It's not drastic--which I actually approve of; if it turned into Ms. Magazine overnight they'd just lose their audience--but changes are happening. Each issue has just a little more political and feminist content and just a little less "30 Reasons Your Vagina Is Doing Everything Wrong." This month's issue has profiles of a woman teaching teenage girls to program, a woman campaigning for better equal-pay laws and enforcement, a female soldier who was wounded in Afghanistan and talks about why she still believes women should be on the front lines... this is not the Cosmo I know.
The magazine is still mostly fluff, and the misogyny and general weirdness are far from gone. So I've got enough to write about this month. But if this keeps up, I don't know. I might have to switch to Maxim or something. Which might not be all bad; I've mined the well of Cosmo pretty deep at this point, and could use some freshness. Besides, making fun of Cosmo always has a little tinge of "dammit feminine women, stop oppressing yourselves!" to it; Maximocking (preliminary working title) would be addressing the intersection of masculinity and misogyny.
But for now... Cosmocking's not dead yet!
Purple color! Sofia Vergara! I don't know who she is, but to be fair, the only TV shows I watch are Mythbusters and Doctor Who, so I am not a very good arbiter of pop culture notability! Um... None of these headlines are entertainingly ridiculous! You see why I'm having problems here!
Ah, there's the Cosmo I know and... know. The left-hand image is "sexy," and the right-hand is of course "skanky." And it's a stunning contrast until you apply the slightest common sense: do you think Heidi Montag suntans in that position? She just hangs out that way all day? Or was she shifting position or getting up and the photographer took a picture at the exact moment that looks like she's doing a porn pose? If anyone's skanky here, it's that photographer.
Have Drunk Sex Sober!
Beats the reverse, I guess. The idea here is that you can have all the fun of drinking, but without the actual alcohol, by just acting uninhibited and a little bit confused. Oh, and you should have a red lightbulb. Red light is a lot like being drunk.
Fall into that bleary-eyed, no-words-needed kind of hookup that's the touchstone of drunk sex. Because you'll be in a slightly dreamy state, the next morning will feel almost the same: Did that really happen... or did I imagine it?
Kudos to Cosmo for not encouraging people to do this via actual alcohol, but I've never said to myself "that was pretty good sex, but dammit, I just remember it too well."
Recently, an anonymous NYC guy put up 600 fliers with the hashtag #ThisIsHowYouWinHerBack all over the city to try to get his ex back. His efforts, alas, didn't work, but he's just the latest in a slew of men who are trying to dispel their growing rep as wimpy beta boys by posting love declarations online. "We're seeing some young men use big, look-at-me-antics to publicly take back their status as dominators."
Oh my God that guy's poor ex. I mean, a couple points to the guy for not putting her name or picture out there, but all points immediately subtracted forever because being surrounded by hundreds of public "I won't let you go" messages from your ex is still horrifying no matter how memey-clever they are.
They're right, though, this is a very dominating gesture. And that's not a good thing. That's not "taking back" some God-given right he has as a man. It's putting someone in a submissive position who most likely did not want to and definitely did not agree to be in that position.
[When there's lube on your hands after sex,] use the excess lube to grease each other up. Rub it on his chest and your breasts, since those areas are less likely to come into contact with the fancy linens you scored for 50 percent off at OneKingsLane.com.
1. Ew. I mean, nothing against people who like it messy, but if you're just trying to be neat and tidy, this is... not neat and tidy.
2. Oh man, I want to see someone try this with silicone lube.
3. Really depends on position what parts of you touch the sheets.
4. Smooth product placement there, champ. Barely noticed it.
[How to tell if a male friend wants to date you:] Tell him all about other guys you're dating, and see how he reacts. Or ask about one of his good friends as though you're interested. If he gets annoyed or defensive, there's a chance he may have feelings for you.
Cosmo doesn't describe how you transition the conversation from "I'm dating a ton of dudes these days... by the way, is Steve single?" to "oh, never mind, I was just making things up to upset you, want to go out?" That seems like the difficult part.
Could You Fall for a Guy Wearing Clogs?
See? The new, more political Cosmo is all about tackling the tough issues.
