comes to us when we're not traditionally on our guard against being deceived. How do you feel about these other things, and do you think there's a "head" that's worth striking at, or is it more of a "grass roots" solution that it could be approached with? In other words, educate the consumer and the machine loses its impact and becomes irrelevant.


Yeah, because I do think that this stuff wouldn't exist if there was no demand for it. I think they seek to appeal to a lowest common denominator, so as to maximize profit. Even people who think it's trash may be entertained enough to flip through (guilty of that....try not to now). People who "know better" can start to resist it by not letting their lower inclinations get the better of them. Picking up the trash tabloid in the hair salon will only encourage them to keep subscribing for their clientele.

I know "education" seems sort of the cliche answer, and it seems vague, but....in line with the idea below, which I think hits a nail on the head, it's about making sure people know this stuff is not any representation of what is real. The problem can be in how much value they are assigned; they are not significant, but can seem to be if not given any different perspective. It's like what I call the "Loony Toons" argument - it's silly enough for anyone to not be affected negatively by the violence. It's sooo removed from reality, that no one would take it seriously. You learn young enough that a frying pan over the head would likely hurt, and from there on out, the vast majority would never take these cartoons literally. You have this real context to evaluate them within, and that is learned, IMO.

So I think the same realizations can & should happen with these other media; it's a matter of developing better reasoning skills. Obviously, there are enough of us who have said "this is crap" because we know better. How did we know? We had some criteria, something we already we knew was more significant, that gave it a context & kept it in "proportion". Even as a teen, I knew this stuff was not to be taken seriously. I was & am actually surprised at how many women do NOT know that, because their mothers & friends & whoever were spouting similar perspectives to these mags. I'm not sure how you stop this domino effect, but I definitely think it's a matter of going to the root, which to me, is ability to evaluate and reason well. 




> Exactly right. I'd hardly consider myself a "fan" of pornography but I have seen some, and I'd be more likely to lump it in under "comedy" than anything else. I know a lot of people enjoy it, but you're right: *it really needs to be kept as something distinct from real world activities.* The industry is huge, though. I'm fond of pointing out that it has driven the success of every major form of home video media since VHS. That's kind of a big deal. Once again, I suppose it becomes a grass-roots thing. Removing porn from society is not a practical idea. *Working on society's expectation* that porn *represents anything realistic* is far more reasonable.
> 
> Am I getting you?


And yes, I think you got me :wink:


----------



## Intense

COSMO'S LATEST SEX TIPS:

1. Put his penis in your mouth. He actually likes this! No really, he does! You will know if he likes it because his penis will grow in size!

2. Take your clothes off. He likes to see you naked. Really he does! Studies show that 95% of men like naked women and the other 5%are gay. Seriously, they do actually like naked women!

3. Let him touch your vagina. We have recently found out that men like them a lot! They like them so much that they actually want to be in them! OMG how hot!

All this and more in our latest issue on sale now!


----------



## Drewbie

"Get fruity! A mashed banana or peaches inserted in your vagina is a delightful invitation for him to whoosh his penis around in it! Once you climax, switch to 69 position for sweet afters."

---Cosmopolitan Ultimate Sex Guide.

OKAY PEOPLE, I GOT THE PEACHES, GET TO WHOOSHING!
Seriously though, that sounds like an infection waiting to happen and the phrase 'delightful invitation for him to whoosh his penis around' made me choke on air.


----------



## Psilo

7 Sex Tips from Cosmo That Will Put You in the Hospital | Cracked.com


----------



## KimmyCat

Ezra said:


> They are funny. As long as people don't take them seriously (which they do, sadly).


and that is why men shouldn't read Cosmo


----------

