Your "orgasm face"? Cosmo and the pornification of women
Waiting in the drugstore recently, I was startled by a glimpse of the cover of Cosmopolitan Magazine. No, it was not the display of copious cleavage, nor the breathless tone of the article titles. It was the title of one article in particular: Your Orgasm Face; What He’s Thinking When He Sees It.
As a gynecologist, I’ve had unique opportunity to view the consequences of increasing sexual openness. It appears to be a bonanza for young men, generally at the expense of young women. Men get all the benefits; women carry all the risks. Men get laid, get action, get lucky and women get pregnant, get sexually transmitted diseases, get infertile, get cervical cancer.
And all in exchange for what? Young men are almost always sexually satisfied by their relationships. Young women? Not so much … because young men are often inexperienced lovers more concerned about their own enjoyment than anything else.
The idea that women exist solely for the sexual satisfaction of men is the basis of pornography. What is surprising and depressing is that young women are being encouraged by other women to believe that they exist only for the sexual satisfaction of young men.
Pornography is the objectification of women, generally described as:
Portraying women as physical objects that can be looked at and acted upon, and failing to portray women as subjective beings with thoughts, histories, and emotions. To objectify someone, then, is to reduce someone exclusively to the level of object.
In pornography, the objectification of women is sexual. Women are physical objects that can be looked at and acted upon sexually. They have no thoughts, feelings or needs of their own.
That does not, in itself, mean that pornography is bad. As long as the viewer understands that it is fictional and unrealistic, it can be viewed as nothing more than a sexual outlet. The problem occurs when people begin to believe that it is a realistic depiction of women, and that women do exist only to satisfy the sexual needs of men and have no sexual needs of their own.
The relentless use of sexual imagery to sell products and gain attention can be blamed for giving young women the idea that their role in life is to satisfy the sexual needs of men. It is an unfortunate, and unintended consequence of sexualizing large swaths of contemporary culture. Altogether more disturbing, because it is intended and explicit, is the way that women’s magazines have encouraged women themselves to believe that their chief value is as objects for the sexual gratification of men.
There are many offenders, but Cosmopolitan Magazine tops the list, for its sheer variety and lack of subtlety, if nothing else. The cover of this months’ Cosmo includes articles on Total Body Sex, the Naked Quiz and The Trick that Attracts Hot Guys Like Crazy. But even Cosmo has reached a new low with the featured article Your Orgasm Face; What He’s Thinking When He Sees It.
As if the objectification of women in men’s magazines were not bad enough, encouraging men to believe that women exist only for their sexual pleasure, women’s magazines are emphasizing the point: Not only are your sexual needs and desires irrelevant, ladies, but you will be judged if you dare to express them. What matters about your sexual needs is not their fulfillment, just the effect that your fulfillment has on men’s enjoyment.
Cosmo reminds women that not only are they being judged for sexual attractiveness (evidently the only characteristic of concern) by breast size, weight and facial features, now they are being judged on how they look during sex. You might be pretty, you might be thin, you might be well endowed, and that will convince him to take you to bed. That’s not where it ends, though. He’s still entitled to judge your performance during sex and finding you lacking.
I don’t get it. Why do we tell young women that they are free to be soccer stars or astronauts, and then barrage them with signals that the only thing that really matters is sex? This relentless “pornification” of women violates everything we claim to believe about gender equality.
What does he think about your orgasm face? Why should any woman care? Only someone who believes that she exists for the sexual satisfaction of men would consider the question to have any relevance at all.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
aliquot
Roger Fallihee
madcelt
Norwonk
John Moore
Esther AR
Salon.com
Comments
There is nothing wrong with sexual expression. Hell, I'm a big fan of sex between consenting adults whose expectations and desires are both brought to the table equally, and satisfied mutually. But you are so on with the notion that magazines like Cosmopolitan are not advocating that kind of sexuality. The Cosmo Girl is an insipid little creature who has no idea how to meet her own needs because she is too worried about what she looks like, sounds like, smells like. In short, she's so caught up in whether she is desirable to understand that the most important thing is to be desired by someone who is worthy of what she has to offer.
And when young men find themselves so catered to, so thoroughly led to beleive that sexy is the only thing that matters, and not only that but this cartoonish, vapid version of sexy, they miss out. The core of sex is not in the display of sex parts on the outside nad the bumping and grinding between them, it is the slow striptease of the mind, the seduction of one's neurons, the explosion of one's emotions and senses. Porn shuts all that down, turns sex into "bumpin uglies." And god, who wants to do that?
Put the brain back into the front and center of sex and you get something truly astonishing, and ultimately far more pleasurable. For both women and men.
As far as young men not being able to satisfy due to inexperience, that is why we need more cougars to educate them. Hear that all you MILFs?
The same forces that motivate so many women to long for pregnancy may be at work in the processes that lead to men constantly being sexually aroused by women. Contrary to popular belief among women, by the way, no special treatment of women has to be made for men to be aroused by them. The magazine cleavage and that sort of thing helps, of course, but don’t think for a moment that arousal cannot occur under the most unlikely of circumstances.
In any case, it is obvious that the survival of the human race is at stake in the “women long to bear children” “instinct. It may not be quite so obvious, but is it not possible that that same truth holds for the forces that manifest themselves as “men tend to look at women with lust” thing?
Would the human race have survived if women, by and large, did not have a huge desire to mother offspring? Would it have survived if men didn’t have a huge desire to help as many of them as possible reach their goal? And is not sexual lust an efficient motivator toward that goal?
Women are glorified for their desires to have children—men ostracized for the “instincts” that may well be nothing more than the mirror images of those “instincts.”
With all the respect in the world, Amy, a great deal of the “you men are a bunch of sexually barbaric morons” is bullshit.
"There is nothing wrong with sexual expression. Hell, I'm a big fan of sex between consenting adults whose expectations and desires are both brought to the table equally, and satisfied mutually. But you are so on with the notion that magazines like Cosmopolitan are not advocating that kind of sexuality. The Cosmo Girl is an insipid little creature who has no idea how to meet her own needs because she is too worried about what she looks like, sounds like, smells like. In short, she's so caught up in whether she is desirable to understand that the most important thing is to be desired by someone who is worthy of what she has to offer."
Absolutely! I try to explain this to young women, but it sometimes seems like a losing battle.
Couldn't agree more with everything you've said, Amy.
Frank, I don't knock guys for being horny--it's a fact of life, and biologically driven.
I do think it's gotten pretty ridiculous when a photographer friend of mine in his 50s makes random disparaging comments about the models he sees who "still" don't wax "down there," as though it's simply unimaginable that every woman doesn't rush out to match what the fashion/porn industry is touting as a fashionable snatch right now.
Young women (and older women) have enough self-esteem and body image issues without Cosmo making it worse.
I recently blogged (on my wordpress blog) about an article in Cosmo entitled, "5 Signs He's a Rapist." Right....like it's that easy. The fact that soooooooooooooo many young women read this stuff scares me. Besides telling you that they can help you spot a rapist, they also want you to change your hair and clothes to "get the guy." It's all rather confusing and sad.
But thanks for shedding more light on this subject. I was starting to think I was the only one that though Cosmo's articles are ridiculous.
"With all the respect in the world, Amy, a great deal of the “you men are a bunch of sexually barbaric morons” is bullshit. "
But that's not what I said. My entire post is complaining that women are telling other women that men will judge them simply as sexual objects. Do some men judge women that way? Of course, but by no means all or even most. That's what makes it especially pernicious that women are telling women that they should expect to be judged as sexual objects.
"I do think it's gotten pretty ridiculous when a photographer friend of mine in his 50s makes random disparaging comments about the models he sees who "still" don't wax "down there," as though it's simply unimaginable that every woman doesn't rush out to match what the fashion/porn industry is touting as a fashionable snatch right now."
That's a very depressing sign of the times.
And VerbalRemedy, right on with the annoyance over waxing expectations.
"Young women (and older women) have enough self-esteem and body image issues without Cosmo making it worse."
You're right. Hasn't anyone learned anything from the tragedy of anorexia?
It's embarrassing.
First, I’d say that porn quite thoroughly objectifies men as well as it does women. All of the people involved are cardboard cutouts.
Second, your point about distinguishing fantasy from reality needs to be highlighted and underlined. Sex disconnected from a strong relationship always leaves an emotional scar on both women and men. Sex outside an already existing relationship always points to an emotional struggle for the people involved, and their significant others. Understanding the meaning of that is critical.
“We” don’t tell young women that they are free to be astronauts, and then tell them that only sex matters. There is no “we” that is that big. The Cosmo wing of the media is a cynical, simple-minded attempt to make money. If the editors thought they could make more money by having a focus on anything else, they would jump to it. Cosmo is like cotton candy at a traveling two-bit carnival. It’s filled with sugar, air, and probably bugs that won’t be terminal for most folks. It gets a quick buzz, but has nothing to do with really sustaining a decent life.
David Moultrup
"It's women selling women down the river in my opinion."
Yes!
"The Cosmo wing of the media is a cynical, simple-minded attempt to make money. "
Certainly we do not lack for media trying to make money in cynical, simple-minded ways. Yet I can't yet thinking that this is somehow different. It is one thing to encourage women to feel bad about their weight and then fill magazines with ads for weight loss products, but I think something else is going on when a magazine feels free to tell women that men will judge them on how they look during orgasm.
God forbid they ever ask for male "O" faces. That is not a pretty site.
Great point of view from the female perspective Doc.
rated
Sure it will be a battle taking on the vested interests who generate huge profits from this culture (see the list of advertisers), but I know that many/most women are tough enough.
Agreed. You have way too much class for that. I want to be certain that you do not think that was what I was saying. My comments were peripheral to the thrust of your thesis here—and I tried to recognize that by mentioning that I would be posting my own blog at some point on the issues.
“My entire post is complaining that women are telling other women that men will judge them simply as sexual objects. Do some men judge women that way? Of course, but by no means all or even most.”
Agree. But I suspect more men judge women as sexual objects than you might think. A thought comes to mind: I despised everything Sarah Palin stood for in the last election—and abhorred what she did to further divide us as a people. I dare to presume I am an intelligent, reasonable male. But if you think that there was never a moment where my mindset was: “Boy, I sure would like to fuck her!”—you would be very wrong.
“ That's what makes it especially pernicious that women are telling women that they should expect to be judged as sexual objects.”
They ARE going to be, Amy. Any judgments or considerations you have about that should consider the peripheral comments I made. Better not to let them kid themselves. Better for them not to be naive.
There is some irony in reading your post this morning; I just finished discussing pornography and the explicit oppression of women in my ethics classes. In your definition of pornography I believe you left out one key proviso, which is that the objectification is done in a manner that endorses and/or recommends the behavior.
Helen Longino, in a great article about pornography and oppression titled "Pornography, Oppression, and Freedom," puts forth several perspicuous arguments (as if you need really need more than one) demonstrating the psychical damage done to those who participate in pornography, particularly women.
I find her most compelling argument to be her claim that women in pornography need-indeed, must be-degraded and objectified to the furthest extent because pornography's appeal is rooted in the psychic oppression of men who see themselves as failures professionally or personally or both, and have no real power in their lives. And yet, they need to exercise power over someone or some thing (perhaps this is closer to the truth) so that they may feel some superiority, and hence control and power. These types of men are also the ones most likely to join hate groups and mistreat animals.
In Playboy centerfolds the 'stats' of the models are listed along with their 'likes' and 'dislikes'. The 'likes' are always things like puppies, or pretty sunsets. 'Dislikes' are always things like waking up early, or snoring. 'Likes' are never things like physics, or astronomy, or sixteenth-century English literature. I believe this is intentional and done to make the women appear as stupid as possible so that the man with the lowest self-esteem,or intellect, can feel superior.
There is much more that can be said about the intentional oppression of persons so that one can get some psychical charge by feeling superior.
