I love Cosmopolitan Magazine, I really do. Where else can you find so much information on how to be an unpaid prostitute?
Founder Helen Gurley Brown intended Cosmo to be sexually liberating for its women readers, a feminist sexual manifesto. The Cosmo of 2009 has evolved to extol the benefits of women being unpaid sex slaves. How did we get from there to here?
In many ways, Cosmo has simply reflected changing attitudes toward sex. Originally meant to demonstrate to women that there was more to sex than satisfying a husband, Cosmo has turned a full 180 degrees to demonstrate that there is nothing more to sex than satisfying a boyfriend. At least in the presumably repressed early 1960’s sex promised a husband, children, and lifelong economic support. Now sex promises nothing more than an evening’s activity, that, if done the Cosmo way, will leave the man satisfied and the woman happy that she satisfied the man. So much for feminism.
The ideal Cosmo sexual encounter is Erica Jong’s “zipless fuck.” In her 1973 book, Fear of Flying, Jong described the zipless fuck.
The zipless fuck is absolutely pure. It is free of ulterior motives. There is no power game. The man is not "taking" and the woman is not "giving." … No one is trying to prove anything or get anything out of anyone. The zipless fuck is the purest thing there is.
Sex without strings. The original “friends with benefits.” Jong has said that she meant the zipless fuck as an expression of feminism: sex for no other reason than the protagonists wanted to have sex. But people often forget that Jong said of the zipless fuck: “And it is rarer than the unicorn.” Or that Jong’s heroine did not feel liberated by her sexual relationship with a man other than her husband.
Even the protypical zipless fuck did not work out as planned. According to reviewer Christina Nehring, writing in The Atlantic:
But here’s an irony: Fear of Flying demonstrates the unavailability of the zipless fuck. Far from being an inspirational story (as it is routinely billed) of a woman’s escape from a dead marriage and discovery of erotic pleasure and independence, it’s the tale of a woman who ditches her husband only to find in the arms of a lover first impotence and frustration, then heartbreak and abandonment. The end of the novel has Jong’s protagonist returning ruefully to her spouse …
Cosmo seems to have missed the news that sex without strings is not all it’s cracked up to be. Moreover, Cosmo appears to define “sex without strings” as “without strings for the man.” Cosmo is all about “catching” a man, but the underlying assumption is that men don’t want to be tied down. Therefore, in order to have a boyfriend, or even a casual sexual encounter, Cosmo instructs women to sublimate any needs and desires that they may have.
The April 2009 issue is a case in point. The cover article, Just Do This on Date #1 (and he’s yours), is basically a compendium of “relationship tips” that involve emphasizing that “he” has no obligations to you. It advises not to tell him too much about yourself (TMI is a sexual turnoff) and not to text him simply because you’ve had sex; sure he had sex with you, but it’s texting that implies a more serious commitment.
Another cover article, What Guys Crave After Sex, advises acting like nothing more than an unpaid prostitute: compliment him, bring him a drink of water because he might be thirsty from his heroic performance. Most importantly, let him know that you’ve got to leave soon. That lets him know you aren’t foolish enough to believe that the fact that he had sex with you means that he wants to be with you.
Cosmo is dismally similar to 1950’s attitudes about sex. It’s a woman’s job to “put out” for her husband, whether it serves her needs or not. That was her part of the bargain; she provided sex in exchange for children and economic security. Then there was the prostitute. It was her job (literally) to “put out” for the customer in exchange for money. The Cosmo 2009 attitude toward sex is that it’s a woman’s job to “put out” for a man. And what does a woman get in exchange? Nothing of course. Merely hinting that she might have needs is enough to drive any man away.
Cosmo was founded by a woman, but it’s difficult to believe that it wasn’t founded by a man whose ideal of womanhood was the star of a porno movie: always available, always sexually satisfied, never demanding anything other than more sex. That view of women, the view espoused by Cosmo, is profoundly misogynistic. Women are nothing more than sex toys. They may have thoughts, feelings and needs for interaction other than sex, but they should be sure to keep that to themselves.
