"How to stop your man from straying"
Oct 18 2006 14:30
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?
Oct 18 2006 14:34
#2
feck. arse. drink.
*grunts*
Oct 18 2006 14:37
#3
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 
Oct 18 2006 14:38
#4
well i suggest we leave it to the middle class luvvie colunmists of the Guardian supplements to discuss, fuck knows they're paid well enough for such inane shite.
Oct 18 2006 14:40
#5
you're sublimating again revol, go watch some porn.
Oct 18 2006 14:41
#6
I was hoping Jess was going to offer up suggestions. 
Oct 18 2006 14:42
#7
has your man been straying Jack?
Oct 18 2006 14:43
#8
nah i'm just fed up of all this "cultural criticism" shite, especially when it's of such an inane kind. I mean if you don't wanna read such shite don't buy Cosmo, I mean there is a good reason I don't buy the Daily Mail.
Oct 18 2006 14:47
#9
pyschology and pop-cultural criticism should never be mixed, says zizek68 
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 
Oct 18 2006 14:48
#10
Joseph K. wrote:
has your man been straying Jack?
Oct 18 2006 14:49
#11
Joseph K. wrote:
pyschology and pop-cultural criticism should never be mixed, says zizek68Jess, 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 ;)
Oct 18 2006 14:49
#12
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.
Oct 18 2006 14:49
#13
Jack wrote:
then pick up a copy of cosmo ffs
Oct 18 2006 14:50
#14
oh come on, i wouldn't mind if she had parodied the cosmo article or been funny, but it just reeked of "this is soo terrible what can we do about it" bullshit, here's an idea go read some fucking Slyvia Plath instead of Cosmo.
Oct 18 2006 14:52
#15
You don't see me whinging about Nut's projection of masculinity, I mean it's Nut's magazine for fucksake.
Oct 18 2006 14:57
#16
revol68 wrote:
You don't see me whinging about Nut's projection of masculinity, I mean it's Nut's magazine for fucksake.
Says the man who organised the banning of FHM from the newsagent on QUB campus.
Oct 18 2006 14:58
#17
likewise it would silly for me to try and do something about Jack spreading slanderous lies, I mean ffs it's Jack!
Oct 18 2006 15:02
#18
Oct 18 2006 15:04
#19
it sells becuase life's easier when you reduce people to objects.
Oct 18 2006 15:08
#20
Quote:
there is a good reason I don't buy the Daily Mail
its the tricky crossword isnt it?
Oct 18 2006 15:08
#21
Everyone knows the articles are just there to bulk up the fecking adverts and fashion shoots, not that i've ever read my ex's Cosmo, actually I did once, they quoted Foucualt, hehe.
Actually my ex just got a job as a stylist on the U2 tour, Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia and Japan, the jammy jammy moo!
Oct 18 2006 15:12
#22
Chloe? wow that's cool. Could she poison bono too you reckon?
Oct 18 2006 15:15
#23
newyawka wrote:
becuase life's easier when you reduce people to objects.
i bet it is! i'm starting right away
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.
Oct 18 2006 15:22
#24
I'd have asked exactly "what exactly are you on about?" and then asked her to expand the point into a horrendously painful analogy that would make her head explode as she tries to extrapolate a smart arse comment into a cogent position.
Actually you can do that if you want. 
Oct 18 2006 15:26
#25
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...
Oct 18 2006 15:26
#26
touché
but i mean, given as two couples i know have split up over paranoia like cosmo promotes (not me before you ask ), do you think discussing the whole spectacular gender binary thing and the real divisions it foster is relevant to everyday life?
Oct 18 2006 15:26
#27
John. wrote:
Chloe? wow that's cool. Could she poison bono too you reckon?
yeah and unfortunatley no (like it wasn't the first question I aske her!).
she's getting a thousand euros a week plus expenses and accomadation and catering is all provided, but most annoyingly she's going to fucking Japan!
Oct 18 2006 15:29
#28
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.
Oct 18 2006 15:30
#29
Joseph K. wrote:
touchébut i mean, given as two couples i know have split up over paranoia like cosmo promotes (not me before you ask
yes of course it is relevant but not if it's in terms of trying to change "Cosmo" or some such shite.
BTW all gender is spectacular
Oct 18 2006 15:30
#30
Jess wrote:
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.
I thought you stopped posting cos you were a really pish parody of a wiberal wadical feminist, no?
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.