I have raised 3 daughters so this has been a bit fearful at times and seeing enough of MySpace and Facebook is validating to your points. The serious nature of sex, as there is one, has been turned into a dangerous playground where the many sexual bullies are free to prey on young, impressionable girls who seek acceptance and likeability, willing to offer no resistance to openly sexual behaviors that could ultimately hurt their self esteem and their future relationships. Excellent post and thought provoking.
Magazines targeted at adolescent and teenage girls do the same thing--objectify girls, with articles that revolve around Him: "How to Get Him to Notice You," "How to Know What He's Thinking," "How to Tell What He Really Wants." Even when the articles counsel girls to develop their own interests in life, it seems to be with the goal of making them more appealing to boys.
A woman's sexual desire can be just as strong as or stronger than a man's, and it's insulting to have our sexuality regarded only in the light of the biological imperative of reproductive drive. To explain a woman's desire for sex by assuming that she instinctively wants/needs to reproduce is the flip side of porn: we can be mothers or we can be whores.
Not all of us want to be "glorified" for our "desires to have children," because, as Verbal Remedy pointed out in a comment on another post yesterday, some of us have chosen to remain happily childfree. (V.R., I wish I could thumbify your comment, but since I can't, kudos on the phrase "fashionable snatch.")
We are not purely creatures of biology. We have conscious minds and can make conscious choices, and as adult women, we know our own minds and our own bodies. I'm more concerned about adolescent and teenage girls who are reading the "What He Really Thinks" articles. And as Dr. Amy points out, the truly distressing thing is that we're doing this to ourselves.
A great post. I see Cosmo while on line at the market, and I always have the same reaction: Holy Crap! I remember when I was young, shortly after magazines were invented, and we thought Cosmo was daring then. It’s laughable now.
With the deepest respect for your opinion, I’d like to say a few things that take the “other side.”
I don’t see these articles as being strictly about how to “please the man.” I see them more as encouragement for woman to enjoy sexual encounters for the sex of it---which, I think, is okay. Even though I came of age right after the 60’s sexual revolution, there was still too much emphasis on tying up love, long term commitment and sex (or maybe that was just me not being able to shake my Italian/Catholic roots, don’t know). But I do know that woman can “get laid” or “get lucky.” It is possible for woman to have sex without getting pregnant (don't even get me started on this subject) and with precautions, avoid STD.
I have always thought that to be objectified required acquiescence on the part of the intended “object:” Without acquiescence, it’s simply the objectifiers “problem.” It is possible for a flirty, sexy, maybe even appearance obsessed woman to be smart and powerful and successful. It has been the case for men for years---why not so for woman?
These articles are over the top in many respects---often course corrections are too sharp---but young woman today “want it all, “ and that may not be the same “all” that the generation or two behind them had in mind.
One more thought, woman have for years complained about “clueless men” in bed. So is it strange (or wrong) that women study “how to please” techniques? As a gender, we’ve suffered the problem on one side, why want to replicate it on the other? Again, I don’t think these articles are strictly about that---but if they were, so what?
“My entire post is complaining that women are telling other women that men will judge them simply as sexual objects. Do some men judge women that way? Of course, but by no means all or even most.”
Smart women know this, really we do. The thing is, the guys that do judge women that way are so much louder than the rest of you and the media does so much catering to them, that it's easy to wonder where the good guys went sometimes.
Each of us has survived our own generations arrogance---to some extent---so will this younger generation.
This is a "think piece." - Lester Bangs "Almost Famous"
Granted, I haven't read Cosmo in about 10 years, and I was never a regular subscriber--mainly read friends' copies, but my observation was that the sex articles were not very good. Once you've read one issue of Cosmo, you've read all their sex tips. They just repeat the same sex advice over and over in different formats. Come on, people are not growing new body parts--sexologists are not discovering "new" erogenous zones each month, nor are they discovering "new" techniques for pleasuring your man.
So that they'll run out and slap down hundreds or thousands of dollars on the products that are advertised therein, to "fix" or "improve" themselves.
Magazines (not just women's magazines--ALL magazines) are pure marekting evil. The editorial content is there, by design, to stoke feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, while the ads promise an instant fix to those feelings.
Show of hands: Who bought Vamp nail polish in the late '90s because all the magazines said it was "IT"?
Maybe next they'll ask us to send them our favorite orgasim face.
When I was single, men who liked what they saw responded, and those who didn't kept their distance (and vice versa). And that's how it should be. I didn't try to alter myself to suit someone else--I respected myself enough to look for a partner who would love and appreciate who I was. That's the basic self-love we need to help young women develop.
By the way, the word cougar should only be used to describe big tawny cats that lives in the mountains.
This is an issue near and dear to my heart and I can't tell you how often I've argued with people about porn and how it for the most part misleads men but also women into how to have good or great sex, to the detriment of both genders. I have no moralistic problems with porn, hate censorship, but just wish that sexual material actually helped both genders understand women's sexuality rather than (at best) men's only.
And I completely agree that publications like Cosmo do possibly even more damage because they indoctrinate young women into believing that their sexuality is in service to men. I've been dismayed to read and hear from parents of young women how much the current "hook up" culture is predicated on the women servicing the guys without getting much out of it, not even sexual pleasure.
Sometimes I feel like feminism never existed.
Is women having "orgasms" not a positive thing? I mean, consider the alternative. I'm certainly not arguing as I haven't read the piece, but maybe it was just meant to be encouraging for women to get THEIRS and not just give...
"yeah well just keep on using me...till you use me up." - Bill Withers
The lines have blurred so much since I was a kid, it's hard to know who's old enough to know what and how much. In the 60's most magazines gave us cotton candy sex, actually more "romance" and innuendo...the hard core stuff was under the radar.
Objectification was limited to a certain "type" of woman. Playboy Bunnies. Marilyn Monroe. Wives. Sure, in the 50's and early 60's wives were supposed to be pretty faces who spent their time thinking of interesting ways to please their husbands... and not just with a new recipe for meatloaf.
Now we have the Dove campaign trying to convince us they have the best interest of our young girls' self image at heart. Oh sure, right. Their real best interest is in selling Dove products. But I give them points for at least pointing out that something's very wrong.
The only mags I read are the New Yorker and Consumer Reports ... and, sure, whatever I see on the covers while in the checkout line. I've occasionally amused myself trying to come up with skeevy, insulting, blatantly stupid headlines. I'm fairly creative, but Your Orgasm Face; What He’s Thinking When He Sees It. surpasses even my wildest imagination.
I think I might have made that face just reading the headline. And not with pleasure. Blech.
Sex Positions
Sex
Cosmo Games
Sex Tips From Guys
Horoscopes
Sex & Love
Hair
Relationships
Doesn't that say everything about what Cosmo's about?
There is nothing wrong with pointing out sexism and objectification when it is occurring. It doesn't have to turn to name-calling and shaming.
But Amy wrote about women encouraging other women to objectify themselves - she isn't really focused on men in this article. And yet you leave her with a thought that seems to suggest you feel belittled, or feel that she or other women are attempting to belittle men for desiring women. It's simply not the case. Can you see the distinction?
Perhaps its a generational thing - I think it was Bill or Steve that spoke of this earlier, elsewhere, on OS, that in the early days of feminism there was more of what you are talking about re: men being portrayed as "sexually barbaric morons". I have not thought of any man that way, though there have been occasions, certainly, when a man is exhibiting *behavior* that fits under that rubric and surely you don't object to women objecting to being treated crudely.
I'm just curious why a post about women objectifying women would make a man so defensive. Are you being blamed for something here? I am not being provocative, just honestly curious.
I think Amy makes some great points in this magazine. We as a society seem to be terrified of women having *real* control of their sexuality, so we foist this weird pornified 'embrace your objectification' on them and call it 'empowerment' when they adopt it. There has to be a better way. Unfortunately many women do not know themselves well, sexually, having spent so much time looking at themselves through the 'am I hot enough' eyes of others. Something like 30% of women do not orgasm during sex, which cannot solely be blamed on inexperienced or inattentive lover s- women do have to take responsibility for their own pleasure. It's hard to take control of something you don't fully understand yourself.
I was thinking along the same lines this morning, but not because of Cosmo. When my insomnia kicked in last night, I was flipping through the channels ... other than making $40K/week, I also found out that I needed a two piece girdle to take 4 inches off my waist and eliminate my "bra bulge". Then I was offered a make-up set that would cover my rosacia, zits, scars, wrinkles, red patches, eczema, and everything else. Then I found some cream that would make my sexual experience more "fulfilling". I guess I have about $200 to spend before anybody will be seeing my "orgasm face". We live in a twisted society ... why can't pfizer make something for that???
I once had to put up with blatant sexual harrassment from a professor who groped me at every opportunity, left obscene notes and implied to the class that *I* was doing these things to him. The school wouldn't take action, I had to endure through the class to get the grade to get my master's. Everyone thought that solution was fine. Now they wouldn't. He may still be objectifying female students but the days of being able to freely express it in an abuse of power are gone.
I had a boss who pressured me to sleep with him. The dance of refusal that kept his ego and my job intact was a daily, exhausting thing. There was no one to talk to about it - HR wouldn't do anything. My fellow employees just assumed I was sleeping with him - he made sure of that. Now, if he did such a thing, it would be much much more difficult to get away with.
These are just 2 examples of how objectification that is totally unchecked creates an hostile life environment for women.
Men are going to objectify women - and women are going to objectify men. Objectification isn't in itself a negative thing b/c for many of us when we meet an attractive person we want to date, it's all we got - we like what we see, project a bunch of positive qualities onto him/her and either start dating, or hooking up, or whatever.
But objectification that is a lens through which the other gender is always viewed, unrestrained, is never going to be a good thing. We are capable as a species of self-control, and exercising it in the name of given women and men equal opportunity to succeed at life is not a bad thing.
It's not naive to think that a woman should be able to walk through life without being made to feel humiliated over how men view her sexually. There are ways of expressing appreciation for beauty or sex appeal that don't involve crudity or diminishment of the woman to nothing but her sexual attributes. Aren't there? Is that really so stultifying and shaming?
Some great provocative bomb-throwing! But I take issue with the common-sense assumption that men have some biological drive to assist as many women as possible in the initial steps of their child-bearing aspirations.
This argument harkens back to mid-20th century paleoanthropology theory espoused by Lovejoy and others about the purported evolutionary advantages of sexual monogamy -- especially for woman -- in the evolution of our pre-modern (hominin) ancestors. In short, we are sexually monogamous now because it was an advantage to our ancestors.
Problems with this hypothesis are:
1. we aren't really sexually monogamous as a species (not even in the white-bread suburbs of the mid 20th cen.)
2. it is really easy to come up with alternate hypotheses regarding the benefits for the woman of sexual polygamy (e.g. if it is a case of needing resources gathered by others, more 'baby daddies' = more people to call on for resources)
There are problems with the testability of any explanation of evolved traits (imagined or real) since the arguments are circular: It was an advantage because it was selected for. We know that it was advantageous somehow since it exists as a trait. In fact, there are all sorts of traits that may have no benefit or disadvantage, but are simply the effects random variation and of genetic drift.
In short, the argument that men biologically are the 'bee going from flower to flower to flower' (to paraphrase _The King & I_) is scientifically unfounded, and probably unprovable.
Although to address Dr. Amy's original post, there seems to be some implied moral judgment founded in concerns for the physiological health of the woman regarding the "consequences of sexual openness" -- with all benefits going to short-term male satisfaction. Better sex education and availability of health care for all may be a more effective strategy for the prevention and treatment of sexual maladies for everyone, rather than an implied call for a return to an era of increased modesty, with the unintended consequence of then stigmatizing the very healthcare provided by Dr. Amy to sexually active women.
"I find her most compelling argument to be her claim that women in pornography need-indeed, must be-degraded and objectified to the furthest extent because pornography's appeal is rooted in the psychic oppression of men who see themselves as failures professionally or personally or both, and have no real power in their lives."
That is a very thought provoking argument. I must say, though, that I am not persuaded by the line of reasoning promoted by Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, that pornography is equal to or promotes violence against women. That's taking things a little too far.