[ETA: The video linked in comments on this post, and the ensuing discussion, deal with sexual harassment and assault.]
1. There's such a thing as excess lube???
ReplyDelete1a. I prefer body lotion for non-genital massage and stuff, it feels less icky and smells nice
2. Could I fall for a guy wearing clogs? Depends on the guy, depends on the clogs, depends on the relationship between the guy and the clogs.
Oh, you go to "depends on the clogs" before me. I mean. Are we talking plastic? Orthopedic? Winsome touristy wooden ones from Holland? This kind of detail matters!
DeleteThere's such a thing as excess lube. But that's why we have little towels next to the bed.
DeleteI tend to find my excess lube goes on the genitals and stays there.
DeleteClogs are pretty standard footwear in most kitchens. They are usually of the black patent leather, nonslip sole variety. So the question is: could you fall for a safety-minded cook? Answer: You could fall, but ze won't because ze's wearing nonslip clogs.
Delete"If he gets annoyed or defensive, there's a chance he may have feelings for you."
ReplyDeleteDo you really want a guy whose infatuation with you manifests as getting visibly "annoyed or defensive" when you casually discuss other men?
But didn't you hear? You can't be in love without being jealous! It simply isn't possible!
Delete(On a similar note: I joked that if Doctor who came by in his TARDIS, I might just have to have sex with him if he asked. Boyfriend says that's OK as long as he gets to shag Dr. Martha Jones. "What, we can't share her?")
Also, why would you treat a friend, or crush, or anyone like that? Playing mind games with people isn't very nice, and often hurts a lot of people for no reason. Boo, hiss, this is not How To People.
Delete@Laura: Nice. I'm definitely not inclined toward polyamory, but there is one thing that could make that change, and that would be if the Doctor was real. And my boyfriend and I would totally swap partners with Amy and Rory.
DeleteI've been wondering about this, actually. I'm glad Cosmo is moving in a positive direction, really! I love having femme resources (though I could do without a lot of the LOSE WEIGHT, FATTY I can also handily ignore that if the rest is less awful).
ReplyDeletePoint is: I totally support Maximocking.
Yeah, some of this advice really sucks, as usual. The funny thing is I remember as a young teenage girl listening to some of this advice.
ReplyDeleteHorrible, and glad you still some things to feast upon.
I tend to rub excess lube all over my partner by grinding my lubey cooch all over his leg... then forget about it because my most expensive sheets are from IKEA. haha. Also I hate the feeling of silicone lube only ever use water + whatever I usually produce. Pretty easy clean-up.
ReplyDeleteI recall another Cosmo lube tip featured here that involved water, then you hold it in your mouth, then you spit it out, then you re-ingest, then you spit it out, and then you apply it to the genitals. I believe Cliff said it made "just hock a loogey* on it" ten times more complicated and sound one hundred times more gross.
Delete*I'm not from the US so I'm not 100% familiar with this term?
To hock a loogey : to cough up a big wad of phlegm and spit it out. Not generally considered an erotic act.
Delete*Loogey is a spittle with heavy mucous content. Hocking refers to the raspy sound made while gathering this phlegm from one's throat.
DeleteCharmingly gross. I have never been more motivated to buy lube whilst simultaneously being arousal-killingly disgusted.
Delete@Cliff: I know that and you know that, but could someone tell it to the various porn directors out there? I'm certain vomiting is a turn on for some, but not for me while I'm trying to release some tension before bed.
Deletei'm glad you pointed this!!! i sometimes buy cosmo for the purposes of self-indulgent mockery...but a few times, i've noticed stories with really interesting titles and generally non-problematic articles. like i thought the one about the against me artist was surprisingly well-done.
ReplyDeleteLube that doesn't come off the sheets with ordinary washing is not lube I want to buy, thank you. I mean, honestly, a product you use on your body, in bed, and it's not supposed to touch sheets? How does that even work?
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that oil-based lubes aren't good for condoms or sex toys AT ALL. I don't want my prophylactics to be dissolved, thanks--it kind of negates the whole "safe sex" thing.
DeleteDepends on the materials of the sex toys. Silicone only toys may dissolve in silicone lube, but not in oil-based lube.
