New Here?

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Cosmocking: August '11! Part Two!


(He's so whipped, he vacuums hardwood!)

[On sexual fantasies]Having sex with another woman.
Why it's so hot: It doesn't mean you're gay or you want to do it for real, but seductive images of women are so embedded in our society, it's only natural to think about--and get turned on by--what it'd feel like to be with the same sex.

Wow. I never expect Cosmo to dissect the concept of the Male Gaze more or less lucidly.

...And then to completely miss the point and use it to prove why the reader couldn't possibly be bisexual. I mean, sexuality is complicated. You can be straight and fantasize about people of your gender. But you can also be not straight and have those fantasies. That does happen sometimes. Not all female-female attraction requires a hasty, almost desperate attempt to explain why this doesn't mean you're attracted to females or anything.

It's not a shocker that this scenario has flitted across his mind too... but with him as a participant.
Oh my. They're acknowledging this? Gosh, this author's going places Cosmo doesn't usually...
The thing that really revs him up about threesomes...
Oh. Never fucking mind.

Cosmo isn't openly homophobic; at least in the last few years, they've never printed anything negative about queer people. Instead, they just pretend that queer people don't exist. Or more specifically, they exist, but they couldn't possibly be you or anyone you know. It's inconceivable--incontheivable!--that those queer people we talk so big about accepting could be our own partners or ourselves.

"I'm fine with people out there doing whatever they want, but me and my folks are normal" is a very subtle form of bigotry, but it's bigotry. And it's not harmless bigotry, either.
If we extrapolate this to, say, Tyler Clementi as he was driving towards the George Washington Bridge to end his own life in the wake of being cruelly and voyeuristically outed over the Internet, I’d bet my bottom dollar that he felt even the songs on the radio weren’t meant for him, but for “normal people” more relatable to the singer and deserving of the song’s message.
-Jesse Bering, Being Suicidal: What it feels like to want to kill yourself, Scientific American


If you're feeling feisty, switch it up by swatting his hand away when he makes a move during foreplay and telling him he has to wait until you say he can touch.
He always has to wait until I say he can touch. That's how consent works.

The problem with this game is that if it's a game, then it's acceptable for him to be bratty and grab you without "permission," and you may even be baiting him to do that. If it's not a game, then that same "brattiness" is at best annoying, at worst terrifying. So I don't want to play this game in any relationship where we don't have very clear communication about when we're playing and when we're not, and no Cosmo relationship would seem to have that.

Give yourself goose bumps by sweeping a new, clean toothbrush over the curves of your neck and collarbone.
Phew. After all the Serious Business above, it's a nice breather to see Cosmo being just plain old goofy.

The brand-new hot spot to show off: your spine.
Brand-new! Notochords are so last season.

22 comments:

  1. Did the "outsmart a bitch" article turn out to be boring? I was picturing a Wile E. Coyote kind of scenario, in which the cosmo editor constructs an elaborate scheme to lure bitches into running off a cliff, or stepping on something booby trapped with dynamite, but cosmo-fied. And then they could go hilariously wrong and end up in the embarrassing moments section.

    Toothbrush myself? I'm just confused.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Emma - The "outsmart a bitch" article turned out to be just that you ask them "Why are you so mean?"

    Apparently this single sentence is supposed to totally and guaranteed deflate them in all situations.

    Any worries you have about "I'm not mean, I'm trying to achieve something here" or (on the other end of the spectrum) "wah wah wah, so meeeen" are clearly immaterial.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Emma "I was picturing a Wile E. Coyote kind of scenario, in which the cosmo editor constructs an elaborate scheme to lure bitches into running off a cliff, or stepping on something booby trapped with dynamite, but cosmo-fied. And then they could go hilariously wrong and end up in the embarrassing moments section."

    I think I just startled my housemates with sudden uproarious laughter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The brand-new hot spot to show off: your spine."