There is a difference between objectifying women and hitting, beating or raping them. While it is true that men who do those things may be drawn to pornography, the vast majority of men (and women) who enjoy pornography would never contemplate nor tolerate violence against women.
I want to be clear that I do not object to pornography per se. As long as people understand that it is fantasy, and unrealistic fantasy, at that, pornography has its place. However, when women begin to counsel other women that they should judge themselves and allow themselves to be judge by others using the standards of pornography, we have a problem.
"It is sooo true and quite sad for so many young girls who are being used and measured by their willingness to jump into a variety of sexual escapades, often leaving them emotionally scarred, humiliated and potentially pregnant or with STD's. And the worse part of this is that they think this is normal and "everyone does it!"
In 2000 I worked for an internet start-up called iEmily. It was health website for teen girls. As part of my work, I ran a message board where girls could write in with questions, and I could offer explanations. Ten to twenty times a day, different girls would write in the with same question: My boyfriend wants (oral) sex. I don't want to do it. Should I do it anyway?
I always answered "no", and since both the questions and answers were public, it quickly became apparent that I never said yes. Despite this, the question was asked over and over again, often many times in a row.
At first I was puzzled. Was someone expecting me to say something different this time? I gradually came to understand, though, that the girls were writing specifically so that an authority figure would tell them "no" and explain why they did not have to give in to boyfriends. The rest of the world was giving them the opposite message.
First of all, I agree with you utterly, Amy. I find it so disheartening that women's magazines are helping to objectify young women instead of empowering them.
That said, I think this is a continuous trend of sexualization and objectification that has begun earlier and earlier due to marketing techniques that try to make girls into little teens, so much the better to make them pliable sex objects later in life. Just take a look at the Texas little girl pageants, for example.
We need to address the system as a whole. That's my thought. Oh, and start a write-in campaign to Cosmo. Maybe.
- es.
"Isn't some woman-to-woman education in order here? After all, the huge majority of those who buy/read COSMO are women. Shouldn't enlightened women make a greater effort to bring younger, more naive women in to the light?"
Definitely, and I hope they will.
"I don’t see these articles as being strictly about how to “please the man.” I see them more as encouragement for woman to enjoy sexual encounters for the sex of it---which, I think, is okay."
I wish that were the case, but that is certainly not what I saw as a gynecologist. A lot of women were doing things that they didn't enjoy because they believed that their partners desires were the only important ones. Among teens in particular, there is very little sexual satisfaction for girls. Sex is something they trade for companionship, social status, the having a boyfriend.
Cosmo is the worst magazine of this type, but the teen magazines are not far behind. They contain very little about women's satisfaction and a great deal about men's sexual satisfaction and women's obligation to provide it.
Look at the Cosmo cover. Almost every article is about pleasing "him."
"So, she reads Cosmo and tries to make herself look and act more attractive, becoming more insecure all the while, thus making herself less attractive and not knowing why. A bad cycle that sells magazines well."
Interesting theory. I hadn't thought about that before.
"They're really pathetic and a total waste of money."
I agree, but I fear we might be in the minority.
Amy, I enjoyed reading your post, but I think there are a few faulty premises you're overlooking here. (Full disclosure: I did not read the O-face article, as it was not available on the Cosmo website, and there is no way I'm actually going to purchase it. Not that it would matter anyway.) This might get a bit long, but it's a subject I've pondered often, and I'm still in my Honeymoon Phase with OS. Hopefully this will at least offer some reassuring perspective.
The vast majority of men, I assure you, do not use pornography as a vehicle for objectifying women, unless that object is a puzzle. Outside of the bedroom, men are stereotyped consistently as emotionally stunted, competition-obsessed problem-solvers. We don't take offense at this because, well, it's mostly true. If, say, a woman calls her husband crying because her car broke down on the way to work, he might briefly try to console her, but more likely he will be busy weighing the most efficient strategy for removing the harm, thus ending the tears and making his wife happy again. X, so Y, then Z. For some reason, quite possibly Cosmo-related, there is a popular belief among women that this default approach to life changes when we get naked; it doesn't. We know we're going to have a good time, so the event becomes almost immediately about ensuring a repeat performance by exceeding expectations. Of course there are guys who are selfish, but I'm confident that they are in the small minority.
Sex is a far more cerebral activity for men than you might imagine. "Men's" magazines such as Maxim would tell you this, were their articles not also written by women, posing as men, with an intended audience of 13-year-old boys. First, we're playing an entirely different game than our partners. Whereas women can (and should) fully indulge in every sensation, both physical and emotional, that comes with sex, men are forced by physiology to work against that indulgence, or else the party is over for everyone.
The idea that men experience less emotion during sex is incorrect. In fact, it is an abundance of emotion; it's just that that emotion is insecurity. Because of the antiquated-but-still-lingering gender roles we all take on long before the pants come off, men are rejected nearly every time they offer sex. This is illogical and frustrating, but most guys are accustomed to being told "no" before they hit high school. As such, on the rare occasion a female is kindly enough to accept, or at the very least suggest "maybe," the focus shifts entirely to performance, for several reasons. As I said, if you are completely miserable, there is almost no chance you will ever sleep with her again, and probably not anyone she knows, either. Furthermore, there are very few situations more humiliating than having to curl up, naked, flaccid, and satisfied, next to a woman you've underimpressed. We are far, far more prideful (and thus competitive) than you think. I speak only for straight men here, but every single guy you know is confident he can make you forget about every other guy who has come before him, and circumstances permitting, will be glad to attempt at literally any hour of the day.
You write toward the end of your piece about the long checklist of traits a woman must possess "to convince him to take you to bed." I call shenanigans. Oh, it's true that you have to be attractive, I can't argue against that. What qualifies as attractive, however, is not what the hacks and halfwits at Cosmo will tell you; what they're doing is reminding you that you're not Jessica Simpson, and no "good man" is ever going to want to fuck you unless you buy 2 of everything advertised in this month's issue. Need proof? Call up a guy friend you're comfortable with and ask him if you can use his computer, as is, to see the porn that he's looked at. You will find every conceivable combination of physical traits in the smut you find (the reason for this is articulated masterfully in Milan Kundera's "The Unbearable Lightness of Being"). Straight men, by and large, aren't attracted to your cup size so much as the idea that you want him, and not the guy next to him, to measure them personally. (As for the fake tits, porn actresses are missing the point: slapping a pair of softballs up there and expecting them to suddenly have songs written about them is as condescending to men as John McCain's VP pick was to women. Fake tits aren't wrong, but they're not usually right, either.)
So about that O-face. Honestly, that is probably the closest the editors have ever come to portraying males accurately, even if the articule's analysis is half-gibberish, half-incoherent. Citing again a physical advantage, women are far more adept pretending they're enjoying it if they aren't, which is utterly catastrophic for guys. It's like finding out some touchdowns didn't count. Whatever you think about your physical appearance, if he's on top of you, you're hot enough, and almost certainly he's thrilled to be there. If he senses that you're not having the absolute best lay of your life, he will work harder, with varying degrees of success. If he's making a mistake, say something. Seriously. We don't care. Say it right and we'll be glad to do damn near anything. The O-face is the most reliable performance indicator we have. He's not judging you, silly, he's judging himself. That is the fantasy appeal of porn: not only does that poor girl want you there, she REALLY wants you there, and in several positions. It's also why porn sucks; we know she's faking. I have read hundreds of articles in Cosmo speculating about how to please me sexually, and maybe one or two in the last 15 years haven't seemed thoroughly ridiculous. For me, and nearly every guy I know, it's about sharing some quality time together ruining as many linens/car interiors/household appliances as possible.
Don't worry too much about Cosmo. Women seem to enjoy flipping through the pictures, but happily even the dumbest among you is too smart to actually read that nonsense.
Thanks for your patience. Rated.
"I saw that Cosmo cover at the grocery, too. Never made it past the cleavage."
At least you didn't claim that you read it for the articles!
"I didn't try to alter myself to suit someone else--I respected myself enough to look for a partner who would love and appreciate who I was. That's the basic self-love we need to help young women develop."
When I wrote for the teen website, my mantra, which I often included in my replies, was: you deserve to be healthy. I was amazed at how surprised many girls seemed to be, particularly those who were starving or cutting themselves. They didn't think they deserved anything.
"Right now, at 16, she's really confused about her role on this planet and I'm trying like heck to make her understand that it's not up to the people who can't think beyond making a buck to determine who she is and what she's supposed to be."
I have a daughter who is 14, and we often talk about why I refuse to buy certain types of clothing for her. I want her to dress to please herself, not the boys she meets.
That said, I'm pretty sure that that's not the take Cosmo had. :-)
"I've been dismayed to read and hear from parents of young women how much the current "hook up" culture is predicated on the women servicing the guys without getting much out of it, not even sexual pleasure."
I can report, as a gynecologist, that it is shockingly prevalent.
"Would it not be more offensive if it were in an Men's Magazine?"
No. I think the most offensive part is that it is women counseling other women that this is what men want and deserve.
"I've occasionally amused myself trying to come up with skeevy, insulting, blatantly stupid headlines. I'm fairly creative, but Your Orgasm Face; What He’s Thinking When He Sees It. surpasses even my wildest imagination."
What really scares me is that every time I think I've seen everything, I'm surprised anew.
"Why do we women do that?"
I don't know. I wish understood.
"we foist this weird pornified 'embrace your objectification' on them and call it 'empowerment' when they adopt it."
Yes. Empowerment does not occur by having sex because a man wants you to do so. It occurs by making your own decisions and consulting yourself, not someone else.
"I guess I have about $200 to spend before anybody will be seeing my "orgasm face". We live in a twisted society ... why can't pfizer make something for that???"
They are probably already working on.
"there seems to be some implied moral judgment founded in concerns for the physiological health of the woman regarding the "consequences of sexual openness" -- with all benefits going to short-term male satisfaction. Better sex education and availability of health care for all may be a more effective strategy for the prevention and treatment of sexual maladies for everyone, rather than an implied call for a return to an era of increased modesty, with the unintended consequence of then stigmatizing the very healthcare provided by Dr. Amy to sexually active women."
Unfortunately, the reality of providing gyn care for young women is a never ending parade of sexually transmitted diseases, ectopic pregnancies and infertility caused by sexually transmitted diseases, abnormal cervical cells (dysplasia) and cervical cancer. So many times women have told me: if I had understood that this could have happened I wouldn't have had sex or I would have insisted her use a condom. It is unfair, but it's a fact. Casual sexual encounters pose a much greater risk to women's health than to men's health.
"I think this is a continuous trend of sexualization and objectification that has begun earlier and earlier due to marketing techniques that try to make girls into little teens, so much the better to make them pliable sex objects later in life. Just take a look at the Texas little girl pageants, for example."
Someone has even come up with a name for it: prostitots.
I have to disagree with you David. In most porn the man is out of frame and in many cases from what we can see of him, he's no where near a physical ideal like the young woman he is inevitably penetrating is. In straight porn, the camera is riveted to the woman's face and body, not the man's (because, God forbid, that would be "gay").
Porn designed to arouse, not intimidate, men.
Like you, I found the title of the article off-putting, though I only encountered it in the context of your article. I tracked down a copy, found the article, and read it (without purchasing the magazine - can't bring myself to give money to Cosmo).
You characterize the article as saying "Not only are your sexual needs and desires irrelevant, ladies, but you will be judged if you dare to express them. What matters about your sexual needs is not their fulfillment, just the effect that your fulfillment has on men’s enjoyment." That's actually pretty close to the opposite of what the article says.
Rather than telling women how to look pretty during an orgasm in order to please their partner, the article actually says (1) guys spend more time looking at your face during sex than you think; and (2) most guys say they like what they see regardless of what you think you like like; so (3) focus on having a good time, and don't worry about what you look like. In terms of specific advice, the article suggests (a) taking deep breaths, as they're supposed to aid in focusing on the woman's body; (b) looking at your partners face to see his/her response; and (c) doing whatever feels right without thinking about how it looks to your partner.