DeleteHowever, oil-based lubes are designed to be used externally only because they're not good for your insides and the bacteria/fungi in your insides.
There are paper towels next to my bed for excess lube and all other excess liquids sex tends to produce.
ReplyDeleteI've always hated the advice that 'if s/he's upset that you're seeing other people, that means s/he likes/loves you'. NO! If he is upset I'm fucking others, that means he's a possessive little emotional weakling and I'd never wanna date him! Ugh...
Not everyone is blase-or-points-north about it. Now, it's possible to be unhappy about it without getting possessive (particularly when it's someone you're not even in a relationship with), but there's nothing wrong with preferring that someone date you and not other people to the alternatives.
DeleteI'm pretty sure I could fall WHILE wearing clogs. Whether it would be on a man or not remains to be determined.
ReplyDeleteIs #ThisIsHowYouWinHerBack supposed to be a Junot Diaz reference? If so, it doesn't say much for this guy's reading comprehension skills.
ReplyDeleteI've only ever read a few issues of Cosmo around 2005. Later when I started following Cosmocking, it seemed like the magazine had devolved over few years from garden-variety fluffiness to deep weirdness. Then again, I was seriously lacking both critical reading skills and feminist awareness in 2005. I found this and a few other awesome blogs aroud 2010.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw the first sentence of this post, I was afraid you were simply fed up with writing Cosmockings. That wouldn't be surprising, considering how repetitive and frustrating the magazine has been over the last five years. Your Cosmocking seems to have gradually shifted from super-snarky to a more weary tone, making it more sober than hilarious reading.
I don't know whether you might again crank up the snark machine if you do switch to Maximocking. Anyway, whatever style and subject, I love reading your badass feminist analysis.
Hi Cliff. My boyfriend sent me link to this joke on youtube and apparently he thinks it is hilarious. Also, he thinks me complaining about the joke not being funny and not liking its view of the world makes me stuck-up.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arAjFI4CFBU
Is it really me being too serious or do you see things wrong with it from the feminist point of view?
That is seriously not funny. It's sexist and demeaning. Your boyfriend has likely never been on the receiving end of sexual harassment or assault, and has no idea what that kind of a situation feels like to the woman. She appears uncomfortable and afraid to say no. Maybe you should ask him how he would feel if one of his friends did something like that to you. On second thought, maybe not. He might call you a whore.
DeleteUhhhh.... did I miss something?
DeleteHomegirl just cheated on her boyfriend.
Man, that's an old joke.
DeleteIt's also really badly executed, and yes, it's sexist--it's very much in the "sex is a mean trick men play on women" mindset, which is... all kinds of goddamn gross.
Anon 1 - That "he might call you a whore" is way the hell out of line. Someone liking a video that's sexist in a basically-acceptable-in-mainstream-culture way is not proof that they are an evil person who does all the evil things. And if he is actually verbally abusive, pretty damn horrible for you to casually throw that out as an arguing point.
Anon 2 - Dude just continually pressured her and offered her money and basically made it into a "either make a giant scene or let me do this" choice for her, and she clearly enjoyed none of it. And you think she's the bad one?
Well, if what you're supposed to be thinking is "Jesus Christ, what an asshole that guy is", sure, it succeeds on that level. If you're supposed to be cheering for the dude for being "clever", then someone needs a good swift kick.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh my goodness. I can’t believe that after lurking here for months, and having read every post and all the comments, and agreeing with so much of what’s been said by Cliff and all the regular contributors here, I’m going to de-lurk with what some people might view as a defence of a sexist joke. But I’m going to risk it because feel I must. I’ve identified as a feminist for 30 years, and I can only ask you to believe me when I say – if I thought this was a rape joke, or a joke about sexual harassment, I would be all over it like a rash. Because those jokes need to be shown up for what they are and the damage they do. But when a joke is mistaken for one about sexual harassment and attacked in the same way – then we’re heading for trouble and opening ourselves up for attack ourselves by the “you humourless feminist” brigade. I’d like to suggest that we need to be very clear about we are and aren’t complaining about.
