Does anyone agree that Cosmopolitan is offensive?

Sleepy

G'em, I must admit I'm stunned to see you defending magazines which can only be actively contributing to the prevalence of eating disorders.

I'm not suggesting they should be banned but some form of control should be put on their glamourising of underweight models, promotion of faddy diets etc.

g'em

Sleepy wrote: »

G'em, I must admit I'm stunned to see you defending magazines which can only be actively contributing to the prevalence of eating disorders.

Oh good Lord, eating disorders stem from a lot more than looking at skinny girls in a magazine. And even if that were the case you'd have to censor practically every media source known to man. Like I said before, I don't live my life according to how these magazines tell me, I use them for light relief when I want to switch off my brain. Perhaps I'm crediting woman at large too greatly for being able to do the same.

Multiple posters on this thread would lead me to believe (thankfully) that I'm not alone in this view. If you don't like reading Cosmo, good on you. But don't even think about trying to lay some sort of twisted moral guilt on me for it.

The Sweeper

I've bought 'womens magazines' less than 10 times in my entire life. In fact, possibly even less than five times.

I like reading. I like information. I like things that hold my interest. I like an element of depth in my reading matter, and I like to be challenged. When I don't feel like being challenged, I want to be entertained.

I think I've read more of them in waiting rooms than I've actually bought myself.

Womens magazines don't hold my interest, don't challenge me and when I don't feel like being challenged, they don't entertain me. They bore me.

They also never feel like they're directed at me, and frankly I have no idea who these sex-crazed credit-card-crumbling eyelash-batting matching-shoes-and-handbag-wearing blowjob-juggling fag-hag tiny-dog-owning jet-setting fortune-earning perma-dieting leg-bum-and-tum-crunching Amazonian superwomen that the magazines are apparently aimed at actually are.

Crumble Froo

They also never feel like they're directed at me, and frankly I have no idea who these sex-crazed credit-card-crumbling eyelash-batting matching-shoes-and-handbag-wearing blowjob-juggling fag-hag tiny-dog-owning jet-setting fortune-earning perma-dieting leg-bum-and-tum-crunching Amazonian superwomen that the magazines are apparently aimed at actually are.

you have an awesome way with language.

Dudess

The reason I find Cosmopolitan "offensive" is the way it talks to women - as if we're dumbfukks (well ok, some are). And its horribly presumptuous, narrow definition of what women are, as MAJD said.

Clare Bear

Oh for God sake, it's a magazine! Big whoop di doo! A lot of women obviously like reading it. Don't buy it myself but really don't give a crap if thousands of women do. Whatever gets them through the day, who cares?!

Jackz

Clare Bear wrote: »

Big whoop di doo!

funneh

Dudess

Clare Bear wrote: »

Oh for God sake, it's a magazine! Big whoop di doo! A lot of women obviously like reading it. Don't buy it myself but really don't give a crap if thousands of women do. Whatever gets them through the day, who cares?!

It's not the fact that women are reading it, it's the fact that it's there in the first place and the content is basically saying "you're a woman, you're dumb, here's how to be more dumb". I'm really not talking about the readers.

neuro-praxis

Dudess, you won't win this argument.

Notice how nobody disagrees with you that the magazine and others of its genre is filled with crap. Nobody is saying, "No, I disagree: the content of Cosmo et al is high quality." The counter response seems to be, "I enjoy the crap; don't judge me for it."

Fair enough so. I don't think Dudess is jusging anyone for reading it. But maybe, just maybe, it is ok to challenge the existence of such crap aimed at women in the first place.

I'll take the Atlantic Monthly any day.

ntlbell

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Dudess, you won't win this argument.

Notice how nobody disagrees with you that the magazine and others of its genre is filled with crap. Nobody is saying, "No, I disagree: the content of Cosmo et al is high quality." The counter response seems to be, "I enjoy the crap; don't judge me for it."

Fair enough so. I don't think Dudess is jusging anyone for reading it. But maybe, just maybe, it is ok to challenge the existence of such crap aimed at women in the first place.

I'll take the Atlantic Monthly any day.