    MOOOOOORTAAAAAAL KOOOOOMBAAAAAAAAAAT

    ReplyDelete
  5. So a woman's back is thought of as sexy now? My god, that idea had never occurred to me! I bet trendsetting movie stars will start wearing backless dresses to events now in order to showcase this brand-new, never-before-eroticized area! [/sarcasm]

    And it's infuriating how Cosmo will sometimes suggest little ways of "taking charge" with a guy (like playfully slapping his hand away) but it's always with the aim of getting him all inflamed. To the best of my knowledge, there's never been a suggestion like "Turn him into your sex slave for the night! Demand that he give you an orgasm (or three) and as he's pleasuring you, give him explicit directions so he knows exactly where and how to touch you. Make sure you praise him profusely when he does a good job!"

    Cosmo likes to pretend its audience comprises a bunch of sexy free spirits (if I recall, they have a regular feature showcasing "fun, fearless women") but it's really painfully obvious that the magazine actually aims its content at doormats who want a boyfriend at all costs. It's depressing as fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The way I see it--between their fixation on female submission-as-a-lifestyle, their aversion to safewords, and their eroticising of non-con sex play scenes--I'd say Cosmo is into some seriously heavy edge play, yo!

    ... add on top of that some femdom discipline and creative uses of toothbrushes...

    Yup!

    [/sarcasm]

    ReplyDelete
  7. What I want to know is how they figured out the whole toothbrush thing. Did the writer actually pick up a toothbrush, think about it, and start rubbing their neck? *dissolves into laughter* Were they at the dentists?

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anonymous: I'm not sure, but I could think of a lot better ways to pleasure yourself with a toothbrush. Just sayin...

    ReplyDelete
  9. [googles notochords...]

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think they just have everyone bring a household item of their choosing to the writers' meetings and then they all sit around brainstorming ways to make them even vaguely sexual. That or the tips are randomly generated.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Like those cheesy "love dice" they sell at drug stores for Valentine's Day, except one of them says things like "toothbrush", "comb" and "hair scrunchy".

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Not all female-female attraction requires a hasty, almost desperate attempt to explain why this doesn't mean you're attracted to females or anything."

    Nicely put. I lost count of the number of times I was told during high school: 'It's totally normal for girls to go through a phase of having crushes on other girls' (completely unsolicited, mind you, not as a response to something I'd said). This narrative was so regularly repeated that it took me years to realize that yes, I did like girls. The desperation with which it was insisted that it was normal to "have a phase"... hmm.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Notochords are so last season.

    Hah! Next season, cellular bone!

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Mousie762: You sure?'cause I would bet my last dollar on next season's choice being the cranium:)

    ReplyDelete
  15. The "outsmart a bitch" article turned out to be just that you ask them "Why are you so mean?"

    Apparently this single sentence is supposed to totally and guaranteed deflate them in all situations.


    That... doesn't sound like it would work. At all. On anyone. And it doesn't even involve outsmarting!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well of course it wouldn't work. If Cosmo started giving its readers good advice, they might actually solve the problems in their lives, and would therefore have no reason to keep coming back for the same bad advice over and over. Sales would plummet.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The "outsmart a bitch" article turned out to be just that you ask them "Why are you so mean?""

    Well partially it's because all my friends, relatives, and I, along with hundreds upon thousands of innocent people are subjected to repression and hatred due to sex, race, ethnicity, education, gender identity, wealth. sexuality, and a variety of other, pettier things and this system of oppression is held up by idiots who claim it's done out of morality, logic, science while really it's pure, simple bigotry. But really, I'm a bitch mostly I had a muffin this morning and it had no chocolate chips in it. What kind of world is this that there are no chocolate chips in your muffins!?

    ReplyDelete
  18. The "outsmart a bitch" article turned out to be just that you ask them "Why are you so mean?"

    That... doesn't sound like it would work. At all. On anyone. And it doesn't even involve outsmarting!


    Actually, I think there's potential there. I've found that asking a manipulative person a blunt question about their intentions (instead of trying to beat them at their own game) can really throw a person off...nobody expects you to actually call them out that way.

