DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

"How to stop your man from straying"

181 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Oct 18 2006 14:30
"How to stop your man from straying"

Here's the gist of the highlight of this months Cosmopolitan:

Men need only 4 things - food, shelter, pussy and (I quote) strange pussy. Men are genetically programmed to have sex with as many women as possible you see, so to keep him, you have 3 options 1) get him to watch loads of porn 2)have an open relationship 3)turn a blind eye to cheating.

Obviously this article is really fucking insulting to men, and is unfortunatly just the latest of articles in this vein. I had a rather interesting discussion with some other girls about it yesterday. Why do you think articles like this are published? Do people really believe them? Could they encourage mistrust in relationships? Is pop-psychology/biological determinism in general damaging? And what can we do about it?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 14:34

feck. arse. drink.

*grunts*

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 18 2006 14:37
revol68 wrote:
more importantly who fucking cares, the only thing worse than pop pyscholofy/evolutionary biology is the people who would try and organise around a cosmo article.

revol you are missing the point here mate - Jess is simply asking what are the background factors contributing to more and more of this kinds of articles being published (and the whole lads mags phenomenon while you are at it).

+1 for being interested to hear

-1 for being able to contribute to it grin

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 14:40

you're sublimating again revol, go watch some porn.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 14:42

has your man been straying Jack?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 14:47

pyschology and pop-cultural criticism should never be mixed, says zizek68 roll eyes

Jess, i suggest to avoid being "inane" you should rephrase your initial post with terms like 'objet petit a' and 'minimal difference', so that we neanderthals can sublimate our gentetically insatiable libidos into some intellectual internet cock-waving wink

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 18 2006 14:49
Quote:
Why do you think articles like this are published? Do people really believe them? Could they encourage mistrust in relationships? Is pop-psychology/biological determinism in general damaging? And what can we do about it?

1) Because Cosmo reckons they’ll sell, they reinforce the original selling point of the magazine (ie. the provision of a ready-made ‘ideal lifestyle’ within and supporting certain existing social trends/ideologies within their target demographic) and simultaneously come across as leading edge to a certain kind of reader because of their ‘risque’ presentation.
2) Yes, but not uncritically – this is a lifestyle mag after all.
3) In some undoubtedly. In others, maybe not. Depends on the relationship at hand. If you’re talking trends I’d say it probably doesn’t encourage mistrust directly but it certainly encourages further division and misunderstanding between the sexes.
4) Yes, it clouds real issues with a load of bollocks more suited to Days of Our Lives.
5) Provide alternative media and directly challenge such trash to the editors? Other than that not a lot, it’s a lifestyle mag so there’s a limit to both its scope to cause damage outside individual articles, and our ability to really influence or change it.

TBH though I agree with revol, the potential gain from challenging it is probly not great enough to warrant eating into other projects.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 14:49
Jack wrote:
cry

then pick up a copy of cosmo ffs roll eyes

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Oct 18 2006 15:04

it sells becuase life's easier when you reduce people to objects.

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Oct 18 2006 15:08
Quote:
there is a good reason I don't buy the Daily Mail

its the tricky crossword isnt it?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 18 2006 15:12

Chloe? wow that's cool. Could she poison bono too you reckon?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 15:15
newyawka wrote:
becuase life's easier when you reduce people to objects.

i bet it is! i'm starting right away wink

revol, are you sure you aren't just seeing liberalism in the way your average teenage leftist sees FASCISM!!11! ?

i mean if Jess had said 'in what way does this example of popular culture manifest the ontological void, the trauma of the Real, the ceaseless, futile pursuit of objet petit a which is infact a facet the mutual implication of subject-objects' would you say the same thing? I mean loads of people read cosmo, and to a large extent it repeats and amplifies popular prejudices to shift units, like Saii says. but i know people who have had allsorts of relationship issues around the kind of mistrust cosmo parrots/preaches, so it isn't an issue that's irrelevant to everyday life.

whether we can do anything useful about it specifically is a fair point though, the spectacle after all grows out of real alienation, rather than being it's originary cause.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 18 2006 15:26
Quote:
Actually my ex just got a job as a stylist on the U2 tour, Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia and Japan, the jammy jammy moo!

Whatever you do, don’t let your mate take any hats or pairs of trousers that are lying around, or multi-millionaire Bono will probably be a twat and sue. especially don't encourage them to take every costume available and give it local Oxfam shops...

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 15:26

touché wink

but i mean, given as two couples i know have split up over paranoia like cosmo promotes (not me before you ask wink), do you think discussing the whole spectacular gender binary thing and the real divisions it foster is relevant to everyday life?

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Oct 18 2006 15:29
revol68 wrote:
more importantly who fucking cares, the only thing worse than pop pyscholofy/evolutionary biology is the people who would try and organise around a cosmo article.

why do you have to be such a cock? I was just trying to start some discussion, and mostly I just thought it was funny. Where did I say we should 'organise' around it? Jesus christ. I remember why I stopped posting here now.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 15:32
Jess wrote:
why do you have to be such a cock?

excellent rhetorical question Jess wink

revol, where did jess say we should lobby cosmo or whatever phantasm you seem to be railing against?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 18 2006 15:40

yeah belfast stop being a nob, you're just projecting onto jess.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 18 2006 15:42
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
And what can we do about it?

Stop reading shite magazines, or look at the pretty pictures and ignore their advice.

Oh come on so what we're not allowed to shout at the news either?

Actually I heard jess stopped posting cos she started hanging out with cool people. But I guess she's moved now...

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 15:42
revol68 wrote:
fuck me

well that's just the problem isn't it tongue

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 15:44

and chomsky should stop reading the fucking press

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 18 2006 15:46

Yeah, and what you're not allowed to slag off shite music "Just don't listen to the radio/hang out in 'mainstream' places", or shite tv shows "just don't watch the 'idiot box'"?