The zipless fuck doesn’t exist, as even Erica Jong’s heroine found out. Women don’t want or need sex without strings. Too bad the folks at Cosmo have not yet figured that out.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MissingK8
aliquot
Roger Fallihee
madcelt
Norwonk
John Moore
Salon.com
Comments
Shot in the dark here: maybe it has something to do with the uncertain economic times? Some kind of weird reversion to more primitive attitudes , so-called evolutionary "imperatives" to procure a mate for basic survival & safety needs? Certainly not consciously; it's all dressed up in the the vulgar trappings of our ...unrefined...culture. But the sexual revolution happened in prosperous times, no?
The zipless fuck certainly doesn't sound satisfying, except at a physical level. And even that is questionable: there's performance anxiety even if the participants are "non-dominating" types. It ignores all the cultural, personal---human, in other words---connotations of sex. Yuck.
Nicely written. Jim.rated
"maybe it has something to do with the uncertain economic times?"
It's certainly possible. That explanation would make me feel better than the one I have been thinking about: that Helen Gurley Brown's notion of sexual liberation for women was too radical to last, and has been transmuted to nothing more than the sexual availability of women.
You make the same mistake as Cosmo, sex is not one size fits all. Why do you assume that no woman would want sex solely for physical enjoyment. I'm only guessing, but I bet more than one woman in the world is independent enough to just want to get laid occasionally without the strings of a relationship. On the other hand, I can't quite comprehend why anyone would read Cosmo. It's so bourgeoisie. :)
WCD I don't think Dr. Amy thinks women can't engage in consensual sex just for the fun of it. Her point is, Cosmo is NOT actually promoting that. It pretends to, but in fact, is promoting the opposite w/ all it's language about catching a guy, keeping him guessing, keeping him coming back for more, making him want you in spite of his presumed natural proclivity to not want to be in a relationship when the sex is easy and free.
The truly hilarious thing about Cosmo is that it has it all wrong about guys. It promotes an insecure young woman's idea of what a guy wants. Most guys are turned off by Cosmo, turned off by women who read Cosmo, and prefer women who are sexually secure. Cosmo teaches the insecure how to *seem* secure, while increasing the insecurity tenfold (and then selling the products that will fix or cure the insecurity).
If a woman wants to understand what men what and how men thing about women, it would probably be better to start with Esquire.
But since glossy mags are mostly invested in the business of selling us something - products, ideas of ourselves that lead to the purchase of products - the real way to learn what men want is to be yourself, and then observe how the men you actually like respond to you. But that doesn't sell products - and in fact de-emphasizes consumption as the answer to problems of love and relationships, so is not an idea you'll ever find in the pages of Cosmo.
I prefered Memoir of an Ex Prom Queen as an accurate take on the trap women put themselves in when they define themselves by how a man feels about them.
Seems pretty inclusive to me. I think I've poked Amy in the ribs often enough she knows that under all else I have great respect for her thoughts and enjoy her way with words.
I stopped reading this months ago, it was getting to the point where there was only one or two articles that were even worth reading. Go figure . . .perhaps I've matured over the past year, who knows.
"That view of women, the view espoused by Cosmo, is profoundly misogynistic. Women are nothing more than sex toys. They may have thoughts, feelings and needs for interaction other than sex, but they should be sure to keep that to themselves."
Cosmo is nothing more than a cultural mirror, in the generation of Girls Gone Wild and "fame by crotch shot" . . .why are people surprised by this? Unfortunatly, if Cosmo suddenly reverted back to the way it was in the begining, it would fail.
At least Glamour has some substance. (although its slipping in the same direction as Cosmo)
"Why do you assume that no woman would want sex solely for physical enjoyment."
The problem with Cosmo is not that it assumes that women wouldn't want sex solely for physical enjoyment, the problem is that Cosmo doesn't think that women's wants and needs are relevant at all. Its "relationship advice" is all about what men want.