DeleteIn my opinion, this joke (although not necessarily in this format) has humour because it’s based on the tradition of the ‘comedy of manners’ (which goes back centuries in the UK, you’ll find it in Chaucer, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, everywhere, it’s a strong tradition because manners and etiquette have such a deep cultural meaning in Britain, perhaps much more so than other cultures). In this particular version I would disagree that the female character is portraying discomfort because she’s afraid to say “no” to a sexual advance. I’d recognise her discomfort as coming from the switch throughout the exchange between safe social ground (talking about a trip to Torremolinos with her partner’s friend) and unfamiliar and challenging social ground (being offered money in return from a sexual favour from someone she knows, but is socially conflicted about). You see the two points where her desire for the money overcomes her social embarrassment (“Oh, go on then”) and the decider seems to be that she will get away with it (because it is not in the best interests of herself or the friend to tell her partner about the incident). The basic joke works because of the social embarrassment and conflict between doing what is right for her relationship and her desire for something for herself. If she was being coerced or forced to accept both the groping and the money, then the joke wouldn’t work at all. (to be continued)
(continued) So yes, the joke is on the female character because she was tricked into doing something she didn’t need to do. But no, I don’t think it’s a joke about sexual harassment. And I agree with Cliff that this version is sexist because - even though all the roles could be reversed and the humour would still be based on the same factors (social embarrassment and pulling a con) – making a female the butt of the joke is ‘punching down’ because of traditional gender roles. As Cliff points out, it’s an incredibly old joke. And in an alternative version, the quick-thinking female/male dupe turns the situation around by denying to their partner that the friend left the money. This puts the friend in the position of being trapped by the secret they themselves created, and having to pay the money out a second time. Had it been done this way, the joke could then have had a ‘punching up’ quality that would have countered the sexually conning unpleasantness of the male friend. But in this version, that was left standing.
DeleteSo I’d say that Anon at 11.30am’s boyfriend making an accusation of being ‘stuck up’ for not liking the joke could perhaps be taken as childish behaviour and not respectful of some else’s tastes and perspectives. That wouldn’t automatically make him misogynist, but it does mean he’s laughing at a joke done in a sexist way. My apologies if this response is long-winded and particularly if anyone takes it as a defence of sexism, that isn’t my intention.
Can I also just say that I don’t know who Sofia Vergara is either, but I’m pretty convinced she doesn’t bend that way at home. And this is possibly the worst case of photoshop pipecleanerism I’ve seen on any Cosmo cover featured on this site. I also like the idea of mocking Maxim – I’ve never read it but assume it will be fertile ground for your wit and insightfulness, Cliff. And thank you for a wonderful blog. I’ve enjoyed every minute of the fascinating journey through it.
People still think that hackneyed bit of sexism is funny? It's like laughing at the chicken crossing the road "to get to the other side," if the chicken also got run over.
DeleteI've heard this joke a million times, and it's never amused me, even when I was pretty badly sexist. Seconding Beth that this could have become actually funny if the woman hid the money and denied the, er, "payment," thus causing the sleazy "friend" to still owe a substantial sum.
Anon #1 here. I'd like to apologize for my "whore" comment. It was inappropriate, and my anger overruled my judgement. Sorry.
DeleteCliff
ReplyDeleteWait, there can only be one bad one?
Then sure, it's him.
But "I don't want to make a scene" is a terrible reason for anyone to do anything they seriously don't want to/shouldn't do and that's exactly what I think we (women) should be trying our hardest to move women away from. I know I'm beyond willing to "make a scene" if that is the correct choice for me to make.
I also believe that this willingness, and the clearness of that willingness has saved me from sexual assault more than once.
So, yeah, obviously he's an asshole, even "the" asshole, "the" bad guy. But she did something pretty shitty as well. If I were her girlfriend, I'd dump her.
While it's awesome that you feel totally able to "make a scene" to defend yourself, and that's probably the best response, not everyone has that capacity. It can be an extremely difficult thing to do, especially if you've been conditioned to believe that the blame for the situation developing in the first place falls on you. Saying that women need to move themselves (or each other?) away from that ignores the implicit danger in escalating someone's harassment of you from "making me uncomfortable and won't stop asking" to "humiliating me and/or becoming violent."