Again, I agree with many of the points you make in your post, but I'm not sure this was the right article to hold up as an example to make your point. Cosmo is still vapid trash, though.
"Sex is a far more cerebral activity for men than you might imagine."
As Sandra Miller explained better than I did, this post is not really about men and the way that they view women. It is about women teaching other women that men view them only as objects, and therefore, the should view themselves only as object.
"I'm pretty sure that that's not the take Cosmo had."
I'm pretty sure, too!
"I assure you, it's possible for young males to view women as people."
Of course! My husband and male friends did not view women as objects even when they are young. I have three young adult/teenage sons, and I've done everything in my power to make sure that they view women as people.
"That's actually pretty close to the opposite of what the article says. "
I was put off by the idea that women should even be worrying about what men think.
Um, no it doesn't. My own anecdotal evidence to the contrary aside, I'd love to see the double-blind study proving Moultrop's puritanical assertion.
pop culture representations of the 'ideal woman' or whatever are deeply sexist. they are harmful in all sorts subtle and perverse ways. and the idea that women are primarily sexual creatures is a big part of that sexist imagery. about all that i agree.
and it is certainly true that a magazine that coaches up women on how to reassure their man that he is 'the man' are very misguided. it encourages women to be more concerned with what he thinks of the sex than with whether it is actually good sex. that too, is agreed.
but are you saying that it is not sexy when your partner has an orgasm? don't women also want to know that their partner is being satisfied? it seems that this need not be a selfish act of objectification. rather, it can be a desire that she, as a subject, find satisfaction in your mutual lovemaking. guys who don't ever see the orgasm face - because their partners never have orgasms - are missing out on the good sex.
The American author Bill Bryson (who married an Englishwoman and lived in the U.K. for many years) wrote a bit about the headlines of British women's magazines in the 1970s as compared to the ones in the American magazines his mother and sisters read. Across the pond, they were things like "Save money with our money-saving button offer!", "Knit this money-saving soap-saver!", and "Summer's here--it's time for mayonnaise!", whereas the American women were reading articles with titles like "Office sex--how to get it!", "Eat your way to multiple orgasm!", and "Those disappearing rainforests: are they any good for sex?"
OK, I'm going to have to ask this, because maybe I missed something here, but did either Amy or any of the posters so far actually read the Cosmo article in question and not just the headline on the cover? Because I did, and here's the thesis in a nutshell: no matter how ridiculous you think your face might look at the moment of truth, he probably really, really likes it.
All right, confession time: I'm a subscriber to Cosmopolitan magazine and a couple other magazines of the same ilk--not because I take them seriously, but because I know myself well enough to know that I'll end up impulse-buying them anyway and it's far cheaper to just be a subscriber. I liken this rationale to my mother's wanting to quit smoking, but being honest with herself about her chances of success and therefore buying cigarettes by the carton.
I've read these magazines for years--all through high school (when I got a National Merit Scholarship), college (which I graduated from with honors), a year in the Americorps, and graduate school in English (which I finished with a 4.0). I'm not a slut, nor am I brainless, nor constantly worried about what I look, sound, or smell like. (The worrying comes from what the postman must think of me, as at one time I simultaneously subscribed to Cosmo, National Geographic, and MAD.)
Have I learned anything useful from these silly magazines over the years? Well, I learned an easy way of putting my hair in a French twist. I got a good recipe for baked chicken once. And I found out a shortcut for how to hang pictures level. (To be entirely fair, though, I think the last two tips were from Glamour and not Cosmo.)
And that's about it.
Far be it from me to claim that Cosmo and the ilk don't participate in the objectification of women, but it ain't only women that are objectified by fashion magazines. I have the interesting experience of using a laundromat run by gay men in a heavily gay neighborhood. There's always a stack of fashion and lifestyle magazines there geared specifically towards the gay male demographic. Trust me, when it comes to turning human beings into de-personalized sex objects, the women's magazines don't have a monopoly.
This is certainly one thought provoking post.
I just spent two hours doing a normally mindless work out and couldn’t get this post out of my head.
Just wanted to say, I think Sally really nailed a few points. It is all “life-style” magazines—from Cosmo to Vogue to Sports Illustrated to Women’s Health (have you seen the bodies on those women?) And one does wonder why the words “no, you are too young” have disappeared from the vocabularies of so many parents.
I really don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t have children. “Because I can’t control the culture, “ was probably reason 9 or 10 for making that choice.
I’m just saying…I have allowed myself to be objectified when it benefits me. For a long time I made my way in this world with two assets…my looks and my brains. I worked first as a corporate accountant, later as controller, then as a brand manager ---two fields that required a minimum of a BS, and preferably an MBA---which I didn’t have. I was always “in school,” taking classes at night. My first break in corporate accounting came because the controller thought I was a hot (I was 20 years old at the time)—I used by brains and ambition to parlay that for all it was worth. I got the shot at marketing in much the same way. I never slept with anyone to get ahead. But I know how I got my shot---knew it than---know it now. So, you’ve got me thinking of a post…”Objectify Away, Just Open the Freaking Door.”
When I hear people go on about “objectifying “ women, I always wonder…Did I really grow up in a world where none of the other women ever once used there looks, their femininity to get their way? Really? I find that so hard to believe. Maybe it’s true…or maybe not.
@Amy--I agree with you that women SHOULDN'T be worried about this sort of thing in the first place. But I'm betting a good many of them were, even before the article came out.
And I'm betting a good number of men worry about whether they look funny to their partners then as well.
That of course is the much longer discussion behind this cover and the comments and everything else going on re women and sex right now. All I can say is that I am glad I am not a teenager right now.
“...this post is not really about men and the way that they view women.”
Clearly. Yet you make the common misstep of popping off a couple of corkers that generalize about men:
“Men get all the benefits [of sex]; women carry all the risks. Men get laid, get action, get lucky and women get pregnant, get sexually transmitted diseases, get infertile, get cervical cancer.”
“Young men are almost always sexually satisfied by their relationships.”
I read those lines and, believe me, I didn’t see myself in them. Presenting such thoughts as received wisdom is a great strategy if you want the men who read your post to feel stereotyped and click away. You make important points. Unfortunately, as in much writing inspired by feminist sensibilities, there is at least the appearance of a subtext that drives a lot of men away before you ever get to your central argument.
"Young men are almost always sexually satisfied by their relationships. Young women? Not so much … because young men are often inexperienced lovers more concerned about their own enjoyment than anything else." How do you expect them to BECOME experience, and learn how to please different partners, without a culture of sexual openness?
"it seems that this need not be a selfish act of objectification"
That's certainly true theoretically, but considering what else is on the same cover of Cosmo, it does seem a lot like objectification.
"Trust me, when it comes to turning human beings into de-personalized sex objects, the women's magazines don't have a monopoly."
Of course, but what I find particularly objectionable about this Cosmo cover is that women are encouraging other women to believe that they should accept being objectified.
"When I hear people go on about “objectifying “ women, I always wonder…Did I really grow up in a world where none of the other women ever once used there looks, their femininity to get their way? Really? I find that so hard to believe. Maybe it’s true…or maybe not."
But don't you think there's a big difference between controlling such situations, and being encouraged to simply accept them.
"The post liberation backlash, it seems, to what seemed like a good idea at the time: a certain sexual freedom for women so that we didn't have to be called "sluts" just because we did it, too."
What troubles me, though, is that it is not about women enjoying sex, it is about women making sure that men are enjoying sex.
"I just want to know, how they actually have such a pathetic headline?"
I can only imagine the editorial meeting where they came up with that one. What others did they reject?
"young women today are taught that they need to perform for men."
That's an excellent way of framing the problem.
"Presenting such thoughts as received wisdom is a great strategy if you want the men who read your post to feel stereotyped and click away."
Those two statements are not my personal thoughts. They are factual information. It may not have been your personal experience, but it is the experience of the majority.
"Both genders are sharing some of the risks."
Not equally, not even close to equally. Sex poses MUCH greater health risks for women than for men. It's unfortunate, but it's a medical fact.
And by the way, I used to be a MILF. Now that I'm grown up, I'm a GILF.
Xxavier T.
Men's magazines have a similar fixation, just expressed in a slightly different fashion-- less sex tips, more masturbation material and tips for ACQUIRING sex. And that sort of makes sense, because guys (almost) always get off, are cool with self-stimulation, and have a harder time getting laid than most women. Women, on the other, can typically get sex when they want it but have a harder time getting *good* sex.
I'd personally rather see Cosmo put a little more focus on the female orgasm than the male-- I'm tired of sleeping with girls who are so repressed and out of touch with their bodies that they don't know how to get themselves off, but expect *me* to know how. (Not that I'm not up for a little good-natured scientific inquiry or anything)
I read it because I'm amussed by it, not because I think its intelligent. I have to admit that I’ve found myself drifting to Glamour, at least that mag has some substantial content. Anyhoo, I have never felt objectified (I don't read an article and say "oh I'm so damn imperfect." )by anything I’ve read (anyone here read Ancient Evenings by Norman Mailer?) and frankly if a woman judges herself by what she reads in a magazine, the least of her problems is what she was reading. Most of Cosmo’s readers are WOMEN, they choose to subscribe or buy it when they shop. If those readers truly felt "used", Cosmo would cease to bring in profits. (the same could be said for readers of Playboy, Penthouse, Maxium, etc, many of those readers being women as well)
No doubt Cosmo could "smart up" their presentation.
For better or worse, young men and women both worry about their sexual performance and seek to improve it. Sometimes this comes from a poor ego, sometimes it comes from a genuine desire to please the other person.
I think there has been a shift in the tone directed towards men. Heaven help the poor guy these days who, for whatever reason, leaves a woman unsatisfied.
Discussion in male-centric sources is more jocular and macho in tone, but I suspect many of the same insecurities reside underneath.
OMG, I thought I was the only adult left who still reads MAD! LOL
Last week I was at B&N with my sister and checkout was interesting. I had Mad, Glamour, Playboy and Newsweek. The guy behind the counter was trying his damnest NOT the laugh! Of course it only got worse when my sister paid for her vampire erotica!
"It appears to be a bonanza for young men, generally at the expense of young women. Men get all the benefits; women carry all the risks. Men get laid, get action, get lucky and women get pregnant, get sexually transmitted diseases, get infertile, get cervical cancer."
This is where you started off and this is wrong. This is the anchor of your objectification.
I grew up with three sisters and two mothers, anyone of them would call you to the carpet for this. Men get all the benefit?
First, the qualifier. There is no respecter of of stupidity or venality. It exhibits in equal portion whether male, female, black, white, pink, and purple.
Equal risk of STD's. Each of them got it somewhere. Equal risk of pregnancy, the courts see very clearly to support. And as to who or whom is doing the pursuit, yeah, men are just out for their own limited brain, physical pleasure only. That is an afront to me and my sisters. Wrong!
Women are just now achieving the first glimmers of true equality, full open door, go and be and do what ever you can.
And you want them to be nice and demur and PROTECTED.
THAT MAGAZINE, I"D WAGER, HAS AS MANY FEMALES ON THE STAFF OR MORE THAN MALES.
And sit there and tell me that you did not craft your title of the article for the 'grab'.
Sorry, equality is equality, you takes your chances and you take your lumps. I am a big believer in full equality.
And the thing that will always be denied men is childbirth.
Why the heck do you think we go and do and build? It is largely substitution for that one impossible lack.
You owe me an apology.
Dean
Yes, the article is vapid. I can assuredly say that, as a male, a woman's orgasm face does nothing except enhance the experience, no matter how clownish. Look, Cosmo almost always gives obvious or bad advice. But your problem with the article is that it tries to give advice AT ALL in regards to how a woman should look/act/be during intercourse. Suggesting such a prohibition is as damaging as Cosmo's frivolity. The fact is that there ARE ways women and men can better pleasure one another, and that some of these ways are concrete.
