Posted by figleaf
| Tags:
Mon, 2008-06-23 00:03
Quote of the day from Holly of The Pervocracy
Cosmo suggested that to get kinky and taboo, I could wear sexy lingerie or give him an oil massage or—so very naughty—pretend we were strangers. Drew rolled up the magazine and spanked me with it.
Finally, a non-humiliating use for that @*%!#$ magazine. Because while nobody has to be kinky and taboo, if you’re going to you probably don’t want to try any direct method Cosmopolitan (or it’s insecurit-industry brethren like Details for men) tend to suggest. (I think even 50 years on Cosmo occasionally hints that woman-on-top is kinky and taboo.)
Submitted by 2255 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-06-23 03:50.
But really, even 50 or more years ago, were any of those things kinky? Improved communications have enlightened many people's sex lives but I find it hard to believe that wearing sexy lingerie was ever considered even unusual. Oil massages have only relatively recently come into my life, mainly because of the easier availability of the oils, but, while it's wonderfully sensual, how is it kinky? Who knows?
[*Exactly!* Lingerie's kinky? Massage? It's like the woman on a food forum who said her sister-in-law was a "real gourmet" because she used *French* onion soup powder in her hamburger mix. Thanks, A. --fl]
Submitted by 2255 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-06-23 17:29.
While I haven't ever read Cosmo, I would tend to think that articles like that are meant to be "safe but different" things for women with boring, out-of-touch lives.
recptcha: Arabic ROMANCE
[My concern based on reading them now and then for 30 years is they strive to *keep* women bored and out of touch. It's not a very nice magazine. Thanks, Nightfall. --fl]
Submitted by 2255 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-06-24 17:44.
Friend of mine says Cosmo is the place you can trust to write about anal sex every few months, but I don't want to even think of that today, after reading again that Details article and discussing with (another) friend who is sincerely surprised that the article makes me angry.
[Yeah, and I swear Cosmo and Details are birds of a feather with the result that men and women who most need *out* of their relationship dysfunctions instead get steered back *towards* each other. Thanks, CB. --fl]