DeleteIt's still not the ideal reaction, but seriously? Opting to endure unwanted sexual contact is a really common response to protect yourself from a person who has already made it clear that they have no respect for your boundaries. Generally speaking, it's a survival tactic.
She thinks her boyfriend's friend is going to violently assault her with her boyfriend right upstairs? Being "humiliated" (for being rude, I assume) is worse than being groped against your will? Since we're talking about the video, after all.
DeleteI'd rather have a scene "escalate" to rudeness than escalate to rape.
I'd rather have a scene "escalate" to rudeness than escalate to rape.
DeleteWell, good for you.
But if a person doesn't have the same priorities as you (hypothetically would), that's a long way away from actually wanting sexual contact.
Failure to maximally resist is not consent.
I mean, let's leave the word "consent" out of this.
DeleteDo you think she wanted and enjoyed and was super horny for having her breast groped by that dude?
Okay, first of all, it’s not hypothetical. As I said earlier my statements are based on personal experiences including, yes, being offered money (or other forms of currency) for sex/nudity on multiple occasions by different people in different environments (including as a minor in much more threatening situations) so don’t be throwing that little disclaimer in there.
DeleteSecond of all, as to whether I think she wants it – she’s an actress. Who is clearly playing up mixed feelings for comedy (see how she reacts to his compliment at 0:55, and her giggling at 1:40). But okay, sure we can ignore that. What threat, exactly is she avoiding? Him becoming violent? Really? If I'm her boyfriend, I'm to believe "no, of course I didn't want him to grope me, but he ASKED me! What was I supposed to do? Be RUDE?" I'd drop him as a friend and her as a girlfriend.
There are situations where it’s understandable that a woman might not fight back, or even say no out of fear, but all women are taught not to say no (ever) so where do we draw the line? If someone sends me a text message asking me to come over and have sex and I do it because I’ve been conditioned by society that saying no is mean and I don’t want to be mean is that really coercion in your mind? Where do you honestly draw the line because suggesting that a theoretical woman in that situation couldn’t be held responsible is absurdly infantilizing in my mind.
Again, super cool for you that you stay calm and assertive in these situations. Really, that's a great thing.
DeleteBut you're being unfair to women who've had different experiences. Coming over to sleep with someone is different than submitting to someone who is up in your face ignoring your unwillingness, even if they aren't actively threatening violence. I was groped by my boyfriend's roommate, while my boyfriend was sleeping in the other room. He cornered me on the couch. He was someone who kept a lead pipe in his room "for emergencies." I wasn't interested, I told him so, but he persisted and I was afraid of what might happen in the future had I tried to scream or fight him off.
I'm not the first, and certainly not the last, to go along with it because I felt that fear. Just because you wouldn't, or you think it's unreasonable to be afraid, doesn't mean that you can bash on someone who's not so willing to be confrontational.
What you're describing is different because you told him you weren't interested. Like I said, there's lots of situations where someone can't/won't "maximally resist" as Cliff said, but I'm saying someone should at least minimally resist.
DeleteAlso, what happened afterwards makes a big difference.
Are you trying to argue that what the guy did in the video wasn't prosecutable, or that the girl was cheating and is a terrible person who really wanted to cheat on her boyfriend?
DeleteBecause the first, yeah, probably. The second, give me a fucking BREAK.
1. Actually what he did likely was prosecutable (he paid her)
Delete2. I think that was cheating, yeah. If I'm with someone I'd like them to make SOME effort towards fidelity. For example, when she cites her boyfriend as the reason he shouldn't grope her, she doesn't even cite the fact that she's in a relationship with him, she specifically cites the fact that he's "right upstairs" ie. they could get caught. That's meant to be part of the comedy, her mixed feelings. Is that realistic? Not to my mind, I don't think any woman would be interested in this situation (if only because that guy is so repulsive) but that IS what we're given.
Let me be clear, that guy (or rather, that character) is a grade-A creep. Like no question. At all. I wouldn't be his friend or date a guy who had a friend like that. But suggesting that she did it out of true fear (coercion) stretches the limits of credulity. She's playing at ambivalence (again, she's an actor) and is choosing "don't make a fuss" over "I care about fidelity and/or standing up for myself and my right to not be touched by creepy people" and that's not someone I'd want to be in a relationship with and I think it does count as cheating.