I'm not sure i fully understand why Dudess wants to challenge the existence of "such crap"

There is an awful lot of IMO bad pop music out there it's generally aimed at a very sheepish end of the market, fine I don't listen to it or buy it.

The TV is now full of mind numbingly boring reality TV shows that for the most part just insult our intelligence, fine I don't watch much tv

Books, again an awful lot of crap.

Movies.

Newspapers.

The list is endless and the answer is fairly obvious, there is a huge market for these things women are obviously buying the magazine and like it.

It's not just cosmo, nearly all womens mags from what I have read are mind numbingly boring and would insult anyone past the gorrila stage's intelligence and very offensive.

But again I would of thought the reason for their existence was obvious

LuckyStar

I'm going to go and flirt with "that fit bloke from Accounts", might as well put in my seduction groundwork for when I have sex with him in 45 different positions at this year's Christmas party, wearing my on-trend slinky LBD. After that, well my boyfriend has been acting funny lately and according to that quiz I took in Cosmopolitan, he is cheating on me and also afraid of commitment. That glittery eyeshadow I was sworn would impress him in last month's issue obviously didn't do the trick but thanks to Cosmo's trusty Life coach page I know how to talk him back into loving me again.

After that I think I will go talk to my boss, not only am I an office doormat but I am in dire need of my monthly payrise. I hadn't even realised before buying this month's issue! Then I am headed to the doctor, according to Cosmo's psychology page I am suffering from Out Of Sync syndrome, apparently it is an epidemic hitting women who cannot wash two dishes with their hands going in different directions at the same time. No wonder my boyfriend is looking for someone else. Luckily I only wash my boyfriend's dishes- my new celebrity fad diet says I can only eat cabbage from the stalk.

To top it all off, after my nightly 3 hour shagathon with my boyfriend I think I'll watch a DVD in bed, I hear Lost has some really fit blokes I can ogle at, that's the only reason I ever watch anything.

neuro-praxis

rofl!

g'em

ntlbell wrote: »

It's not just cosmo, nearly all womens mags from what I have read are mind numbingly boring and would insult anyone past the gorrila stage's intelligence and very offensive.

But again I would of thought the reason for their existence was obvious

Y'see, this is the attitude that's been pi$$ing me off all along - saying that women's mags insult people with intelligence. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to tell me what I should read and what I should find insulting?

Get off your high horses ladies, there's a lot worse in this world to get freaked out about. If you don't read them, why make such a fuss over the people that do? Those knickers are still mighty bunched from what I can see. And frankly that women would take such a trivial matter so seriously and to heart is more insulting to me than the silly, lighthearted articles I read on occasion in these magazines. Jeebus.

ntlbell

g'em wrote: »

Y'see, this is the attitude that's been pi$$ing me off all along - saying that women's mags insult people with intelligence. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to tell me what I should read and what I should find insulting?

I'm not telling anyone what to read, I'm of the opinion or maybe I would expect people man or woman with some form of intelligence to be insulted by the rubbish in the mags I'm not telling you what to read or how to feel and if it came across that way my apologies.

g'em wrote: »

Get off your high horses ladies, there's a lot worse in this world to get freaked out about. If you don't read them, why make such a fuss over the people that do? Those knickers are still mighty bunched from what I can see. And frankly that women would take such a trivial matter so seriously and to heart is more insulting to me than the silly, lighthearted articles I read on occasion in these magazines. Jeebus.

I'm a guy and I'm not on a high horse. All I'm asking is why Dudess feels the need to question the existence of the the mag when the answer is fairly obvious.

Why are you getting on your high horse because of someone else's opinion? Have I not got the right to have my own opinion? or should I start reading some low brow mans mag so they can form my opinion for me?

g'em

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not telling anyone what to read, I'm of the opinion or maybe I would expect people man or woman with some form of intelligence to be insulted by the rubbish in the mags I'm not telling you what to read or how to feel and if it came across that way my apologies.

