Women Against Women

Maybe Sir Mix-A-Lot has it right...maybe women's magazines are doing absolutely nothing for us.
 
I cannot say that I have been blind to the ridiculous statements pushed upon us by women's magazine, but perhaps I have turned my head a bit. No longer. It happened the other day. I was in the powder room and, I'll admit it, I was reading. Don't judge me! I was reading Cosmo, usually one of the most loathsome of fashion/sex mags. This particular cover featured Katy Perry. A cool pop star? Sure. Someone I aspire to be anything like? No thank you.
 
Now for copyright reasons I am not allowed to actually display the cover on this blog, but please feel free to check out my own personal blog where I directly compare what this cover says to what I think it is trying to say: http://www.reneemitson.com/2010/10/the-real-cosmo-magazine/
 
Absolutely nothing on this cover inspires me. "Get Hit On All The Time! (your friends will be really annoyed)." From my perspective this is saying two things. Firstly, that it is quantity not quality that determines my own validation. Maybe I don't want to be hit on by everyone. Maybe that would actually be incredibly annoying. As I am sure all of you have experienced, being hit on by someone you are not interested in can not only be annoying, but embarrassing for both parties. Secondly, why would I want my friends to be annoyed? I would rather have a great night out with friends anytime than annoy them to the point where they just see me as some kind of attention floozy.
 
I suppose this appeals to some kind of dirty secret about women: that we all only care about being hit on and being the prettiest of our friends. Sure, most women would like to be considered desirable, but most women I know and admire determine their self-worth from more than just the amount of guys that eye them up and down. And if that is how we have come to define ourselves, isn't it time we change? Cosmopolitan seems completely counter-productive to these ideals. As a matter of fact, most of this cover seems downright archaic.
 
Next, "125 Sex Moves" - I hate to break it to you, but Cosmo did not invent sex. For the most part they do not know something we do not. If you have read one of these "tell-all" articles you have read them all. I am sorry, but being told to "look deep into his eyes" is not something I need Cosmo telling me. Another thing, I know that Cosmo is read predominantly by straight women, but can we at least somewhat acknowledge that there are millions of fearless women in the world whose sexual desires span further than male to female interaction? There are plenty of women I know who would roll their eyes at the idea that, "Thousands of men agree: These are the techniques that send them over the edge."
 
Let's take a second to consider the source. I assume Cosmo has practiced sound journalism skills and surveyed a wide variety of men on their sexual likes and dislikes, but let's be honest what man is going to be interviewed by Cosmo magazine and say something like "Nope, missionary is all I need." I don't think so.
 
I guess the parting word amidst my she-wolf rant comes down to two things: what are we being sold, and have we considered the source? I mean, if you think about it, if Cosmo actually helped us to love ourselves and see little room for improvement, how many magazines would they sell?