The body of information available to the public about sex as leisure is shockingly skimpy. While I appreciate that safe and respectful sex education needs to come before good sex education, the fact that porn and Cosmo have a monopoly on the latter speaks volumes about our wrongheaded attitudes toward the subject.
Believe it or not, most men care greatly about how much pleasure they give a woman -- why do you think men are so obsessed with their penis size (regardless of its importance)? In other words, we need articles about how you should look and smell during sex, but we need good ones.
"I guess I've been lucky in choosing sexual partners who seemed to appreciate my appreciation, however expressed."
I suspect that has a lot to do with your own sense of self-worth.
Saying "Sex poses MUCH greater health risks for women than for men" is hardly the equivalent of saying "men have all the fun and women pay the price," to paraphrase.
Even if you were presenting stone-cold facts with no personal interpretation whatsoever, you would still be turning off a whole lotta people with the way you construct your argument. I would suggest you read some of these posts with an open mind and a little humility.
"Sorry, Cosmo; some of us are confident enough to bring on the ugly."
Bravo!
"First of all, women's embrace of their sexuality in the modern age is not some trick that men have played on them."
Of course not. The problem is that Cosmo sends the message that female sexuality is nice, but male sexual satisfaction is more important.
"Most of Cosmo’s readers are WOMEN, they choose to subscribe or buy it when they shop."
Right, but what message are women (particularly young women) getting?
It is a "people" problem. Not a "young boys" problem. Wake up and smell the coffee!!
"For better or worse, young men and women both worry about their sexual performance and seek to improve it."
Yes, but only women are encouraged to subordinate their sexual satisfaction to that of men.
"Equal risk of STD's. Each of them got it somewhere. Equal risk of pregnancy, the courts see very clearly to support. And as to who or whom is doing the pursuit, yeah, men are just out for their own limited brain, physical pleasure only. That is an afront to me and my sisters."
No, not even close. The consequences of STDs are much more serious for women than for men. Gonorrhea in a man is an infection of the urethra easily treated with antibiotics, and rarely causing any long term problems. Gonorrhea in a woman can and often does spread up the reproductive tract into the uterus, tubes and ovaries. It can form large abscess (tubo-ovarian abscesses) that require hospitalization for IV antibiotics, and occasionally surgery to remove a tube and ovary that will not heal. Even when a mild gonorrhea infection in a woman is easily healed, it can still scar her fallopian tubes closed leading to ectopic (tubal pregnancies), and permanent infertility.
The HPV virus causes genital warts in men. It also can cause genital warts in women. In addition, it can created changes in the cells of the cervix that are pre-cancerous requiring burning or freezing the cervix to remove them. Most importantly, HPV, appears to be the main cause of cervical cancer. The changing sexual habits of women are dramatically changing the demographics of cervical cancer. It used to be almost exclusively a disease of women in their 50's or older. Now it leads to radical hysterectomies in women as young as their late 20's and sometimes it leads to death.
There is simply no comparison between the consequences of sex for women and the consequences for men.
"In Playboy centerfolds the 'stats' of the models are listed along with their 'likes' and 'dislikes'. The 'likes' are always things like puppies, or pretty sunsets. 'Dislikes' are always things like waking up early, or snoring. 'Likes' are never things like physics, or astronomy, or sixteenth-century English literature. I believe this is intentional and done to make the women appear as stupid as possible so that the man with the lowest self-esteem,or intellect, can feel superior."
There's certainly some truth here--but also its a bit more complex. So the description of one playmate indeed says that "she likes pirates, chocolate and sparkly things" (gack!) but also goes on to add in this case that she "graduated 46 out of 642 students in college so we'd say she's pretty smart" It further adds that she prefers "smart men." Another is "beauty and brains. She is a self confessed science nerd " Yet another "is quite an accomplished student. She's currently sporting a 4.0 GPA" Another is "is a world traveler studying law." And another : "She is the Director of Marketing for her company. We like a woman in charge!" Another is our "lovely librarian." Another is hoping to " earn a Phd."
The numerous pundits and commenters who delighted in fantasizing about Sarah Palin as a "sexy librarian" reveals that there's something more complex going on out there (although I'll be the first to admit that she hardly expressed a love of astronomy, phsyics, or sixteenth-century literature).
And the males who view porn:
"These types of men are also the ones most likely to join hate groups and mistreat animals."
Oops--I'm late for the meeting of my dog-kicking hate group where I'll be joined by about 85% of the rest of the population!
The answer would depend on the person reading it.
I would have little sympathy for a woman who bitches about how "abusive/objective" Playboy is, yet reads it on a monthly basis. Pathetic.
"Believe it or not, most men care greatly about how much pleasure they give a woman"
With all due respect, most men are not like you. Teenage boys usually don't care at all. Many boyfriends don't care at all. Many husbands don't care at all. Sex is often associated with physical violence against women, and women are raped with sharp objects.
If you work in the emergency room for a while, and if you routinely counsel women, you learn that many men don't care ... or worse.
Wouldn't "holding out" (on the man's side) be the most direct form of sexual satisfaction subordination there is? Never mind all of the emotional and physical abuse men suffer in their obsession to please the opposite sex. Do women sometimes abuse their power over men in this regard? Of course.
While women do suffer more of the adverse physical affects of intercourse (pregnancy being the most notable), let's face it -- this is a problem that affects both sexes; you shouldn't draw such a harsh line between the two.
I'm sure I've cracked up the B&N folks a time or two as well.
My personal funniest/most embarrassing moment in this vein came in the security line at Heathrow Airport. I had been studying abroad and had spent some time between the end of the school term and heading back home backpacking and hosteling around England and Scotland. If you've ever stayed in cheap hostels, you quickly learn that a roll of duct tape, a couple of bungee cords, and a handful of clothespins are indispensible, so I had those in my backpack. I'd also picked up along the way a copy of a book called "Sexual Life in England, 1600-Present." It cost two pounds and was a reprint of a translation of some German guy's 1930s-era doctoral thesis about what unbelieveable perverts the English were--all told, a highly, highly entertaining read.
Anyway, I was one of the people whose bags were randomly checked. The combination of duct tape, rope, clothespins, and a book about the history of bondage/beastiality/scat fetish etc. caused the very bored security officer (this was long before 9/11) to crack up and call over his buddies from the other security lines, so they could all page through my sex book as I stood there wanting to disappear.
All humor lies in juxtaposition.
I strongly suspect you are wasting your time.
"you would still be turning off a whole lotta people with the way you construct your argument."
Honestly, I am shocked at the way that men are responding to the article. They seem to think that it is about them. It's not. It's about women counseling other women to let men objectify them.
I am well aware that there are many men who do not objectify women. I am married to one, and I raised three others. But after many years of working in hospitals and counseling women, particularly young women, I know that objectification and its consequences are real and serious problems.
So it appears we agree? Cosmo might want to devote a little more ink to women's own satisfaction?
"With all due respect, most men are not like you. Teenage boys usually don't care at all. Many boyfriends don't care at all. Many husbands don't care at all. "
Ever consider that perhaps in some cases that men don't "care "because they and their partners have communication problems?
"Sex is often associated with physical violence against women, and women are raped with sharp objects."
In unhealthy, violent relationships, sure. How did you get from "men not caring about their partners pleasure" to "sex and violence overlap"?
Huge differance between the two.
People read those tips for a reason (not to avoid being raped, but to improve the sex they're having). If the ACCURATE, truly helpful and heartening tips they are so hungry for were readily and enjoyably available, they would not resort to looking for them in Cosmo.
Someone--somewhere between a doctor treating the ailing and a tabloid meant for entertainment--needs to break through our mass embarrassment and help turn okay sex to good, and delicious sex to ecstasy.
I'll go out on a limb here: I bet most of the men who read this post have more in common with your husband and sons than with the women-objectifying violence perpetrators we all abhor. I might even have the temerity to speculate that they are sympathetic to feminist principles.
Then they read a few unfortunate sentences at the beginning of your post, statements that purport to present objective fact, statements that generalize about men. They are men. And they probably feel that these statements are utterly false as far as they are concerned. They know you cannot be writing about them, because they don’t fit the description you just offered. Yet you present your “facts” as though they were generally applicable. You have immediately lost credibility with this portion of your audience. You have also probably irritated quite a few who suffered their own torments (undoubtedly far less severe than women’s) in coming to terms with their own sexuality.
Now my purpose here is not to say “Oh poor us - you don’t see us,” a complaint that pales in the face of the many degradations faced by women that you present so forcefully. My only purpose was to tell you that you (and a whole lot of other writers) undercut yourselves by alienating a portion of your audience with generalities about males that, universally applied, are utterly false and rather despicable. I am constantly amazed by the failure of many feminist writers to grasp the irony in this dynamic.
Men have feelings, you know. To act as if they don’t might be construed as sexist.
1. Amy, I never came away with the impression that you actually read the article in question. Reading between the lines, it looks like you had an immediate and visceral reaction to the cover teaser, then projected your own assumptions on the article itself.
2. "And all in exchange for what? Young men are almost always sexually satisfied by their relationships. Young women? Not so much … because young men are often inexperienced lovers more concerned about their own enjoyment than anything else."
This is just egregiously...stupid. Young men are, statistically speaking, likely to be considerably more 'experienced' sexually than young women. But that's really beside the point. Sex is a two person game, and if both participants aren't active and communicative, it's probably going to go badly, at least for one of the participants. You complain about the objectification of women, but seem to have no qualms with treating men as mere bestowers of orgasms who are somehow solely to blame if their partner feels "unsatisfied."
In my own experience as a "young man," I found more than a few "young women" to be fairly non-communicative about sex. I know it may surprise you to learn this, but, like most "young men," I was neither a mind reader nor a sexual athlete with the stamina of a bull. If you don't tell me what you like (especially when I, you know, ASK), chances are, I'm not going to be able to guess. And, since this is, after all, rather physically demanding work on my part, after a while (I'm no marathon runner - past the 20 minute point it's starting to get more painful then pleasurable), there's a better than even chance that I'm just going to cut my losses and bust a nut - or just quit and give up. Does that make me inconsiderate, or just mortal like everyone else?
I think there are some social issues that you're leaving unaddressed, and some definite contradictions in what our society is telling women (and men). I suspect a lot of the dissatisfaction young women express with sex is a product of some of the unrealistic expectations about sex that women have been sold on.
Most sex is not going to be a mindblowing spiritual experience. It's not going to be multiorgasmic magic in the forest. He's probably not going to intuitively know everything you want the second you want it. But so much of the sexually oriented material and advice directed at young women treats exceptional sex as if it were the baseline for "good sex." Then we're surprised when women find the actual article to be a letdown?
Then there are the contradictory expectations made [i]of[/i] women. We expect young women to be sexual beings, but we still expect them to be coy about it (see, "If you don't tell me, you're probably not getting off tonight"). We (as a society) expect women to feel free and uninhibited, without actually having too much sex (or sex that is too 'freaky'), leaving many young women without much experience of their own, or even much in the way of an idea what they like (see above).
3. I suspect the sexual satisfaction expressed in surveys by young men overstates the actual feelings of satisfaction they may have. Our society looks a lot more freely on women expressing less than total satisfaction with sex. We sort of expect men to just be happy to get sex, period.
"Men have feelings, you know. To act as if they don’t might be construed as sexist. "
So men aren't just walking sex toys for women? (Kidding)
YES, dismissing a man's feelings as if they are trivial is just as sexist as doing the same thing to a woman. But heaven forbid one even mentions the mere possibility of sexism against men, (ya know, because it doesn't happen, "rollseyes")
great point Dan! :)
Yours post is thoughtful and insightful. Thanks.
When boob jobs moved from porn, to playboy, to baywatch, and mainstreamed - men started telling me I would be perfect if I got some.
When shaving your snatch moved from porn, to playboy, and then mainstream, men started hinting that "ooh - wouldn't it feel great if you were bare!"
