Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Cosmopolitan strikes (new roles???) Message-ID: <775@opus.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Sep-84 13:48:24 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.775 Posted: Tue Sep 4 13:48:24 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Sep-84 06:09:06 EDT Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 39 While waiting in the supermarket checkout lane, I saw the following on the cover of the Sept. "Cosmopolitan" magazine: For Great Sex, Less is more. Preserve the mystery, go slow Make love the old fashioned way: Make him EARN it. (Disclaimer: I didn't read the article--only the cover material. Given the cover, I don't think I WOULD read the article.) What can I say? Well, "Less is more" is a good place to start. I'm sure Orwell would appreciate it, and I'm sure that the folks who don't really enjoy sex appreciate having something printed that they can point to, no matter how inane it is. (Shall we conclude from this that no sex at all is simply wonderful?) "Preserve the mystery"? Maybe that's "preserve the mystique"? Sounds like "preserve the fantasy; try to hold off reality for as long as possible." Of course, with that attitude, when reality finally kicks in it's all downhill. "Go slow" I might buy (perhaps if it were stated "go slowly" it would grate less, though:-), at least as a technique if not a principle. But the last three lines really frost me: The idea seems to be "let's go back to the idea where sex is a favor that a woman can do for a man." If the man has to "earn" something, sex is reduced to a commodity; the woman can grant it and the man can bargain for it. That isn't lovemaking; it's whoring. And it's bullshit. Blaaaah! OK, anyone who could stomach the article care to step forth and offer a viewpoint? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.