It did come across that way tbh, but I can see what you're saying. Have you ever actually read one of these magazines though? From the way people describe them here you'd swear they were published by the PA of Belzebub himself, each containing subliminal messages that over time erode a woman's sense of self-worth turning her into a mindless, opinion-less, air-headed, blow-job machine. That's a fair stretch from the truth though, and a very extreme way of looking at them, so why should I be insulted? Meh, they're no War and Peace, but they're being portrayed in a particularly harsh light ffs!

ntlbell wrote:

I'm a guy and I'm not on a high horse. All I'm asking is why Dudess feels the need to question the existence of the the mag when the answer is fairly obvious.

Obvious? Explain, it's not obvious to me. Unless you mean as light hearted entertainment, in which case, yes, I agree

Dragan

All i really know of cosmo is that it spent the 80's telling women they needed a hero, spent the 90's telling them they need a soft and sensitive man intouch with his feelings and is now spending the 00's telling women what they want is random cock, more beer, and to act like dudes.

Fair enough.

The one thing that i find funny is Cosmo's consistant changing of the goal posts, not only for women, but also for their partners, has resulted in a lot of very confused people.

Pink shirts. Tinted moisturisers. D&G Sunglasses.

And thats just the dudes.

I can't say the publication of any particular magazine offends me. It's only words. It's people interpretation of them that is likely to offend me.

Sleepy

g'em wrote: »

Oh good Lord, eating disorders stem from a lot more than looking at skinny girls in a magazine. And even if that were the case you'd have to censor practically every media source known to man. Like I said before, I don't live my life according to how these magazines tell me, I use them for light relief when I want to switch off my brain. Perhaps I'm crediting woman at large too greatly for being able to do the same.

Multiple posters on this thread would lead me to believe (thankfully) that I'm not alone in this view. If you don't like reading Cosmo, good on you. But don't even think about trying to lay some sort of twisted moral guilt on me for it.

Sorry g'em I'm not trying to lay some kind of moral guilt trip on you for reading the magazines, just surprised to see you defending them. I'm sure I've seen you decry their promotion of fad diets before. If I'm mistaken in that, I apologise.

I understand the desire to enjoy a light read at times and am certainly guilty of that myself (I've even flicked through some of my girlfriend's trashy mags at times). It just worries me that any magazine which uses size zero models in their fashion pages is then allowed to publish a 'cabbage soup diet' or whatever the latest starve yourself into losing a stone in 3 days diet is.

An ex-flatmate of mine, who in fairness wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, used to live her life by these magazines and while I'm not in any way suggesting there's something wrong with promoting whatever this season's "must-have" shoes are, I think there's a certain duty of care required when dishing out nutrition advice. Said flatmate went on lipotrim on the recommendation of some magazine and was utterly flummexed when she was half a stone heavier than she'd started at just a few weeks after finishing the diet :rolleyes:

Dragan

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm sure I've seen you decry their promotion of fad diets before. If I'm mistaken in that, I apologise.

Big difference between not being happy with one aspect of something and not being happy with the whole of the something.

No?

g'em

Dragan wrote: »

Big difference between not being happy with one aspect of something and not being happy with the whole of the something.

No?

Bingo. I'm probably immune to many of these fad-diets now and don't notice them but I have seen the rise of 'sensible eating' practices in many magazines. Sure, sure there's still the "lose a dress size in three says" train of thought, but surprisingly the biggest culptrits actually seem to be the cheaper weekly magazines aimed at the older end of the market (Woman's Way and the ones that come with free knitting patterns attached ). My Mum buys Woman and Home every month (a more "upmarket" magazine?) and I read it when I got to stay (she leaves it by my bed with my pink cluffly hot water bottle). After reading it for the last six months or so I can absolutely hand-on-heart say that the nutritional advise given in it is extremely sound and if my Mum wanted to live her lifea ccording to their eating rules, I'd be only too delighted. She now realises that the magazine is only telling her what I've been trying to say, but sometimes women need to see it in glossy rpint to believe it.

We can't demonise all the glossy publications based on the irresponsible articles of the minority.