When denuded models appeared in playboy and they had to do something about visible labia or change their rating, they began photoshopping it out, or tucking, or the women had themselves cut . . . at that point I said to myself, Oh! my labia is no longer in style! I'm not "clamshell"!
And when I was in line to check out my yogurt and grapes and read the headlines on Cosmo, I thought Shit! Now I have to worry about that???!!!!
No wonder so few women are having orgasms!
These type of magasines are truely harmful to women if they are reading them for information. And any woman who makes her $$ for selling other women out? Bad bad girl!! But you guys, you got to own up to your part in this - you kind of push for us to follow some sort of porny fashion.
Just stop it. Both genders.
And women and girls? Love yourself! You are unique and who the hell wants to be a conformist? Or have sex with someone who wants one?
"When boob jobs moved from porn, to playboy, to baywatch, and mainstreamed - men started telling me I would be perfect if I got some. When shaving your snatch moved from porn, to playboy, and then mainstream, men started hinting that "ooh - wouldn't it feel great if you were bare!"
Anyone who would push thier partner to do something "just to follow the herd" is a moron and so is the person that PUTS UP WITH IT. Btw, did these men actually tell you "you'd be "perfect" if you had X,YZ or did they say "I have a preference toward X,Y,Z"
There is a differance. :)
"And when I was in line to check out my yogurt and grapes and read the headlines on Cosmo, I thought Shit! Now I have to worry about that???!!!! "
Actually, you DON'T have to worry about it. I read Cosmo, but I don't judge my "bed skills, beauty or self worth" by what I read in that mag. It doesn't threaten or offend me.
"No wonder so few women are having orgasms!"
Blaming mags like "Cosmo" for womens lack of O's is a cop out. Its easier to blame the media than the actual issue isn't? Women (and Men) have crappy, unfulfilling sex because they cannot or won't communicate with their partners, lack confidence to communicate period or are with unreceptive partners (among other issues) Granted, Mags like Cosmo are not helping the situation, but women would still be having sexual issues etc even if Cosmo and its ilk didn't exsist.
"These type of magasines are truely harmful to women if they are reading them for information. And any woman who makes her $$ for selling other women out?"
I'm sure many women read them for entertainment, I do. As far as them being "harmful", that's in the eye in the reader, truly.
"But you guys, you got to own up to your part in this - you kind of push for us to follow some sort of porny fashion. "
That is the biggest line of crap I've heard all year. :) You mean to say that the thousands of women who CHOOSE to get waxed are being "pressured" by their partners? No doubt there are men who won't even consider going to bed with a woman who doesn't shave or wax . . . but you know what, that problem lays at the feet of those men, not women.
Any women who truly are being pressured into doing things like that are half-wits for putting up with that kind of controling behavoir in the first place, and that is very telling of the woman and her partner.
"We" aren't the ones telling young women that the only thing that matters is sex. The people telling women that all that matters is sex are just trying to sell them things, and they don't care if women play soccer or are astronauts, so long as they buy.
"When boob jobs moved from porn, to playboy, to baywatch, and mainstreamed - men started telling me I would be perfect if I got some.
When shaving your snatch moved from porn, to playboy, and then mainstream, men started hinting that "ooh - wouldn't it feel great if you were bare!"
When denuded models appeared in playboy and they had to do something about visible labia or change their rating, they began photoshopping it out, or tucking, or the women had themselves cut . . . at that point I said to myself, Oh! my labia is no longer in style! I'm not "clamshell"!
And when I was in line to check out my yogurt and grapes and read the headlines on Cosmo, I thought Shit! Now I have to worry about that???!!!!
No wonder so few women are having orgasms!"
Yes. Exactly.
As a general matter, it seems that the people (almost all men) objecting to my thesis are making three claims, all factually inaccurate:
1. Popular culture does not influence values, so it doesn't matter what's on the cover of Cosmo.
2. Men and women have the same response and the same enjoyment of sex in general and the "pornification" of women in particular.
3. Men and women bear the risks of sex equally.
As far as #1 is concerned, we are all well aware that popular culture has a significant influence on people.
I death with #3 above. I find it rather remarkable that so many men literally have no idea that women face far greater risks, far more often than men.
Getting back to #2, let's look at a world wide review of sexual attitudes among young people age 15-24. In 2006, the Lance published Factors that shape young people's sexual behavior: systematic review. The authors reviewed and analyze 268 separate studies on the topic. The authors found:
"The research shows us that, worldwide, not only is sexual behaviour strongly shaped by social forces, but those forces are surprisingly similar in different settings, with variations of the extent to which each theme is present rather than of kinds of themes. For example, women's sexual freedom is universally restricted compared with men's. The exact nature of what is deemed inappropriate and the penalties for transgression—from verbal censure to “honour killings”, a practice in which a family member kills a female relative as punishment for sexual behaviour considered to have brought “dishonour” to the family—vary both within and between societies."
The authors identified 7 themes that combine to shape the sexual behavior of teens and young adults. Many of them are relevant to this discussion, but I want to call your attention to one in particular:
"Theme 4: Gender stereotypes are crucial in determining social expectations and behaviour
All the societies studied had strikingly similar expectations of men's and women's behaviour. Men are expected to be highly heterosexually active, and women chaste—women's virginity at marriage often has high social value. Vaginal penetration is perceived to be important in determining masculinity, and marks the transition from boyhood to manhood. Men are expected to seek physical pleasure, but women desiring sex can be branded “loose” or “cheap”. Where romantic love is expected to precede marriage, sex for young women must be linked to romance, and they are expected to be “swept off their feet” into sexual intercourse, in a way that is not logical, planned, or rational. Men, on the other hand, may scheme and plot to obtain sex, for example, by deceiving women into thinking the relationship is a serious one when it is not. Paradoxically, despite the stigmatising effect for women in carrying condoms or using other contraception, women, not men, are generally considered responsible for pregnancy prevention."
The key point is this: The expectations for men and women, and the expectations of men and women, regarding sexual behavior are very different and those differences are mediated by societal values and popular culture.
I was shocked! But Grandmother, was thoughtful for a moment and then replied, "No, we always had State Farm."
: )
(Credit where credit is due: I did not write that wonderful gem of a joke. It's been in circulation a while. Whoever did write it first is a genius!)
Cheers!
Andy A
And, obviously, no woman has ever complained about a man's beard or chest hair...
I've had women that have told me they simply prefer receiving cunnilingus to vaginal penetration, which is fine with me. But I do ask that they shave or keep it trimmed in return, not out of aesthetic preference, but simply because there are more hygienic ways to floss. I'd hardly call that unreasonable.
Generalizing is bad argument form. I'm sure we've had both selfish and giving partners of both genders. Let's not generalize and stereotype people to bolster our arguments. Because it doesn't.
The crux of your argument is the objectification of women and the concern that women are taught that men must be 'satisfied' during sex without any concern for making sure that they themselves are satisfied. You don't need to make that point by insulting random, mythical men living off on the Fox New Island of "some people" and "many say."
Otherwise, it's a good post. It's totally true that women are objectified often. What needs to be discussed now, I think, are ways to prevent this objectification and to teach our daughters that women should enjoy sex and that part of the sexual experience is both partners having a good time, whatever that might mean for both of them.
OK I’m going to bite on this…at me own peril.
Though your article has merits it is nonetheless a losing argument in an already uptight society. Everybody knows Cosmo is a tabloid sex guide and treats it as such just like the National Enquirer or even the New York Post. To be fair, these articles are entertainment and no more harmful than the endless hours women spend religiously watching “Passions” or reading romance novels…both of which exploit men.
Do you suppose we would be having this conversation in Europe? I would argue that such pontification on sex actually perpetuates the notion that sex is dirty and should only be practiced by responsible adults in a moral manner.
Lets be honest men are simple, weak and yes VISUAL creatures who respond to crackers in the shape of women. Women know this, understand the P.O.P. and abuse this power from the first moment they realize they have “it”. And yet there is always an educated “principled” woman ready to perpetuate the victim hood of women and throw water on our pursuit of the holy lands.
So whereas I get your point and agree with the media silliness I reject the idea that young women are meat being abused on a systemic level because of it. And I would further add that your clinical visualizations of corrupted vagina ruined my lunch.
But for those of you that are wondering what we are thinking when we see your “O” face here’s my take;
If you dig your claws into my back, your eyes lock onto mine like a panther ready to pounce and you clench your jaw…I’m thinking you’re close, if I cum before you explode you are probably going to punch me in the mouth.
If you close your eyes, throw your head back and put your hand over my mouth…I’m wondering if you’re fucking Brad Pitt or George Clooney or both.
If you’re crying…I’m thinking either Daddy is back in the room or you think you LOVE me after our second date.
And if you’re biting the pillow…I’m thinking thank God I took that Viagra!
In closing I think we can all agree that women like sex just as much as men, have become nearly as aggressive as men and like the attention they get from men, which is reflected in our media.
The media tells these young women that it's okay to go out and have sex, "just for the sex of it," as one poster put it. But people who research these things are finding that very young women are NOT enjoying sex as much as their male counterparts. And, as Amy pointed out, they are suffering consequences that the men do not have to deal with.
My own impression when I was high school and college age was certainly NOT that the girls who had multiple partners were having a wonderful time. I was always shocked at the number of girls I knew who admitted to feeling forced into sex (usually while drunk at a party). I accompanied someone once to get the results of her HIV test (thankfully turned out to be negative). It's not moralizing to accept the fact that sex can have serious consequences, and that these are worse for women.
I also am deeply in favor of sexual freedom for the single folks among us. The rest of us have to figure out how such things fit with the vows we have made with our significant others. Most of the time it seems to me that we don't have any actual freedom to express ourselves sexually without projecting alot of societal expectations and mores upon ourselves and our partners. That lack of freedom drives us into our intellect and psychological mechanisms.
But as a grandmother now, formerly a very open person sexually, before becoming an openly monogamous wife, I knew quite a few men and went through about twenty years of weight changes and aging before marrying my beloved and becoming his one and only. I learned a lot about myself through those years of sex with different partners and I learned some things about men that 6079SmithW shares clearly in his post, and I think are actually quite useful in moving away from self-pornification and into full, joyous sexual self-expression and life well-lived.
Orgasm face? Geeze, did everyone involved have a great experience? Creative, full self expression in all areas of life make it possible to be strong, smart and imaginative about everything a woman wants to do in her life.
I think that at some point we have to stop using everything we don't like, and don't want, as an argument for being victimized. We are not teaching people to be fully alive, fully awake and conscious to the possible in life itself. Pornification is simply one more expression of self-imposed distance between the actual delightful, dangerous and challenging experience possible and the individual herself. Porn is intellectualizing a pretense. It's like going to a fine restaurant and eating the menu upon arrival rather than selecting from the options available and staying to savor the meal.
“ In other words, for whom are women being encouraged to look sexy? Men, of course!!.”
Yeah, wanting to look attractive is just so evil and disempowering. Time to burn our bra’s again!
Most of those “offending” articles offer tips and little hints, they’re NOT implying that you have to look XYZ, just giving tips so that women can work with what they have.
“But what's really disturbing is that Cosmo and the rest still insist on calling sex "dirty" and "nasty" and "naughty"...in other words, if women get into it, they're being "dirty" confirming what I myself call the "Women Are Whores" theme that has dominated western civilization for centuries.”
WOW, talk about projection! In case you haven’t noticed, the context that Cosmo uses is actually POSITIVE! While they seem to recycle a lot of stuff, most of the “sex related” articles I’ve read in there are pretty sex positive. Sex can be a lot of things, warm, sensual, spiritual, animalistic, funny, . . . and YES, dirty, nasty and naughty! Does that mean the women who think sex can be some or all of the above, are whores? NO. I have to be really honest here and say yes, I read Cosmo for the trashy sex articles, same reasons I also read Playboy and Penthouse forum. Mags like Cosmo and Glamour encourage women to actually take responsibility for their own pleasure. Nothing like sexual confidence to ruin a relationship, eh? Are these mags perfect, FAR FROM.
