Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Important Details
As I was perusing the gossip internets today, I noticed that some sites were talking about Jonathan Rhys Meyers (and the serious gay face he's giving) on the cover of next month's issue of Details magazine.
Pretty fagtacular if you ask me, but that's how Details rolls. All the men's magazines have their gimmick; Maxim and FHM always have some slutty chick giving serious fuck-me face, GQ always has some snobby movie star looking smug, and Details always has a snobby movie star looking smug and metrosexual to the point of being straight-up gay. If I were them, I'd put John Rhys Davies--AKA Salah from the Indiana Jones movies and Gimli son of Gloin from LOTR--on the cover instead since he pretty much dominates the market in terms of virile, masculine guys named John Rhys. However, I guess that Details readers prefer this queen sticking out his DSLs at them, so that must be why I'm stuck in the purgatory of grad school and not balling like the editor of Details.
Apart from the effeminate piece on the cover, I do have to commend the editors of Details because they have otherwise put together a useful magazine. Men's magazines are so much better than women's. To illustrate this, compare the cover of Details to the cover of this month's Cosmopolitan.
Details has a mix of practical information that men can use. There's an intriguing report on some American on trial for war crimes, a tip on how to keep your parents from overspending in their retirement, and some advice on how to conduct oneself professionally. As far as trashy sex stuff, Details has me feeling cheerful in knowing that the market for blondes starring in dudes' sexual fantasies is booming. Cosmo, on the other hand, has an entire cover filled with useless, uninformative crap. Sure, with all that sex talk, it SEEMS intriguing, but I've been suckered in by Cosmo's claims before and know that their promises of unraveling the mysteries of sex are FALSE. There's nothing new here; Cosmo is selling the same old sex-tip snake oil. "Guys' Sex Confessions: Surprising stuff they don't want from you in the sack" and "100 Outrageous Facts About Men" are both articles which probably take a long time to inform the reader that of the same thing: basically, guys like blowjobs, they don't like girls who get too clingy, and not all of them want to do you up the butt. "Bed me eyes" translates to "smoky eye makeup" and "the hottest thing to do to a man with your hands" probably is step-by-step instructions on how to give a great back and/or foot massage, or cook for his ass. "I Know What Your Boyfriend Did Last Night?" Unless what he did was me, I'm thinking nothing but "zzzzzzz" about that article. And "why be a jealous bitch?" is a question probably answered by some bitter, freshly dumped bitch explaining that all men are oversexed, lying, fiendish dogs who you shouldn't trust and who you should be constantly and unpleasantly suspicious of. And finally, if I need breaking news on the period front, I'm turning to my gynecologist, not Cosmo. Even the boring soldier biographies promised by Details sound more intriguing than that. And certainly I'd rather know if I'm dating a "tweenager" than what my "sex style" is, if only because I already know that I fuck like a tiger and don't need some quiz to tell me so, and because I'd not only like to know what a "tweenager" is, I'd like to know how to avoid fucking one because it sounds bad and illegal. Like I said, the men's magazine actually has some information that actually serves a useful purpose.
Seriously, the only useful tips Cosmo does have in it are some examples of stuff that bitches are wearing these days, and that is only marginally helpful for me since I don't give a fuck about the latest purses or whatever, and I'm too poor to be much of a clothes horse anyway. I think this sucks. Women's magazines need to get their acts together, if only because even bitches like me who never read them have maxed out on the number of useful sex tips we can glean from their glossy pages. To date, the only unique piece of information I've ever gotten from Cosmo was the knowledge that apparently, some women have orgasms every time they sneeze. After reading about some poor woman suffering from this condition (and trust, while that might be cool at first, I can see how that could really be embarrassing in certain situations, like church, funerals, work meetings, etc.) in a Cosmo Q&A column, I was like, "Damn, I've never heard of that before." That time was unique and has yet to be duplicated. Excepting the sneeze-orgasmer, I've yet to find anything interesting or useful in the pages of Cosmo or any other of the similar crap marketed to chicks. Women's magazines blow harder than the bitches applying their tips on how to please your man.
Apart from the effeminate piece on the cover, I do have to commend the editors of Details because they have otherwise put together a useful magazine. Men's magazines are so much better than women's. To illustrate this, compare the cover of Details to the cover of this month's Cosmopolitan.
Details has a mix of practical information that men can use. There's an intriguing report on some American on trial for war crimes, a tip on how to keep your parents from overspending in their retirement, and some advice on how to conduct oneself professionally. As far as trashy sex stuff, Details has me feeling cheerful in knowing that the market for blondes starring in dudes' sexual fantasies is booming. Cosmo, on the other hand, has an entire cover filled with useless, uninformative crap. Sure, with all that sex talk, it SEEMS intriguing, but I've been suckered in by Cosmo's claims before and know that their promises of unraveling the mysteries of sex are FALSE. There's nothing new here; Cosmo is selling the same old sex-tip snake oil. "Guys' Sex Confessions: Surprising stuff they don't want from you in the sack" and "100 Outrageous Facts About Men" are both articles which probably take a long time to inform the reader that of the same thing: basically, guys like blowjobs, they don't like girls who get too clingy, and not all of them want to do you up the butt. "Bed me eyes" translates to "smoky eye makeup" and "the hottest thing to do to a man with your hands" probably is step-by-step instructions on how to give a great back and/or foot massage, or cook for his ass. "I Know What Your Boyfriend Did Last Night?" Unless what he did was me, I'm thinking nothing but "zzzzzzz" about that article. And "why be a jealous bitch?" is a question probably answered by some bitter, freshly dumped bitch explaining that all men are oversexed, lying, fiendish dogs who you shouldn't trust and who you should be constantly and unpleasantly suspicious of. And finally, if I need breaking news on the period front, I'm turning to my gynecologist, not Cosmo. Even the boring soldier biographies promised by Details sound more intriguing than that. And certainly I'd rather know if I'm dating a "tweenager" than what my "sex style" is, if only because I already know that I fuck like a tiger and don't need some quiz to tell me so, and because I'd not only like to know what a "tweenager" is, I'd like to know how to avoid fucking one because it sounds bad and illegal. Like I said, the men's magazine actually has some information that actually serves a useful purpose.
Seriously, the only useful tips Cosmo does have in it are some examples of stuff that bitches are wearing these days, and that is only marginally helpful for me since I don't give a fuck about the latest purses or whatever, and I'm too poor to be much of a clothes horse anyway. I think this sucks. Women's magazines need to get their acts together, if only because even bitches like me who never read them have maxed out on the number of useful sex tips we can glean from their glossy pages. To date, the only unique piece of information I've ever gotten from Cosmo was the knowledge that apparently, some women have orgasms every time they sneeze. After reading about some poor woman suffering from this condition (and trust, while that might be cool at first, I can see how that could really be embarrassing in certain situations, like church, funerals, work meetings, etc.) in a Cosmo Q&A column, I was like, "Damn, I've never heard of that before." That time was unique and has yet to be duplicated. Excepting the sneeze-orgasmer, I've yet to find anything interesting or useful in the pages of Cosmo or any other of the similar crap marketed to chicks. Women's magazines blow harder than the bitches applying their tips on how to please your man.
Labels: gender bending, intentional buffoonery, ranting, sluts, vulgar display of faggotry
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
