Maxim vs. Cosmo: A Social Construction

I write this because it's come up a few times in the past few days. Has it ever occurred to anyone that Maxim is about making men happy and Cosmo is about...making men happy? Oh yes, on the cover of Maxim is a hot girl and headlines like "Sexy Photos of ____", "Steamy Interview With ___" and "Gadgets that are fun to play with." This makes perfect sense for a men's magazine. Cosmo, alternatively, has a hot girl on the cover and headlines like "How to Please your Man", "___ Spills Her Sex Secrets", and "How to Give Head Like a Pro". If these aren't exact quotes, they accurately reflect many headlines and much of the material inside. Now, I will admit that these aren't the only things inside of the magazine's but I must say, I've never seen a Maxim article on how to "please" a woman, just how to get one. Many females have argued that Cosmo has a lot of stuff that girls like and that a lot of the sex talk is how they can assure their own orgasm. This is only in accrodance with my argument. First, the headlines on the cover are indicative of what is supposed to catch the eye of the target audience. Hence, if there are headlines concerning how to please your mate on one and headlines about what sound system to buy on the other, there is a subtle message which both informs us of, and reinforces a convention of what the genders are supposed to care about. This is regardless of actual content. Second, I appreciate just how much time Cosmo devotes to getting their readers off but, in reality, shouldn't Maxim take care of that? It doesn't, of course (at least not as much as Cosmo does), but if Cosmo spends a lot of time and energy telling women how to "drive your man crazy" shouldn't Maxim spend a comensurate amount of time telling men how to perform well? Maybe. Some may argue that these magazines cater to the true interests of their readership, I'm of the opinion that they perpetuate and appeal to a mere social construction. I'm watching TV while I write this so if it's not elequent I hope it is, at least, thought provoking. Leave a comment if you think it is, my blog space is so desperately lonely.

Censor This

People are always blaming that one extra rib. If God's so smart, how come he didn't take two ribs from Adam, make two women and give Adam the ability to pleasure himself orally? If you ask why Adam would want two women, just consider the fact that an individual could not cook and clean at the same time before the invention of various household appliances.

If I May Say So

There's a lot of protest against the Da Vinci Code for whatever irrational, faith-based reasons one may generate. Fine. Happily we haven't gone down the path of censorhip and we can all still acknowledge peoples' right to protest the film, I hope. Now, what should happen if the protestors start getting violent? Will we yield and pull the film, or apologize profusely to the Christian zealots? I should sincerely hope not. Just as they have the right to protest, the movie has the right to be shown. Does anyone remember those cartoons concerning the prophet Mohammed that those silly Danes made? Old news, I know. I had to scour all the internet to actually see them for myself. Or, if not scour, at least it was harder to find such popular art than I assumed it would, or should be. I suspect I had such a difficult time finding the cartoons for the same reason people are upset with the Da Vinci Code, they were offensive. The lesson here is clear, if the Christians really don't want the Da Vinci Code shown they should just riot and kill some of the producers and/or actors. On the other hand, we might decide that while the pictures of Mohammed were offensive, every person who believes in the freedom of speech should accept that they should not be kept out of print on those grounds. Groups, any groups, have the right to bicker in a non-violent manner. We might hope that people do no want to offend each other but, if I may say so, people are entitled to say what they want, even if it is objectionable.

King of Chudea

In writing this post I hope to take a step towards creating a site that will register for a google search on "Chinese-Jews." Not "Jews in China", not "Jewish Chinese people" but people of honest to goodness Jewish ancestry (preferably on their mother's side) and Chinese ancestry (preferably on their father's side). Why the distinction in maternal and paternal lineage? Well, ask a Jew. As I only know two Chinese-Jews not counting my dog, and I am the older, I declare myself King of Chudea. All of you Palestinian Tibetan monks are free to stay, though.

Controversy

Ok, I know this will be controversial and may not win me many friends but seriously, The Daily Show is not that great. Or, perhaps The Daily Show is fine but John Stewart (who turns out to be too much of a pussy to use his real name, but maybe that's not entirely his fault) is not funny. And here is where Colbert actually defines himself of someone actually fit to have his own show. John Stewart can't tell a joke. He begins to speak, he laughs in the middle and then delivers a mediocre punch line. Or, he says something that's not funny, begins to smirk, people cheer and then he yells something that is also not funny but the idiot audience responds. Call me British, and I'm not, but this such low, unintelligent humor its too stupid to watch; where is the wit? Now, you might say "The Daily Show is to intelligent, John Stewart makes jokes about the news." My friends, there is a difference between a bad news program and an intellgent parody. Just because there happens to be some news in a show doesn't make everything that's said intelligent. Maybe if you stopped watching FOX you'd realize that. Colbert, on the other hand, is witty, lucid off-the-cuff, and actually looks like a reporter which is kind of what makes a show a parody and not some jerk telling lame jokes. Of course, you might argue that The Daily Show is just a talk show, like Leno. To that I would respond that John Stewart is unfunny enough so as to fail at that task and he's no where near as sharp in an interview as Colbert. Now I'll admit that every so often John Stewart does have a good joke that makes me smirk, or even laugh. My problem is, however, that John Stewart has such poor delivery and such obvious, mundane and uninspired jokes (in general) that I can't understand why he's so damn popular.

Stealth

I also wanted to add that if you couldn't tell that the movie Stealth, the one with Jamie Foxx, was complete crap just by looking at the commercial, you won't be capable of appreciating this site either.

There's a First Time For Everything

It looks like I've joined the large group of people who are so pathetic, bored and/or self-absorbed that they think posting their mindless drivel on the internet is a worthwhile past time. I've never read anybody else's blog and I don't really intend to start but if you people want to read mine more power to you since I whole heartedly believe that while people's ideas aren't worth my time, mine are worth theirs. I suppose what you can look forward to on this page are discussions of radical but genius political theory, acerbic commentary on things I don't like, which are numerous, and long-winded, run-on sentences. Just so you know, if you don't like this post and its sarcastic quality you're not capable of appreciating this blog and you should get the hell out. However, this is not my best writing so if I actually decide to stick with this thing it's only going to get better. So, I've finally expressed my Asian need to blog but managed to moderate it with my European-Jew fear of Xanga, I guess there's a first time for everything.