my winter break from college continues, and i've got eight books to read over the next few weeks! not to mention various projects i've had on my mind all season. hopefully my job won't be too daunting for a while, i'm ready to relax and rid myself of all the dreary remnants of fall.

i'm using tonight, at least, to cover the next 50 pages in my little cosmopolitan project. it's been too long! last i left off, i was discussing sexist and submissive elements in the magazine's ads, articles, photographs, etc.

ads: while pages 50-100 of cosmopolitan feature fewer and less objectifying ads, many still feature images of too-thin models, promote beauty products, and reinforce stereotypes about what you should be buying and wearing as a woman. olay advertises a cleanser, a thin, poreless white model's face wears mark lipstick, crest features a male and female couple "feeling fresh up to five times longer". olay advertises an "anti-aging eye roller" three times, (using a white, poreless model's face) tampax runs an ad with serena williams, zoosk.com (an online dating site) advertises mad-lib style, where the consumer "fills in" their new year's resolution for dating. a white actress supports m.empowerment, mark makeup's initiative to end dating violence. luster teeth whitener advertises, and durex condoms promote "wegasms".

i notice that the further into the magazine i read, the less, well, offensive the ads seem to be. could cosmopolitan be running their more materialistic, objectifying, and/or sexist ads closer to the front of the magazine, is this what they find draws their target audience in? it's a scary thought, but one that seems a bit too coincidental to have no truth behind it.

that's not to say the ads featured on pages 50-100 altogether scream girl power. we continue to see images of stereotypical beauty, and products that should be bought to make the consumer more beautiful. more images of "traditional" male/female relationships. insinuations that a woman's new years resolution should be based around her love life. i was impressed with the ad promoting an end to domestic abuse, although it still aimed at the reader buying something (in this case, a heart bracelet dedicated to the cause) and featured a photoshopped white actress in the ad. the tampax ad was decidedly unoffensive as well, as was the "wegasm" durex condom campaign: it focused mainly on helping both partners have orgasms, while also obviously promoting safe sex, always a good thing.

content (pages 50-75): the ads in this section may have been less objectifying, but the articles were decidedly more so. not the least of these was an article called "looks guys love"; six famous tall, thin, white actresses are photographed wearing various clothing trends, and the "hot" percentage rating from 100 polled men is featured next to the photo. examples include a boxy dress worn by katy perry, given a 43% hot rating: "i just wish it showed off her body more," quotes one polled man. a body-con dress receives a 66% rating. "tight is always good!" one man reports. (shocking.) a few pages past this article, a "beauty report" polls more men on whether they find a topknot bun (worn by white actress january jones) "totally bombshell" or "too ballet school". the majority votes against the style.

if these polls were open to both men and women and offered a general view of what they both think of a certain style, it wouldn't be very empowering (shouldn't we wear what makes ushappy?) but at least i wouldn't again be left with the feeling that cosmopolitan has one goal in mind: what men want. what they think is cute, not cute, slutty, trying too hard, or too laid-back. how could a reader ever keep up with all of these anonymous male opinions..and better yet, why would the reader want to?

this beauty segment also features beauty apps for iphone, "the beer-skin connection", stackable makeup, clip-in hair color extensions on jessica biel, how to get mila kunis eyes, "studly scents", a piece on aftershave, and a q&a section on things like eyebrow color and foundation. a "better stuff for his bod" section suggests products to buy for a partner who doesn't like body lotion (gasp) or washes his face with just water (gasp!!)

while nothing i'm seeing here is outright sexist, similar to the fashion articles i discussed in my last post, it feels vain, unnecessary, and might promote body shame in some readers. regardless of how good i'm feeling about myself today, i know my eyes aren't as big as mila kunis', and i probably don't look as good in clip-on hair color as jessica biel. a "hair showdown" warns readers with strict guidelines for what to try and not to try in recent hair trends. "retro hair" worn by christina aguilera and long extensions worn by ke$ha make the "don't" list, while sienna miller's "peekaboo bangs" are a-ok.

an article entitled "how to look hot in a hurry" counsels readers on just that, offering beauty solutions for when you oversleep, have post-sex plans, stayed out late last night, or need to get ready for a date in 15 minutes. again, not truly offensive, but somewhat depressing that the idea here is to focus solely on how good you look in preparation for pretty much any scenario. instead of enjoying the moment, the magazine encourages women to immediately freshen up with baby wipes after sex, and offers ways to "transition your face" whenever you feel tired. instead of just, you know, taking care of yourself.

the "stud meter" rates famous men based off of current rumors, projects or controversies surrounding them. at the top of the meter is an actor named matt lanter, who made the list apparently solely because he has defined abs. farther down the list is adam sandler, currently considered the anti-stud because he was photographed dressed in drag for a film project. there are other actors in-between, but the message is clear- be hot, and get to the top of the list. do something that makes you look ugly or silly, and you will be shamed. we're not dealing with sexism against women this time, but rather objectification of men. (i will note, however, that usher made the bottom of the list for saying he wanted to open a harem.)

