The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

25 April 2004

50 ways to scare a woman

Now I happen to think that Queen Latifah is a Major Babe, and there's no reason why she shouldn't be on the cover of Glamour.

And I suspect that Friedrich von Blowhard might agree with me on that point, but apart from the photo, much of what's on that cover and what's beneath it, he says, is worthy of the 2004 Nobel "General Rottenness To Humanity" Prize.

Of course, this cover conforms to the recent rule which says you must have something with an enormous number attached to it: in this case, "We tried on 1,300 swimsuits!" But digits are the least of your worries, young lady. As Blowhard notes:

"The 31 SEX & LOVE thrills no woman should miss." Since you can't instantly rattle off 31 sex and love thrills you've ever had, your sex life is clearly inadequate. But we knew that.

The conventional wisdom has it that everyone's sex life is inadequate, and something should be done about it. (Well, mine is, but I'm stuck with it. So there.) And you have to figure that magazines like Glamour are bought largely by women just barely out of their teens, which strikes me as a hell of an age to decide that your sex life is inadequate; what frame of reference do you have at twenty-two? (And if you're not out of your teens, you can get much the same harangues from, of all places, Planned Parenthood, which I suspect is a plot to insure continuing demand for their more, um, visible services.)

What you see in men's magazines, we are told on a regular basis, is transparently, flagrantly unreal, fantasies polished to a high gloss and airbrushed to perfection, utterly disconnected from any semblance of Real Life™. It may even be so. But it's hard to imagine that the dreck that clutters up the lad mags is any worse than the toxins that routinely course through material aimed at women; reading that stuff, says Friedrich von Blowhard, constitutes "masochistic abuse."

Posted at 8:48 AM to Table for One


Men's magazines are designed to please the kind of people their editors believe the readers of women's magazines are looking for, and vice versa.

It's the only explanation that can possible make sense.

Posted by: McGehee at 12:09 PM on 25 April 2004

My response to all this is: don't read them, then.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at 9:24 PM on 25 April 2004

Is it okay if I just look at the pictures? :)

Posted by: CGHill at 9:30 PM on 25 April 2004