"Her point is, Cosmo is NOT actually promoting that. It pretends to, but in fact, is promoting the opposite w/ all it's language about catching a guy, keeping him guessing, keeping him coming back for more, making him want you in spite of his presumed natural proclivity to not want to be in a relationship when the sex is easy and free."
Thanks. That is the point I am trying to make.
Glad to see you are on the case.
It is a formula but it seems to work for you. It really does not matter what day or post I comment using the first two sentences. They always seem to apply.
Go Judging Amy.
Here’s something to consider about women’s magazines in general. You can’t really advertise beauty products, diets, or other problem solving devices without first creating a general dissatisfaction within the readers themselves.
Magazines and advertisers need problems to solve. In the 50s one of the problems to be solved was how to be a better homemaker. Lots of devices and products were advertised to help women run a household. A woman’s femininity was tied to her ability to run a household. When the feminist movement started to free women from that anxiety, the focus shifted. Seems to me it’s been replaced by body-image and sexual anxiety. The new problem to be helped is how to look and act to catch a man.
Agreed. There's something really quite unsettling about the manipulation involved. Cosmo pretty much encourages young women to be inauthentic. That's the biggest cheat of all to themselves and consequently it has nothing to do with sex.
"Seems to me it’s been replaced by body-image and sexual anxiety. The new problem to be helped is how to look and act to catch a man."
Agreed. In addition, the meaning of "catch" has been changing. In the 1950's, "catch" meant have a romantic relationship, preferably one that would end in marriage. Now "catch" means get him to sleep with you.
If Cosmo were really promoting the zipless fuck, the magazine would emphasize women's sexual satisfaction, and have precious little to say on what men want. Instead, the entire magazine seems to be about what men want, which according to Cosmo, is sex without strings.
"Cosmo pretty much encourages young women to be inauthentic."
Exactly. It encourages young women to be whatever they perceive the man of the moment might want, and the woman's needs and desires be damned.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/cosmopolitan_institute_completes
Great post!
Rick
As for Cosmo, it is indeed a pointless magazine. But many women do occasionally, I'm certain, like the idea of a zipless fuck, that is, sex without strings. I really think the women are in it for the relationship only is outdated as well.
Dr. Amy, I respect what you bring to the salon, thank you.
People have sex for lots of reasons. I find it sad that straight men (some? most? I don't know the percentage) think that the biggest reason women have sex is for their own enjoyment. I think that a lot of straight women (some? most? I don't know the percentage) have sex for various reasons (shelter, power, food, new shoes, revenge, boredom, because-I-can) other than self-fulfillment.
Sorry. And she fakes her orgasms, too. So there.
There ain't nothing wrong with wanting a marriage or at least a love relationship to go with the sex. It's probably what most women want, and in the end, what most men do as well. In a time and place where being a lifelong bachelor is not a financial or social burden, somehow 9 out of 10 men marry at least once anyway.
The problem isn't women who just want the sex, or men who just want the sex, or women who want the love to go with it, or men who want the love to go with it. The problem is the idea that "women want this/men want that", and people of both sexes being unwilling to be upfront about their intentions, and it no longer being as socially respectable for women to say, "Hey, I like sex too, but this is what I want to go along with it, and I'm willing to walk away if I don't. I'll find someone who can give me both those things. You ain't the only person on the planet earth with a penis."
That, combined with Hef's Playboy Philosophy, which in the course of a single decade managed to change in the popular imagination getting married from something a boy needed to do to prove his manhood into the ultimate in emasculation, and you've now got a society where its expected that men will flee even the most trivial of commitments (such as texting the morning after) and that women need to use trickery to get what they want. Apparently their mothers never told them that if you try to use sex to get love, it won't work, and that it's impossible to really love someone long-term whom you don't respect (and how can you respect someone stupid enough to fall for your tricks?)
Side note: It's interesting to me at that near the end of "Fear of Flying" Jong's heroine is given the real-world opportunity to indulge her perfect zipless-fuck fantasy--that of "strangers on a train"--and to her surprise, she's not turned on, but frightened and repulsed.