“but also at fault are the unthinking (and so disappointing to me!! women who still chase men”
Women who are in happy, stable relationships are “unthinking and disappointing” to you? That is sad.
How many people who have responsed to the OP , have actually read the article in question?
Anyone? :)
"Another point: I used to teach in the elementary and middle schools as a substitute. Over the years, I saw girls at 10 years old who had their hands up and eagerly did their work. Those same girls became totally stupid at 12. In one instance, during a Halloween party, a couple of girls chained themselves to boys and followed them around in a submissive manner. Horrible."
In my experience as a gynecologist, I counseled a lot of young women who were ambitious educationally and professional, but really believed that if a man took them out to dinner, they "owed" him sex. I also dealt with a lot of young girls who would not hesitate to drop to their knees and perform oral sex if they thought it would make them popular.
So many girls and women simply did not recognize that they had the right to say no, and that there was no other reason to say yes besides wanting to have sex.
Girls and women need to understand that they have as much right to control the terms of sex as men.
"But what's really disturbing is that Cosmo and the rest still insist on calling sex "dirty" and "nasty" and "naughty"...in other words, if women get into it, they're being "dirty" confirming what I myself call the "Women Are Whores" theme that has dominated western civilization for centuries"
Agreed. I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could look at this cover of Cosmo and think that it encourages female sexual enjoyment. It encourages female sexual availability, period.
"My own impression when I was high school and college age was certainly NOT that the girls who had multiple partners were having a wonderful time. I was always shocked at the number of girls I knew who admitted to feeling forced into sex (usually while drunk at a party)."
I can't begin to count the number of women who told me that they wish they had waited to begin sexual activity, and I never met a single woman who complained that she should have started earlier.
"Everybody knows Cosmo is a tabloid sex guide"
Neither you nor I would ever take anything written in Cosmo seriously, but many girls and women do. Think about it: neither you nor I would buy anything advertised on television informercials, but they are on the air (at tremendous cost) because a significant number of people believe them and buy the product.
Second, Cosmo is not a guide for female sexual satisfaction, it is a guide for what women need to do so that men will be sexually satisfied. There is a big difference.
"I think we can all agree that women like sex just as much as men, have become nearly as aggressive as men and like the attention they get from men, which is reflected in our media."
As a gynecologist I can tell you that that is utterly false. Many women are having sex as an obligation, not as a form of satisfaction. There is a lot of misery out there, and plastic surgery to "improve" female genitalia and to make vaginas tighter is being undertaken in an effort to sexually please men, not women.
There were always women who unselfconsciously enjoyed sex, and the proportion of women who do so is probably higher today. However, it defies what we know about women and men across all cultural and economic strata to imagine that there is anything like sexual equality today.
Any response to odetteroulette? And I don't mean telling her/him how much you agree with the fourth paragraph, either.
I don't know, my theory about Cosmo is that it's only wrong in the hands of the inexperienced. A young girl developing her first impressions of sex shouldn't look to something with advertisements in it. I wasn't one of those sixteen year olds who "waited." Hell, I probably thought of sex in a much more profane way than most guys did, but I knew that you never walk into a room alone with a man that doesn't respect you. Seemed like common sense. (Though, I suppose knowing what "respect" looks like is a little harder, especially given the presence of magazines like Cosmo).
I am willing to believe a lot of what you are saying but you provide little to no evidence for some of your sweeping generalizations.
It is factual that the physical consequences of sex are more severe for women, and in your job as a gynecologist, you are in a position to witness those consequences. However, it is not factual that young men are not interested in pleasing their sexual partners. It is not factual that young men do not feel a social pressure to perform. Or at least, you don't provide any evidence for those "facts."
While this cover of Cosmopolitan magazine seems to treat women as sexual objects over on Cosmo's web site you'll see articles on getting pleasure out of sex. Over at Maxim, you'll see pieces on providing it.
I understand you had a visceral reaction to the cover but the negative reaction you've received from some male commenters is likely because you went beyond criticizing this particular cover to blanket statements about how men feel and behave without evidence for those statements.
That said, I do not normally mind Cosmo, as long as I and the women I am around know to take it with a grain of salt (which I do, and my friends do, as well). Sometimes it can be... interesting, and sometimes downright bad, but it and other fashion magazines do *seem* to have good intentions. They just need to work on execution.
"As a gynecologist I can tell you that that is utterly false. Many women are having sex as an obligation, not as a form of satisfaction. There is a lot of misery out there, and plastic surgery to "improve" female genitalia and to make vaginas tighter is being undertaken in an effort to sexually please men, not women."
I find distasteful both the kind of surgery you mention here and the use of this example as a norm. Dr. Amy, you've strayed way off true, here. I have lived a few years and had a few male friends (that's understatement, by the way), and I have never once heard a single man express interest in a woman having this kind of procedure. If it's epidemic that men are demanding this, please correct me with data. My experience is anecdotal only.
Otherwise, I'd stop doubling down on how bad men are (Here, essentially: "They require women to have painful surgery, to please them."), and revise your premise. I think this post is way off base.
Assist me to discover
Why you who would not hurt a mouse
Can torture so your lover
Dear Amy
How many young girls you think have read Elizabeth Barrett Browning? How many of them even know who she is? The answer is scandalous. Even worse, if girls read her poems they would not understand. The meaning, to them, is foreign.
Mainstream has been demonizing romantic love for decades. Parents, especially mothers, are telling their daughters there is no such thing as love. When you take away romantic love from young girls what is left? The answer is sex. She will do anything, take anything off, and accentuates her sexual assets any way she can.
Courting used to be an art. It catered to a complex female psyche/ego. A boy/man had to work hard on his appearance, learn how to dance, write love letters, and even match (color coordinate) his clothes. All he has to do now is pull up in a BMW and treat the girl like shit.
Neither pornography nor Cosmopolitan is the problem. Cosmopolitan is very mainstream, very American, and has no sinister agenda. Cosmopolitan is simply giving young girls EXACTLY what they want. Incidentally, the magazine cover on your post is very simple. It says, “This is how you show tits.”
The key to understanding the problem is the answer to the following question. The only thing Paris Hilton has ever done in her life is a terrible (even by porn standards) porn flick on the internet. The question is WHY do young girls admire, even revere Paris Hilton?
Finally, I have a question. Is it true that serious complications of STDs, like PID and cervical cancer are directly related to the NUMBER of sexual partners? If so, this could be a very valuable piece of information for young girls.
A few weeks prior to Halloween, I was horrified at an insert in the Sunday paper - an entire catalogue of overtly sexy costumes for preteen girls - all of the standards were there: the sexy-nurse, the sexy-maid, the sexy-harlot, etc. complete with fishnet stockings and corsettes.
I am no prude, and don't actively ban media to protect my boys (the other is 11) - and instead opt to directly address the mixed and damaging messages, putting them into context and exposing their misrepresentation.
This one was nearly impossible to explain away, why it is adults want to overly-sexualize children for profits.
This is epidemic. The media and industry both need to be held accountable for perpetuating this damaging message.
My wife addressed these issues in an essay on her blog "Location of Contestation":
http://locationofcontestation.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/virgin-mother-whore-the-impossible-triangle-of-modern-femininity-2/
while you make some valid arguments, I think you have mainly succeeded in just whipping people up into an unreasonable frenzy based on ONE article, sweeping generalizations, and a repeated assertion that you are an expert by starting nearly every phrase with "in my experience as as a gynecologist".
While your experience as a doctor may be vaild, you are working with a skewed sample. Your sample is one that is self-selected due to medical issues they are having. How many people are you seeing that are able to read those articles (or ignore them altogether) who suffer absolutely no ill effects, low self esteem etc.
Your phrase "In my experience as a gynecologist..." and holding that as a representative sample is like saying "in my experience as an exterminator... most houses are infested with termites" or "In my role as a Fox pundit, most people think Obama is a muslim who pals around with terrorists."
I think what several of the male readers here ("in my experience as a reader of the male's letters") are objecting to your piece is that you are putting yourself out there as an expert and presenting your article as fact. The reality is that it is opinion presented as fact which makes it intellectually dishonest.
Just my humble opinion.
"I think you have mainly succeeded in just whipping people up into an unreasonable frenzy ..."
They've whipped themselves into a frenzy by making a critical mistake. For some reason, they think that this post and discussion is about THEM. Rather than discussing the issue of women's magazines encouraging other women to believe that sexually pleasing men is the highest form of female expression, they've wrenched the thead onto an entirely different path: discussing themselves and their feelings ... about women, about having feelings, and about being shocked, shocked that anyone might dare think that men are not always the kind, considerate and consummately skilled lovers they imagine themselves to be.
The mere fact that an article about objectifying women can be turned into a festival of men feeling unappreciated tells us something about the relative importance of women's feelings, needs and desires.
Some men need to get a grip: It's not all about you.
My God that's rich! I'm still laughing...
I thank you for your comments…but of course I can’t leave it alone.
Maybe you should rewrite this article with an editorial hand as a woman not a doctor, leave out the blanket statements about men as wolves and discuss the celebration of sex rather than the horrors.
There are just as many promiscuous, irresponsible and sexually adventurous young women as young men. They transmit many of the same sexual diseases to men as they receive and they inflict as much sexual insecurity on men as they receive.
For many young men their teenage years were nothing more than a “bonanza” of rejection from young women rather than pussy galore. And if they were lucky enough to taste the promise land were left frustrated by young women who had never explored their vaginas and hadn’t figured out what made their clit scream. Most of the guys I knew as a young man worked their fingers to the bone and suffered from lockjaw trying to please their girl.
Young women also spend endless hours spreading the details of their adventures with the entire female race thus raising the performance bar for all men.
Lets be brutally honest here men and women are BOTH insecure about their bodies, sex and performance. Men are getting pecks, penis enlargement and Viagra subscriptions at an alarming rate to feel more attractive to women.
And one could easily make an argument for the objectification of men. Women have their own form of porn…it’s called passions of the heart, fantasy and George Clooney. Yes it’s more subtle and discreet but no less destructive to men. Many women have that one man they would have sex with outside of marriage given the opportunity…like Brad Pitt.
Look nobody starts off as a rock star in bed, sex is a clumsy deal learned on the job…and like it or not on television, movies, magazines etc.
You wrote;
"There is nothing wrong with sexual expression. Hell, I'm a big fan of sex between consenting adults whose expectations and desires are both brought to the table equally, and satisfied mutually."
First of all if a woman hit me with this line the biggest boobs and tightest vagina couldn’t keep me in the room, the relationship or the state…This sounds like a contract, plastic gloves and a sterile room.
And if this is where you want to get you still have to get from “yuck” to “fuck me” somehow and it’s not from a book.
Your point is true, the media sells sex but that doesn’t mean you have to buy everything you see. Freedom of expression is not going away so my message is teach your children well, send them into the world with the tools to put things in context and perspective.
"There are just as many promiscuous, irresponsible and sexually adventurous young women as young men. They transmit many of the same sexual diseases to men as they receive and they inflict as much sexual insecurity on men as they receive."
No, absolutely not. You can keep saying it, but it won't make it true.
Part of the reason why women have such a difficult time is that many men appear to be totally unaware of the reality of different expectations and different consequences for women. These are not trivial differences, so there is no excuse for not being aware of them.
I invite you to present any documentation for your claims. Perhaps the exercise of looking for and failing to find any evidence for them will educate you that your claim is nothing more than woefully misbegotten, wishful thinking.
“But what's really disturbing is that Cosmo and the rest still insist on calling sex "dirty" and "nasty" and "naughty"...in other words, if women get into it, they're being "dirty" confirming what I myself call the "Women Are Whores" theme that has dominated western civilization for centuries.”