Sleepy wrote: »

Sorry g'em I'm not trying to lay some kind of moral guilt trip on you for reading the magazines, just surprised to see you defending them. I'm sure I've seen you decry their promotion of fad diets before. If I'm mistaken in that, I apologise.

Ah I know you weren't, see above for a better explanation

Sleepy wrote:

I think there's a certain duty of care required when dishing out nutrition advice.

Aye, I agree completely, and not just where nutritional advise is concerned. But while some publications are better than others, it still comes down to personal responsibility - if you're going to let the world at large influene how you lead your life, no amount of magazine censorship will sheild you from harm.

ntlbell

g'em wrote: »

It did come across that way tbh, but I can see what you're saying. Have you ever actually read one of these magazines though? From the way people describe them here you'd swear they were published by the PA of Belzebub himself, each containing subliminal messages that over time erode a woman's sense of self-worth turning her into a mindless, opinion-less, air-headed, blow-job machine. That's a fair stretch from the truth though, and a very extreme way of looking at them, so why should I be insulted? Meh, they're no War and Peace, but they're being portrayed in a particularly harsh light ffs!


Obvious? Explain, it's not obvious to me. Unless you mean as light hearted entertainment, in which case, yes, I agree

To be fair I don't get to read them very often there has been times in a a surgery or at a dental appointment I've picked one up.

If I'm talking to someone in work, at home or in a pub I don't want to be spoken to like I'm a moron and not capable of following a simple adult conversation, when I tune in a radio station I don't want to be given information like I'm some sort of moron and the same goes for picking up a newspaper or anything that gives me information when one of these things assumes I'm a bit ditzy and treats me as such I get insulted.

Now, maybe I'm some know it all up my own asshole who's over sensitive, this is very possible, but it doesn't matter why? I don't buy the mag, I don't tune into that radio station, I don't watch that TV show and I don't talk to that guy in the pub. The result is I'm spared nonsensical information that treats me like I'm a moron and I surround myself with interesting people and interesting information. There should be a cute name for me in one of them mags

It's obvious because there is a huge demand for the sort of CRAP that's in cosmo etc I thought this was fairly obvious, which leads me to believe there is a lot of morons out there and those morons PAY money to be spoken to and treated as such. Then there's a few people who just buy it for some "light hearted" entertainment and well, they're just peachy because "it's only fer da craic like"

Dudess

LuckyStar wrote: »

I'm going to go and flirt with "that fit bloke from Accounts", might as well put in my seduction groundwork for when I have sex with him in 45 different positions at this year's Christmas party, wearing my on-trend slinky LBD. After that, well my boyfriend has been acting funny lately and according to that quiz I took in Cosmopolitan, he is cheating on me and also afraid of commitment. That glittery eyeshadow I was sworn would impress him in last month's issue obviously didn't do the trick but thanks to Cosmo's trusty Life coach page I know how to talk him back into loving me again.

After that I think I will go talk to my boss, not only am I an office doormat but I am in dire need of my monthly payrise. I hadn't even realised before buying this month's issue! Then I am headed to the doctor, according to Cosmo's psychology page I am suffering from Out Of Sync syndrome, apparently it is an epidemic hitting women who cannot wash two dishes with their hands going in different directions at the same time. No wonder my boyfriend is looking for someone else. Luckily I only wash my boyfriend's dishes- my new celebrity fad diet says I can only eat cabbage from the stalk.

To top it all off, after my nightly 3 hour shagathon with my boyfriend I think I'll watch a DVD in bed, I hear Lost has some really fit blokes I can ogle at, that's the only reason I ever watch anything.

Heh, brilliant.

And the thing is, it's not even that exaggerated! G'em, that's a satirised (yet accurate) summing-up of the kind of sh*t Cosmo publishes. Of course it's offensive - well it's offensive to some people. It's telling women they are fukking idiots. I'm not having a go at the readers at all! Hell, leaf through them all you want - YOU of all people certainly aren't going to buy into that crap! I often leaf through Now!, Heat, Closer etc.

g'em

ntlbell wrote: »

It's obvious because there is a huge demand for the sort of CRAP that's in cosmo etc I thought this was fairly obvious, which leads me to believe there is a lot of morons out there and those morons PAY money to be spoken to and treated as such. Then there's a few people who just buy it for some "light hearted" entertainment and well, they're just peachy because "it's only fer da craic like"

I really hope you didn't write this intending the patronising tone that it reads with.