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Oct 18 2006 15:49
Jack wrote:
I was hoping Jess was going to offer up suggestions. :(

Obviously you didn't read my post properly, you need to make sure he gets enough "strange pussy".

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 18 2006 15:52
Jess wrote:
Jack wrote:
I was hoping Jess was going to offer up suggestions. :(

Obviously you didn't read my post properly, you need to make sure he gets enough "strange pussy".

I reckon Jack would qualify as that.

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Oct 18 2006 15:54

Revol don't be a knobber. Jess has a point, I think it's really quite interesting to think about how masculinity is constructed in the mass media. She wasn't trying to organise a boycott of cosmo or any other bollocks. Yr telling her off for posting "inane" shite, but I can rememeber you getting well upset on that circumcision thread cos no-one wanted to talk about circumcision as a vehicle for constructing masculinity. I reckon stuff like this is interesting and relevant in that shit-loads of people read cosmo, and whilst no one's gonna build their entire view of gender roles from reading a magazine, there's enough patronising "common sense" "truisms" about what men are like, boys being boys and all that crap, and it's interesting to see how stuff like this is played out.

Ahem. Back to the original point then... I think articles like that (I've not read cosmo or it's ilk for years, but was an avid consumer of it from the age of about 12-17) are published for a variety of reasons, one of the most obvious ones is that Cosmo (if we take cosmo to represent that media genre) has a MASSIVE focus on making it's readers feel inadequate. Of course "your man" wants to sleep around:

1) You're not really ever gonna be enough for him
2) You know, boys are boys.

The best bit about all this "men are primal and can't possibly be expected to keep their cocks in their pants" (or, at least limit them to one woman's cavities) is that it pretty much goes against all other accepted truisms about gender. For example - women are generally the ones who are seen as "close to nature", you know, all those maternal instincts, and the hysteria and innability to control emotions, and lack of proficiency in technical knowledge and the big wide world in general. Men have apparently moved away from nature, they're past all that primal emotional stuff. Except, that is, when it comes to sex. When it comes to sex, men are somehow magically transformed into incontrollable, species reproducing raging beasts with needs and urges that can't be surpressed (you know, for the good of mankind innit) and their "sex drive" becomes this almost entirely ungovernable, alienated force that we just have to put up with.

Even if putting up with it means putting up with adultery, assault and rape. Cos you know, it's only natural, isn't it?

Yet despite all this ungovernable natural sexual energy that men can't be expected to contain, they still don't have the stigma women's "natural" tendedncies have (pesky things like jealousy, and wanting babies and that).

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Oct 18 2006 15:55

Several pother posts have appeared while I wrote that, revol's still being a knobber.

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Oct 18 2006 16:21

*resists urge to pun*

Right, so you're saying you don't think it's at all useful or even a mildly interesting way to while away a wednesday afternoon thinking about how the mass media helps to perpetuate constructed gender roles? At all?

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Oct 18 2006 16:32

Well go start that thread and stop being such a knobber?

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Oct 18 2006 16:45

So, you have nothing to respond to in any of my earlier post, either? Shall I go back to 1987?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 16:50
Jess wrote:
Jack wrote:
I was hoping Jess was going to offer up suggestions. :(

Obviously you didn't read my post properly, you need to make sure he gets enough "strange pussy".

you heard her jack, buy him one of these:

revol68 wrote:
Well maybe but considering the source of it was Jess I thought it's much more interesting to wonder why liberalism feminism is such a crock of tedious ole shit.

i haven't been here long enough to know what you're refering too, and nothing in her post gave me that impression. quick, let's all attack others for their embarrassing past politics, because we're so pure our fucking birthmarks look like the grundrisse roll eyes

back on topic ...

Zobag wrote:
Cosmo (if we take cosmo to represent that media genre) has a MASSIVE focus on making it's readers feel inadequate.

true, i could always tell when my gf was feeling down 'cos she'd come home with a copy of cosmo. damned low self-esteem feedback loops. and for the benefit of revol, discussing this is not a substitute for mass proletarian organisation, and neither is most of the inane shite i post here to wittle away the work day.

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Oct 18 2006 16:58

Ok, forget Cosmo then. I mean, you know, the whole mass readership thing is pretty much irrelevant isn't it?

zobag wrote:
The best bit about all this "men are primal and can't possibly be expected to keep their cocks in their pants" (or, at least limit them to one woman's cavities) is that it pretty much goes against all other accepted truisms about gender. For example - women are generally the ones who are seen as "close to nature", you know, all those maternal instincts, and the hysteria and innability to control emotions, and lack of proficiency in technical knowledge and the big wide world in general. Men have apparently moved away from nature, they're past all that primal emotional stuff. Except, that is, when it comes to sex. When it comes to sex, men are somehow magically transformed into incontrollable, species reproducing raging beasts with needs and urges that can't be surpressed (you know, for the good of mankind innit) and their "sex drive" becomes this almost entirely ungovernable, alienated force that we just have to put up with.

Even if putting up with it means putting up with adultery, assault and rape. Cos you know, it's only natural, isn't it?

Yet despite all this ungovernable natural sexual energy that men can't be expected to contain, they still don't have the stigma women's "natural" tendedncies have (pesky things like jealousy, and wanting babies and that)

Anything to add, oh wise and sagely intellectual one? Or discuss, or criticise?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 18 2006 16:58

go for it, last thing we'd want to do is discuss the things half the people we know read roll eyes

it's not like in dicussing pop culture critique is necessarily limited to pop psychology, as you well know, having read your way through zizek's back catalogue.