I don't get this. Every sexual experience is different ... even with the same partner (every, single time). There's cuddly, romantic, hold-me-til-morning sex. There's I'm-doing-this, but-I'd-rather-watch-the-daily-show sex. There's quick sex, boring sex, morning sex, make-up sex ... but the dirty, nasty, naughty sex is by far the most fun and the one I'm the happiest to show up for. I think that may be and is probably true for the millions of young women who not only grab Cosmo in the check-out line, but the ones who subscribe to it year after year after year.
If defining your personal "sexiness" as naughty or dirty is your style, so be it. Who are we to judge.
And the world may live by the theory that "Women are Whores", but most women don't and women are the ones buying the magazine ~ so I'm missing the connection. I think the mission of Cosmo is to say that women can be anything they want to be ... even dirty and nasty in the sack. I think it's a more common truth that women are taught by society that they can't be those things because of moral implications ... maybe Cosmo gives some women the freedom to be what they feel ... and what's wrong with that?
No publication is for everyone ... clearly ... but, what's wrong with a magazine for women who that confirms, not that women are whores, but that a woman be who she wants to be, sexually, and that there's a place for HER in the world.
I'm not being argumentative, it's just a thought.
Also, don't look at my avatar while reading this ... you won't be able to have fun sex for a month!!!
-Women are "pornified".
-Young men care only about their own pleasure and are a source of disease.
-Young women have different expectations and consequences. More important expectations and consequences.
-You must back up your arguments with trial data and scholarly research, while others do not have to meet that burden of proof.
-You are a man, so you cannot understand and you must not resist the consensus wisdom.
Now, finally, are we clear Harry? Don't make me tell you again.
what confident woman here hasn't asked herself the same question about her orgasm face? wondered how she looks during sex? or does asking and wondering about those things make you less woman and more "object" ...
just thinking out loud ...
This has degenerated into male bashing…and it sucks big time.
I am a decent, intelligent, empathetic male human being…and I am as strong an advocate for women’s rights as any women I know. And quite honestly, except for a few boors, most of the guys I know have just as strong feelings that the females among us have been unfairly given the short end of the stick for way, way too long.
Most of us are as anxious to see women liberated from the bullshit unfairly screwing with the. We are, most of us, “on your side” so to speak.
This constant anti-men horseshit so evident in this thread that paints us as cretins just infuriates me.
All this said, despite the fact that although I AM a decent, intelligent, empathetic human being concerned with the rights of women…I DO OBJECTIFY WOMEN IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER EVERY GODDAM DAY.
It is in my nature! It is the nature of every man. As much as it is in the nature of a scorpion to sting, even though to the consternation of the frog in the legend…it is in my nature to objectify women. They turn me on—often my dick gets hard when I least expect it to.
I think every man is, to some degree or another, in the same boat.
Amy says her husband and sons do not.
I think she is wrong.
But if she is right—it is because her husband and sons are abnormal…because goddam near every man on this planet does it. It is in our nature.
The problem is not that we do it—THE PROBLEM IS THAT PEOPLE LIKE AMY AND YOU OTHERS POSTING HERE are telling other women that there is something wrong with it.
There is no more wrong with it than with a woman who goes to extremes to get pregnant.
If you all would get that through your fucking concrete skulls, the world would have one less thing unnecessarily separating one group of humans from another.
There is always a certain sector or enclave of females, especially, who have that Puritanical, hard-eyed, pursed-lips disapproving attitude toward sex, any sex, but especially sex outside of marriage, or sex between young people who are into a no-strings-attached way of relating to each other (booty calls, f*ck-buddies, etc.).
I call this enclave of we're-just-going-to-pretend-that-we're-all-born-without-genitals, AKA the-only-acceptable-position-for-sex-is-missionary, AKA the-chronic-spoilers-of-the-fun-herd, the "Sandy Vagina Club", or SVC.
(That is not a reference to anyone who might happen to have the first name "Sandy". It refers to the stuff found on beaches - and coincidentally, in other places after you've had sex on a beach.)
My mother belongs to this club, and I've never been able to figure out how she can be such a prude after having had eight children. When in the company of her, her mother, or any other female member of that side of the family, I and my four sisters had to go along with the PC behavior du jour, never mentioning s-e-x or b-o-y-s or m-e-n, and we were to avoid saying anything remotely funny or salacious about any good-looking guy we might happen to see. Of course, when in each other's company absent the ubiquitous SVC, all bets were off.
OS is no different. There are those here who are card-carrying members of the SVC, and woe to anyone who questions their opinions and declarations. They, as individuals and as a group, really need to grow a sense of humor, because everyone knows the best sex involves not only open-mindedness, but also laughter and acceptance.
And another thing: It's my personal opinion that any woman who thinks her husband and grown sons NEVER indulge in enjoyable objectification of women and salacious appreciation of a well-delineated womanly shape, there are three possible reasons: she's in denial, they've got her completely fooled, or they've had all their manliness beaten out of them by the family's charter member of the SVC.
And you know what? If there's something on a magazine cover that doesn't resonate with you, the easiest and most peace of mind-producing thing to do might be to just let it go and move on.
Not to say I don't objectify women, I do sometimes, like most men. But women objectify men as well these days, and they objectify each other.
Oh, I have contracted STD's from women, so that part of your analysis is flawed, STD's are spread both ways. Gon of the throat is terrible btw.
For all the women out there apparently left unsatsfied by sex, try communicating what you want to your lover. It will greatly improve things. Men tell women what they want, why shouldn't women do the same.
One last thing, Cosmopolitan is a ridiculous magazine, and I think the people that read it have issues. I am sure there are a wide varitey of women's literature out there that doesn't objectify women. Get over it and if you don't like it, don't buy it.
Once again thank you for the comments...but I feel like you're shoving that Harvard education down my throat as a way to avoid stepping outside of your clinical analysis.
On what planet do women have "different" expectations of men or are men less insecure about appearance, being attractive to women or sexual performance? Who are these women you speak of who are so victimized...Age, Martial Status, Health etc??
That said, I'm not sure how one would research all of the bitter women who feel obligated to put out and are looking for an adult to have sex with. Self esteem, lack of confidence and rotten choices in men are personal problems that should not be thrust upon the entire male race.
I have spoken to several confident women over the past few days since you wrote this article and they all agree with your main point but all disagree with the wide spread systemic victimization of vagina.
Yes there are some women who feel pressured into sex and shallow assholes who have no regard for women but that doesn't mean the entire male race lacks respect and propagates pornography in women.
Yes some of us want that "Lady in the living room" and "Whore in the bedroom" but that doesn't always mean boob jobs or vaginal rejuvenation...sometimes it means a partner who is a freak in the sack.
What I think your clinical analysis is missing is the growing number of women who suffer from a lack of desire who are taking testosterone....women who have NEVER had an orgasm or who can only orgasm one way...women who don't take care of themselves and expect men to accept that....
Point is that there are too many factors to consider when determining sexual insecurities and.... no matter how much you say it men are not always to blame.
Not to throw water on your argument but I know far more "hot" women who have no problems with men getting plastic surgery than "average" women trying to measure up.
And though I don't know any that have had vagina work I'm wondering if this surgery improves the sexual experience for women. It's hard for me to imagine a sane woman going through this, as you describe horrific experience just so her man can have a better time without some selfish benefit.
Amy it's been fun
I should also say that I agree that women are objectified, but everyone is objectified and made to feel imperfect so corporate america can sell us useless crap. I am an overweight hairy guy with chipped teeth and a bunch of nasty scars. If the media is correct I am ugly. But I get women all the time because I like talking and having conversation about stuff besides sports. Not all men are pigs, look at me, the women I have slept with are now some of my closest friends. Sex can be good for everyone involved is all I am saying.
It exists and is profitable world-wide (!!!) because women buy it.
"Why should any woman care?", indeed.
Sure, it may be trashy, that's why reading it is FUN.
"and I think the people that read it have issues."
LMAO! What about men that read Hustler, do they have issues? :)
Amy:
"Some men need to get a grip: It's not all about you."
I could say the same thing to alot of women as well!
An honest and refreshing post, thank you!!!!! I shot beer out my nose laughing so hard!
Thanks for putting yourself out there!
The Venus Butterfly is a sexual technique and there is also a vibe named after it. :)
I objectify women in some form every goddamn day!
Even my Gay male friends objectify women in some form every goddamn day.
Hell most of my female friends objectify women in some form every goddamn day.
Like Frank said...it's the way we were built...no excuses.
:) If you would rather not post them "here", send me a message, I'll be happy to answer any ?'s
:D
LOL! Fair enough!
I mistaked Hustler for Penthouse Forum (which actually is "readable" :) . . . . .My Bad! )
My husbands reads PF and I don't feel inscure or offended . . .that kind of thing just doesn't threaten me. :)
That hurt so much.
At least answer my medical question.
Cosmo is not about or for men. It is all intragender bullshit. Insecure older women writie it and insecure young women eat it up like pablum.
Men don't read cosmopolitan and neither do mature women.
This article is seriously out of touch with the modern generation, much like Helen Gurley Brown, who is in her late 70's or early 80's . Her ideas about being a woman are prehistoric. A fresh generation of women too young to know better every few years is the only ting keeping this rag on the stands.
But just a little conversation with people under 18 who are not your kids will clue you in that they aren't buying the hype. The things they really are dealing with every day would curl your hair. Cosmo and the dinosaur it rode in on are old hat.
Not to mention, as you said, most women can't achieve an orgasm with their partners. With that said frankly if he cares about you having an orgasm I don't think he's going to care about your expression as long as you have one. Sadly many guys are only concerned about their own sexual release...tsk tsk tsk.
I never understood the market for magazine like Cosmo. They have the astrology quiz for the future right? THAT MAKES NO SENSE...I don't get it at all. Then again I read things like Women's Health and Fitness, The Economist...well really everything but the news rags...which I include Cosmo in
The current pornification of so many aspects of our culture is very concerning. We've made great progress in the way that women are portrayed, but, clearly, we still have a long way to go.
That gasp of surprise, a sensory rush, the tingly feeling all over your body, those subsequent devilish grins: There's nothing more exhilarating than adding a dash of spice to your lust life. Because sex, even when it's already pretty damn good, is just one of those things that you can keep making better. What's really thrilling is how simple it can be to electrify your bedroom bond and take things from basic sizzle to burning-up-the-sheets sensational.
Ready to sprinkle some sexy little passion presents into your nights and afternoons (and, of course, don't forget the mornings)? Then start reading, because here's Redbook's list of 101 treats to try on your soon-to-be-very-grateful guy.
Thank you redbook for: a down home holiday, "green" make-up options, and especially for this little madlib beauty:
54. Write this on a note card: "I'm lusting for your ____. I want you to take my ____ and ____ all over it with your _____." Pass it to him and ask him to fill it out any way he wants.
Cosmo isn't the problem ... clearly a signal has been sent that there is an enormous market for dirty, nasty, and naughty ... I'd say "this ain't your mom's magazine" ... but ... it is.
Women from ages 15 to 35, and beyond in many cases, place a strong emphasis on "getting a man." Quite often this project dominates a young woman's every waking moment, or so it seems. For so long as this is true, "pleasing your man" will be the focus of these women's thinking.
You cannot have a balanced aproach to self-development and self-esteem for so long as there exists this untoward focus on landing the right man.
Many of women's disabilities proceed from this focus. Cosmo is just cashing in on this phenomenon. They did not make it so.
I wouldn't be spamming you guys with it if I didn't think it was the most important blog entry in the world.
Not so Salon ,where they reduce a gifted and classy historic First lady to a body part, just in case any women thought that a fancy University degree and executive job somehow made her better than any other ho..
"At least with Cosmo - its all up front about what you're getting.
Not so Salon ,where they reduce a gifted and classy historic First lady to a body part, just in case any women thought that a fancy University degree and executive job somehow made her better than any other ho.."
I'm blown away that they didn't think the article was disrespectful. Women, particularly women of color, have fought to long to be recognized as intelligent and accomplished, and no sooner do we have an African-American first lady, and everyone starts discussing her body.
PLEASE ask the writers of Harlequin Romance novels to stop objectifying men on the cover too. K?