    Mind you, I've only used this on dates with guys. And I've never said "why are you so mean?" (which sounds whiny to me, and also too vague to be useful). More like "Hmmm. That's the third time tonight that you've mentioned finding another woman attractive. Are you trying to get some kind of jealousy response from me, or do we just have very different ideas of what's appropriate on a first date? I can't tell."

    I don't know for sure what a calm calling-out would do to a "bitch", but I bet it'd have the same effect it has on guys: they won't want to mess with you anymore because every time they do, you'll dissect their neurotic motives and display them for all to see. Also, from that point on they'll avoid interacting with you whenever possible.

    So Cosmo has it almost right.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @perversecowgirl - agreed, going "meta" on a conversation can be highly effective. I was so blown away when I finally realized I didn't have to answer intrusive, loaded questions with anything other than "Really, you thought that was an appropriate question to ask me?"

    And yet, I still see our hypothetical Cosmo "bitch" as a bit more resilient than crumpling into a heap on the couch after one question...

    flightless

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's not a shocker that this scenario has flitted across his mind too... but with him as a participant.
    The thing that really revs him up about threesomes...

    UGH. Can people stop telling me that as a man what I really want to see is two chicks going at it? Lesbian sex is BORING. Do you know why lesbian sex is BORING? Because neither of them want me anywhere near them. I mean this isn't necessarily true (I remember a saying of "I'm a lesbian and I love how a penis feels inside of me") but the point is, two lesbians going at it is about as far from sexy as possible since the only way for me to join that encounter is rape.

    Strangly, I don't enjoy encounters where I'm not welcome.

    I mean an FFM threesome between three consenting people could be cool... I know a girl I want to co-sub with really hard in an FFM. But you know what else would be cool? Co-subing with another M in an MMF. Having a woman in charge of both of us, manipulating us to her end and pleasure and desire? The idea of her making us do things to each other that maybe we don't really want to do or have done just so she can get off because she finds men hot?

    Mmmm. yeah. I like being sexy.

    "If you're feeling feisty, switch it up by swatting his hand away when he makes a move during foreplay and telling him he has to wait until you say he can touch."

    If this happened outside of the context of a BDSM roleplay, I'd honestly be very hurt. In most "vanilla" (I think "vanilla" is an appropriate adjective since vanilla smells delicious and is delicious and wonderful) sexual encounters there's never been any call for, well, definition of boundaries. If you've been with a person a few times (say, your boyfriend?) then you have pretty much covered the basics of what is and isnt' ok. This is fine. I don't want to have to go down the list of things I like my gf doing and give her explicit permission before each encounter... it's not that it ruins the mood, it's just *tedious*. So I (and my girlfriends) operate under the assumption of "if it's been ok in the majority of encounters, you don't need to ask and can assume a default of consent." The corollary to this assumption is "if it's not ok in this encounter for whatever reason, a gentle "please stop" is in order." Basically, if we trust each other to stop when the other partner says to stop, then certain levels of assumed consent are ok.

    If, on the other hand, I were to reach out and say put my hand on her shoulder or boob and her response was to slap my hand away and say "NO! NO TOUCHING!" I would feel, in order, worried and anxious that I had upset her earlier that day, worried and anxious that I've upset her now, sickened and disgusted that she might think I've assaulted her, and it would kill ANY MOOD I HAD AT ALL. Anxious and worried sex isn't fun. Anxious and worried sex where I'm thinking "oh my god am I raping her right now and she just doesn't trust me enough to tell me?" is THE WORST THING EVER. I'll never forget when my gf placed her hand on my chest and I thought she wanted me to stop, so I did, but then I came, and I couldn't even let her touch me for a half hour I felt so dirty and gross and pathetic. (All she wanted me to do was move down because her head was hitting the backboard... LOL! Funny story in retrospect, not funny when I was there.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Uh... what's so weird about vacuuming hardwood?

    ReplyDelete