example of the "stud meter", a regular feature in cosmopolitan:

the last article in this section is called "the new male grooming obsession", and deals entirely with trends in male "manscaping". it offers statistics on what men are shaving, how often, and reasons why (to look more appetizing to women, for example.) this article features two shirtless, perfectly waxed men (more objectification) not to mention is completely void of substance or reason. not only is any kind of "scaping" technically completely unnecessary, whether you're a man or a woman, it's insulting that cosmo feels their readers need to know this much about a minute detail of a man's hygiene routine, and also seems weirdly invasive.

content (pages 75-100): above all else i've reviewed so far in this issue, these particular pages ooze desperation; specifically for male attention, diversion, understanding and approval. the first article is entitled "60 hands-free ways to wow him", and offers suggestions on how to turn a (male) partner on by doing things like running your chin down his chest, licking his eyelids and sucking on his toes. another part of the article interviews men on turn-ons gone wrong: one man reports being disgusted by a woman's chipped nail polish on her "hooves". let me be clear here by saying i find nothing wrong with enjoying sex, or with wanting to please a partner. it's the excess of information on pleasing men, and lack of attention to pleasing yourself, that i find wrong with cosmo's articles so far in this issue. these articles all feature nearly naked, photoshopped flawless "couples". and that's not even addressing the fact that the partner is always assumed to be male, completely neglecting lesbian or bisexual readers.

the next article continues to dwell on the male psyche and relationships, but with a bit more even focus: "what you need to know about his brain, and yours" offers situations where men and women see things differently (conversations, dealing with stress, remembering important moments, arguing and sex) and how to "meet in the middle". ) a small segment of the article sarcastically mentions times you can "read his mind": when he "loses your granny panties", for example.

the "i was an orgasm virgin!" article endeavors to help women reach orgasm by discussing ways other readers have done it (vibrators, new positions, etc.) i can appreciate that this is an example of attention to pleasing oneself, which i mentioned earlier, but the article reads as somewhat frantic, as if by not orgasming you're not having sex "right", and it must be remedied by any means. regardless, i can count this article as the first not revolving around men in this section.

"the moment he's most likely to cheat" ups the desperation again, an article insinuating that women need to know the secret to infidelity in men, so that they can stop it before he's "tempted". so instead of your partner being a cheating asshole, suddenly he's helpless and has to be coaxed into monogamy. apparently, "illusions" men experience with increased testosterone may lead him to believe he loves another woman. ways to prevent this from happening? morning sex, "accentuating his awesomeness" (barf) and flirting with other people. this article is a recipe for sexist relationship disaster.

other vapid, pointless articles in this section? "when he wants vanilla sex..and you don't", an article that suggests sexting and wearing lingerie to fulfill "wicked desires" and "whoa, we sound like our parents!" an article that suggests ways to keep your husband from getting bored of your marriage. there is a somewhat uneventful sex q & a section, followed by an "ask him anything" page that reinforces the whole what-does-he-think-of-me vibe i've been getting all along. (what kinds of questions is this anonymous male guru getting? women hate their engagement rings, worry that their husbands aren't interested in sex, and have cheating boyfriends.)

one of the last, and one of my personal favorites in this section is a piece titled "are you running out of time to have a baby?" complete with a chart of how many eggs a woman has at different stages of life, this article features a sad-looking, white, blonde, tall, thin model next to the quote, "put off your decision to have a baby for too long, and you could lose your chance." while there is some valid information on fertility treatment dangers and side effects, i'm still shocked that the idea of single parenting or gay/lesbian couples isn't even mentioned. Cosmo suggests having a baby around age 25: "by that time, you have a better sense of what guy is right for you..and if he'll make awesome dad material too." not only is that not an option for all women, but it's appalling to assume that all women naturally want to have children, and are just waiting for the right man to come along.

last but not least, a "look leaner naked" workout section! i don't take issue with exercising, but the way cosmopolitan sexualizes and creates yet again an article about man-pleasing is growing pretty tired in my eyes. a white, blonde, tall, thin model lays naked posing on a bed, next to the tagline "she stripped away her inhibitions". what about working out for your health?! i suppose i shouldn't expect something that logical from cosmopolitan at this point.

whew! apologies for the wall of text, but i hope i've given readers some food for thought. bottom line: magazines like cosmopolitan don't offer much in the way of substance, self-esteem, or sanity. enjoy them at your own risk, and keep your best interests in mind. the topics i've discussed so far struck a negative chord with me, but you'll know what doesn't feel right to you!

i'll finish up this review with the last bit of the magazine in a while. xo