But then, that fantasy wasn't about sex so much as it was about being free of being defined and defining herself primarily as someone's daughter or wife even when she was traveling alone and anonymously. It's a dated novel, but there's a lot more going on in it than the "zipless fuck" that people remember.
"The objectification of sex and women made a comeback in the time of Brittany Spears."
And Cosmo appears to be one of the leading proponents.
"She likes sex but doesn't want the commitment."
That's fine. Then the "zipless fuck" is meeting her needs. I object to the fact that Cosmo presents it as the male ideal and encourages women to do what men want, and not what they might want.
"And she fakes her orgasms, too."
I wonder if Cosmo advises that, too.
"it no longer being as socially respectable for women to say, "Hey, I like sex too, but this is what I want to go along with it, and I'm willing to walk away if I don't. I'll find someone who can give me both those things. You ain't the only person on the planet earth with a penis."
Well said!
Cosmo's definition of liberated must have been written by a couple of frat boys. Girls play games to catch boys. Boys don't want commitment or responsibility and are happy with girls who put out without expecting anything in the way of a commitment.
Now on the other hand women want real substance and real men accept and desire meaning and responsibility. The problem is COSMO and other popular medias want to keep everyone boys and girls forever. I guess you can sell a lot more beauty supplies to insecure girls than women and toys to boys.
The problem with zipper less sex is in time it becomes meaningless sex. I have worked with young adults who are burned out on sex by the time they are in their 20s and just crave some real relationships, but have no tools. COSMO is telling them to play the same teen girl games to "trick" some man/boy into thinking beyond their pricks. It just is not going to happen if boys are equally not growing up either.
I invite you to take a look at the satirical red-herring I have posted on my blog, entitled "Can Sex-work Save Mt. Vernon?"
So hilarious, so right on. How I hate Cosmo! I never read the thing, but every so often I see it sitting on a table somewhere. Probably in the doctor's office, which is where you probably read yours, you poor thing. I think Cosmo is sending women backwards about a thousand years when even Celtic goddesses had more power than they say we do.
If the term "women" includes 18 to 28 year old females, I'll most certainly disagree. With all due respect, how can you speak for that generation of women?
http://sexandtheivy.com/
http://myspace.com/sashagrey
The times they are a'changin' ...
"If the term "women" includes 18 to 28 year old females, I'll most certainly disagree."
If women wanted sex without strings, Cosmo wouldn't need to admonish them repeatedly that they should be very careful not to let on that they might want anything other than sex without strings.
Says you. Be careful when you make such a broad (pun intended) generalization based on your own perspective.
I hate Cosmo for it's base tone and idiotic subject matter. But based on my own experience and observation, I believe that human sexuality is as varied as the human race. There are so many men and women out there with so many different attitudes about sex. And I am grateful that your standards (and mine) are not everyone's.
OK, yes, but while that sort of misguided instruction is (obviously) targeted at the girls who aren't interested in NSA sex, it doesn't necessarily mean that all women are uninterested. I am friends (platonic) with women who are VERY interested in NSA sex, and believe it or not, they are not whores, they are not unsure of themselves. They. Just. Like. To. Have. Sex. Because. It. Is. Fun.
Very. Fun.
To be honest, they're probably a lot more sure of themselves than the guys they bring home. I'm just saying ... don't you think you made a sweeping generalization here? It's the Sex & the City generation I'm talking about. Like I tried to show with links in the previous post ... the Lena Chens, the Diablo Codys, the Sasha Greys ... these kinds of personalities are very real nowadays. And this is just the beginning ... wait until you get a load of the next generation's sex life ... lucky kids.
rated.
And a few more... I read that book back in the 70's. I don't think it really contributed much to the discussion.
"It's not about being a woman; it's about doing a man."
That's great! It should be their slogan. Maybe they could even put it on a T-shirt.
The only part of that book that I remember is when she got her period and has no tampax and so she must continually wad up toilet paper and shove it in her crotch.