Man, I'd be pretty fucking hurt if, after being harassed and wheedled and pressured into enduring sexual contact I didn't want, my partner told me I was a terrible person for "cheating" on them and dumped me.
DeleteJust sayin.
There is a lot of projection onto this girl happening here.
DeleteI never said she was a terrible person, but at a certain point people have to be at least slightly responsible for their actions. She didn't say no, at any point, she didn't even indirectly verbally suggest that she didn't want to (only that she didn't want to get in trouble for it). I'd be madder at him (if I were the boyfriend) but I'd still break up with her.
I'd be pretty fucking hurt if someone I was in a relationship with someone and they had sexual contact with someone else and their only excuse was "I didn't want to be RUDE".
Besides, wouldn't you say that anyone "citing reasons" why someone shouldn't touch you is making an effort toward not being touched? Have you never heard of the "soft no"?
DeleteYou think the reason doesn't matter? Seriously?
DeleteYou literally think "Don't touch me because my boyfriend might find out!" means the same thing as "Don't touch me because I find you repulsive?"
There's a billion "soft no"s that would have conveyed "I don't want you to touch me" and not "I may WANT you to touch me but I don't want to get in trouble" as hers did. You want to talk more about verbal nuances? Here's an example of one a psych prof gave us about the difference between the implications and implicatures: "If I write a reference for a student and say 'she was punctual, had good attendance, and had excellent handwriting' the implication is that she showed up to every class on time and had neat writing. The implicature is that there was absolutely nothing else good to say about her." Why? Because if there was he wouldn't be digging up trivial things.
The implication is that she didn't want to be touched, the implicature is that the ONLY reason she didn't want to be touched is because she didn't want her boyfriend to know (otherwise she would have given a different reason) and once he assures her that her boyfriend won't find out, he sees no further reason to believe that she doesn't want to be touched.
I've rejected (equally persistent) people more times than I can count, the vast majority of those times without transgressing social norms in any way - god fucking forbid. There's lots of ways to do it. What she said/did was not one of them.
Okay, can we... can we just end this thread?
DeleteSeriously. No more of this. We get it.
It's pretty clear you don't.
DeleteAnd as annoying as it is to be told to shut up because your opinions aren't in lock-step is, I have zero choice in the matter so, sure.
This is my last post.
Anon, you stated your opinions. Several times. I did not delete them. I'm not shutting you up, I'm keeping you from repeating yourself indefinitely, which seems to be where this is headed.
DeleteWell, this was ugly and predictable. Usually I enjoy Cliff's forums because trolls don't tend to hang out here or be tolerated when they try to show up. I guess this 'question' was enough of a bait a bunch of reasonable people felt they had to respond. Gah. Could you maybe put a trigger warning on the comments, Cliff? I know I wasn't expecting to see this here, in a usually lighthearted comment section.
DeleteAlso, how the fucking fuck is that comedy? 'Ooh, let's be really controversial and mock oppressed people using a scenario that's familiar to them'. I could write better material in my sleep. Maybe I'm so upset because this thing is pushing my particular buttons, but I really don't like it. I honestly can't see how it's even funny. And people who say this is cheating, what planet are you living on? The most disturbing thing to me is their facial expressions throughout, and the way he keeps trying to normalize the situation by brightly talking about a holiday as if nothing's wrong. *Suppresses inner hulk*.
On a brighter note, thanks for the great Cosmocking as always. I'm definitely looking forward to Maximocking should it occur, and it's kinda heartening to see Cosmo's getting better :)
Could you maybe put a trigger warning on the comments, Cliff?
DeleteDone!
The starter and asker anon here. Thank you people for your answers! I knew there were lots of things wrong with the link and my bf liking it, but I couldn't word them out myself. And yeah, this was legit, I wasn't trying to troll or encourage other trolls, so I apologise for the mess that followed.
DeleteMy take on the consent in the video is that the woman is only doing it for the money, and thus is consenting (but doesn't like the action that much). What I thought was the problem I had with it was the woman being the one being laughed at in a "sex takes something away from you and you didn't even get paid for it in the end" way and even slight slut-shaming ("she deserved losing the money since she agreed to let him grab her") maybe? I felt like the comments were missing this point but I hope this won't start an argument again.