Does every movie you (pay to) watch involve complex plotlines and deep- meaningful dialogue that seeks to right the wrongs of the world in every paragraph? Does every conversation you have rival the debates of Oxbridge for its intellectual prowess? Does your idea of 'entertainment' involve mental masturbation from every place you seek it?

No? Then quit sh!tting on the people who do differently to you, just because it's different.

Dragan

Dudess wrote: »

Heh, brilliant.

And the thing is, it's not even that exaggerated! G'em, that's a satirised (yet accurate) summing-up of the kind of sh*t Cosmo publishes. Of course it's offensive - well it's offensive to some people. It's telling women they are fukking idiots. I'm not having a go at the readers at all! Hell, leaf through them all you want - YOU of all people certainly aren't going to buy into that crap! I often leaf through Now!, Heat, Closer etc.

Why is that so bad though? I know several dudes with brains the size of planets, good looking chaps, socially active and all that stuff and these blokes ( with their brains the size of planets ) will sit down and read Zoo and Nuts and Maxim.

You know why?

Because sometimes it's just fun to switch off! Do we really have to spend all day running around proving we are "too cool for Cosmos" and "Too smart for FHM"?

Come on, it's a long flight and sometimes i just want to read something i can switch my mind off too.

Dudess

Grrr!! Dragan!!
I'm criticising the content, NOT the readers!

g'em

Dudess wrote: »

...that's a satirised (yet accurate) summing-up of the kind of sh*t Cosmo publishes. Of course it's offensive - well it's offensive to some people.

I guess I'm surprised that a magazine could provoke such a strong reaction?! Silly? Yeah sure. Pointless? Absolutely. But offensive? Meh...

ntlbell

g'em wrote: »

I really hope you didn't write this intending the patronising tone that it reads with.

Does every movie you (pay to) watch involve complex plotlines and deep- meaningful dialogue that seeks to right the wrongs of the world in every paragraph? Does every conversation you have rival the debates of Oxbridge for its intellectual prowess? Does your idea of 'entertainment' involve mental masturbation from every place you seek it?

No? Then quit sh!tting on the people who do differently to you, just because it's different.

Why do you get so defensive? I didn't sh!t on you or anyone else
I

Dragan

Dudess wrote: »

Grrr!! Dragan!!
I'm criticising the content, NOT the readers!

But thats even worse. Personally i would hate to be the person who had the power to say what other people were allowed to read, or listen to, or watch. Or what to think or who to love. Or what to wear or where to go.

Nope, thats not for me. Don't get me wrong, i don't and cannot agree with everyone......but i also refuse to have anyone else tell me what i can and cannot do.

I imagine there are people out there who would look at some of the magazine i read and there content and think "wow, how can any body read that?"

The answer?
Simple.

I want to.

And that used to be enough before we all had to start being so shiny and clever and interesting and foreward thinking and what not. Sometimes i just like being the dumb jock.

g'em

ntlbell wrote:

Why do you get so defensive? I didn't sh!t on you or anyone else

ntlbell wrote: »

It's obvious because there is a huge demand for the sort of CRAP that's in cosmo etc I thought this was fairly obvious, which leads me to believe there is a lot of morons out there and those morons PAY money to be spoken to and treated as such. Then there's a few people who just buy it for some "light hearted" entertainment and well, they're just peachy because "it's only fer da craic like"

I buy Women's magazines and so do other girls on this thread. So according to you we're either morons or in denial?

Dragan

g'em wrote: »

I buy Women's magazines and so do other girls on this thread. So according to you we're either morons or in denial?

Can you guess which one i think you are?






Apologies, just trying a bit of light relief.....it seems to be getting awful tense in here!

g'em

Dragan wrote: »

Can you guess which one i think you are?

It's a trick question. Wonderful doesn't seem to be one of the options