Of course women can have enjoyable sex without making long term plans and asking carefully cloaked questions inquiring about his genetic history.
Of the 15 women I have slept with who were either just friends or acquaintances, 14 of them later expressed the desire to be more than friends. Some of them said they only said they wanted a "no-strings" arrangement because that's what I said.
I'm not going to sit here and say that it is impossible for a woman to want a "zipless fuck." Just that, in my experience, the women I've been with have said they wanted no-strings sex because that's what they thought I wanted to hear.
In short, the kind of sex that doesn't actually exist in the real world.
I will take children and economic security over a one time cash payment and I will take a one time cash payment over 'nothing' any day! A few years ago at the farmer's market, another vendor kept telling me he was looking for 'sex with no commitment' and did I know anyone! I politely informed him that 'sex with no commitment' was a fee for service industry.
But I would go a step further and assert that Birth Control plays a HUGE role in the life of the Cosmowoman. You can't have commitment free sex without being sure that doing so won't leave you with a rather large (ie lifetime) commitment to a sweet baby! I wish that I could say that every Cosmowoman uses condoms, because then you could be sure that it wouldn't leave you with a commitment to Herpes either, but I am afraid men everywhere wage a quiet campaign against 'the condom' and the mentality advocated by Cosmo suggests that they would inconvenience your partner too much anyway. I suspect many unmarried women in casual relationships rely on synthetic estrogen pills or IUDs. :? Hence the spread of HPV, Herpes etc. I seriously think there is something about the mindset that disfavors condoms and promotes Birth Control that is exclusively the woman's responsibility (and health sacrifice, both in side effects and sexual safety!)
I am wondering if you found this in your practice. Did you find many unmarried women having casual encounters insisting on Condoms every time?
I may be the only other woman on OS who reads Cosmo as faithfully as you do, but I find it entertaining. There are a lot of 'please your man' articles, but there are also pieces about female orgasms, female masturbation, and advice to young women about protecting themselves from stalking and date rape. I don't think the magazine should be taken as a straight faced advice manual, but there are articles that do not concern training for unpaid prostitution.
I really like your blog, by the way.
"But I would go a step further and assert that Birth Control plays a HUGE role in the life of the Cosmowoman. You can't have commitment free sex without being sure that doing so won't leave you with a rather large (ie lifetime) commitment to a sweet baby! I wish that I could say that every Cosmowoman uses condoms, because then you could be sure that it wouldn't leave you with a commitment to Herpes either, but I am afraid men everywhere wage a quiet campaign against 'the condom' and the mentality advocated by Cosmo suggests that they would inconvenience your partner too much anyway."
That's a pretty accurate portrayal of the results of casual, promiscuous sex.
"Did you find many unmarried women having casual encounters insisting on Condoms every time?"
Certainly not. If everyone used condoms faithfully, gynecologists would have very little work (no STD, no genital warts, no abnormal cervical cells, etc.)
"there are articles that do not concern training for unpaid prostitution."
Sure. Some of those articles are interesting, but most are about what is "wrong" with your body and how to fix it. Of course, a lot of women's magazines are like that.
You know what else is mind-numbingly repetitive? Baby and parenthood magazines that are given out at the doctor's office.
These magazines are designed to sell products that no one really needs and wouldn't want but for advertising. The content is designed to subtly sell products and the advertising is designed to blatantly sell products.
Cosmo sells insecurity to sell products. No one with half a brain should be surprised or outraged by this.
And Fear of Flying was a stupid novel about a stupid selfish woman.
I think your obvious bias is addling your perceptions. This post has classic misandry written all over it. Hate-The-Whore and Sexual Freedom = Male-Serving Slut is alive and well in the 2009-version liberal female.
***As an aside: of course I intensely disagree with you on your post but I must say (before you shred me with your radical-feminist dogma) you have one helluva blog here. Kudos on the hard work!
OK- back to business...
When I mentioned to a friend, a well-known professional book reviewer, he consoled me by saying, "Ugh. . . she's the Miss Piggy of American literature."
It worked.