I'm confused about my relationship because what we have it cuddly and sweet and wonderful but it's his sometimes condescending way of looking at my feminist ideology that bothers me to no end. I sometimes feel like he doesn't respect me, but not all the time. Just that reason alone feels a little dumb to end a loving relationship? I've talked about this with a lot of people but now decided to ask you, Cliff. I've been your reader since my late teens and you've shaped my view on feminism and sex issues a lot. Than you for that.
I'm surprised that nobody pointed out yet that one reason to use "my bf is here" as a soft no is that often that is the only argument that WORKS. I'm pretty sure Cliff mentioned that at some point before.
DeleteAsker Anonymous - yes, your instincts are good that the joke is on the women because the stupid whore who agreed to be paid for a sexual favor then didn't even get the money and that's AWESOME to get something sexual from a woman for nothing! Hah! And that's also why the joke could be made funnier if she said to her boyfriend, "No, he didn't."
DeleteAnd I know you're asking Cliff, not me, but I don't think you should stay with someone who you feel disrespects you some of the time. But I don't know your whole relationship. Have you gone over to Captain Awkward?
Thanks Anon! Wow, I've never really read that blog even though it's even in Cliff's links, shame on me! Could very well be a good place to ask.
Delete-Asker
I sometimes feel like he doesn't respect me, but not all the time. Just that reason alone feels a little dumb to end a loving relationship?
DeleteAs someone who's been in that situation...no, it's not a dumb reason. I spent a long time arguing with one boyfriend because he didn't seem to respect me sometimes, and then just gave up on it and focused on all the good, we're-so-in-love stuff. This ended in emotional abuse, because actually, yes, respect is a very big deal, and it colors all the other stuff -- liking and loving without respecting isn't good enough for a romantic partner, even if it works for, say, a Yorkshire Terrier. That's just my experience and I'm not saying yours would be similar, but please never doubt lack of respect is a valid reason to end a relationship!
I second CaptainAwkward's awesomeness!
I honestly don't understand what the problem is, besides him conning her. People seem to be jumping from "*I* wouldn't do that" to "clearly *she* wouldn't do that".
DeleteCliff, aren't you being sex-positive in the bad way? Other people don't need to meet your standards (being super horny, enjoying themselves) before they get to consent to opportunistic sex work, do they?
My reactions to the first few paragraphs; First, "aww, no more Cosmocking? I mean, I guess I saw this coming, Cliff seems to be getting more tired of picking on the same styles of stupidity over and over again." Second, "Wait, the problem is that Cosmo is improving? That's... really good, actually." Third, "Maximocking! That is it! That is all I want for Christmas!"
ReplyDeleteMockxim.
ReplyDeleteNow if only they could stop photoshopping every female in their issues Cosmo might actually be something useful
ReplyDeleteCliff, I'm so glad to read that you're really *reading* Cosmo and not just going in determined to find all the wrong. I read this eagerly each month and was curious to see where you'd go with Joanna Coles taking over, and as someone who spent years working in women's magazines and felt simultaneously proud and disgusted of the work we did, it's good to know that people who are blanketly against 'em can see when people in the industry are genuinely trying to make the magazines smarter, more inclusive, more reflective of women's lives. There are a lot of feminists in the industry and while we know full well there's a loooong way to go (and I'm of the mind that advertising is inherently incompatible with feminism, ergo no ladymag will ever truly be feminist, but whatevs), we also put a lot of effort into making a product that we hope readers can benefit from. So thank you.
ReplyDeleteMaximocking. DO IT. And by that I mean if you happened to choose to do it, I would be super happy. :D
ReplyDeleteI would love to read Maximocking! That's another magazine I've never read but would be interested to know what's inside. Until I read your Cosmockings I had no idea of the bizarrity that goes on in US Cosmo. I understand your decision to maybe stop Cosmocking sometime soon, but know that your archives will remain to be enjoyed by new readers in the future! For example, I showed my boyfriend your Cosmocking tag and he loved it. Now whenever I put on deodorant he yells 'oh no, your feminine mystique!!' XD
ReplyDelete