Women's magazines

Post Reply New Topic

Recently i've been told by a female friend (not girlfriend, just a friend) that reading women's magazines like cosmopolitan could help me understand women better when looking for contact with women.

What are your experiences in this?

This is actually recommended by some PUAs as well.
I used to do it before, not so much nowadays. My experience was... varied.
If you remember to take at least half of what you find in those magazines (such as astral predictions) with a grain of salt, you can find some useful stuff.

My advice for what it's worth would be to stay well away from Cosmo... it's the female PUA equivalent. It teaches girls to see both themselves and guys as objects and how to act like the girls that most guys seem to complain about (whilst complaining about guys being b*stards too). It can give you a very twisted view on relationships.

Here's a pretty astute summary on Cracked.com: http://www.cracked.com/funny-499-cosmopolitan/

and a few articles...

http://www.cracked.com/article_19066_7- ... cosmo.html

http://www.cracked.com/article/156_7-se ... -hospital/

(I'm not being paid by that site btw )

I do read a few women's magazines tho there around the area of spiritually and holistic health. As all of them types of magazines are aimed at women

You should watch the news and read newspapers also, it will help you understand the world better.

Just kidding !

Yeah, don't do it. I read a bunch of my sisters magazines that she would get, just hoping for some variety. After a while, I came to the inevitable conclusion that the only kinds of articles in there were A) Why men are all vile, disgusting pigs and B) How to attract men. There is also the word SEX in capital letters on every cover of Casmo in history. I would glance at the covers in grocery stores (I still do this) praying and pleading that the editors changed their minds. Nothing yet. Teen 17 or vogue or whatever it's called, all the same thing.

take with a pinch of salt

The thing I notice about Cosmo is it goes on and on about sex. According to it, if you are female, you are either having sex every 10 seconds with your handsome partner while juggling a high-powered career,

or single and having sex every 10 seconds with other single males, while juggling your high powered career, eating the right diet and wearing the latest fashions.

It is little wonder that men think women have such enormously successful lovelifes when there are magazines around like Cosmopolitan.

Well, I did read some online articles from women's magazines like Cosmopolitan to get an impression what it's like.
Although some articles has some useful stuff, but with all the magazines I got the strong impression that there was a strong feministic influence through-out the texts. When googling 'Cosmopolitan feminism' I got to an article on their own site stating the influence! (link).

I got nothing against equal rights, but this is more like woman first, men second - the opposit situation isn't my favourite either. From a biological perspective, this ain't working for the majority of men and certainly not me.
The male-female relation was never about dominance but about distribution of tasks. Cultural developments determine strictness and limitation.

I need to have a talk with that friend of mine, this ain't helping to solve it (clarifies at the most).

What a delusional friend you have.

Yeaaah. Don't do that. Them Cosmolites are crazy. D:

You read through cosmo, and this was the worst bit?

FYI, feminism= equal rights. Anyone who argues that women are better needs to reread the definition.


No, it wasn't as peachy as that. There was (and still is in some areas) a strong air of 'dominance' over women by men. I'm not advocating 'punishing' modern men for that; that's just stupid, but it annoys me when people wheel out the ' we were seperate but equal' chestnut for anything where there was/is such a blatant discrepency.

Nah there was much worse stuff like the judgemental and highly opionated 'truths'. Not to talk about the suppossed 'true stories' and the pseudo-scientific.
But the feministic vibe struck me as significant, although not explicitly noted as such.




feminism isn't as linear as you picture it to be, you have everything from the men-hater to the equal rights activists.




Like I said it's the cultural development, things like tradition, religion/spirituality, history and welfare play a big role in this 'dominance'. I also do not agree with the current state of affairs concerning inequalities, but to complete cultural change so deeply ingrained takes alot of time and effort - which isn't completed by a longshot.
But what I read in the magazines is suggesting a (partial) role turning, by which it's becoming what it's trying to fight.
In theory we are separate, but equal. Only we aren't there yet in practice.

Forget the magazines. Read comedy writing by women. Maybe some Chelsea Handler. I learned learned about men by reading Dave Barry.

That was hilarious. Really! No wonder all of the women on online dating sites are so cold by the age of 35-they've destroyed ALL of the male relationships in their lives, thanks to Cosmo, and now that they're toting a string of men who have had war crime style punishments exacted on them, AND a string of unkempt, bratty, uncontrollable rugrats trailing behind them (that were created by the men before they were, ahem, *injured*), they are on Craigslist with the fake profiles from Russian credit card stealers and the 793 desperate for ANY SEX AT ALL guys in Casual Encounters (to a total of about 12 real women, 10 of who read Cosmo). Maybe they should stick with Rabbits (not an animal, they're not THAT crazy-yet).

You might get some valuable insight from the quizzes and articles but never mind the expensive clothing they advertise in there...women just like to gawk at the price....it's female morbid curiosity.