THE COSMO GIRL AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION
The piece below was published in my regular column on January 15, 1995. As Far as I can tell nothing has changed. See the update below.
Older women assume that Cosmo and I are leading their
daughters astray. We aren’t, but the people who are the
most critical never read Cosmo. They don’t know what’s
going on inside. Cosmo is a very honorable magazine
- Helen Gurley Brown, editor –
What is going on at Cosmopolitan? It has been hugely popular and profitable for the twenty-nine years (1966 to 1995) Helen Gurley-Brown has been editor. Does it lead young women astray? What is Cosmo’s message? Is it really “an honorable magazine?”
I plowed through all 308 pages of the May 1994 edition. (See the cover above.) My conclusion? Cosmo is a magazine by and about feminists who see men as weak but useful and necessary. Cosmo girls are obsessed with sex and have disdain for marriage.
It recommends that single women have affairs with married men. It recommends that married women have affairs with single men. It rarely, if ever, has a good word to say about marriage, family or children.
Professor Wilson Bryan Key studied Cosmo twenty years ago (1975) and concluded, “Most marriage (in Cosmo) is portrayed as unpleasant relationships between maladjusted individuals… Married women are shown as spoiled, ungrateful and unaccomplished women who exploit their hard working and sacrificing husbands…”
Does Cosmo Lead young women astray? “It isn’t the end of the world if you have an affair,” Brown advised. An article on page 220 is titled, Marriage to One Man, Having Sex with Another.
The point of view is selfish and hedonistic: pursue your pleasure and don’t worry about other people’s feelings. It callously disregards the obvious fact that infidelity causes terrible pain to “the other woman,” not to mention the children who are torn apart by divorce. Brown claims that this “very honorable” magazine provides “a very moral message.” In what universe, Ms. Brown, is infidelity honest and moral?
What kind of men inhabit the make-believe world of Cosmo? Weak but useful. Listen to Brown in a 1994 interview. “You’re going to need one of them (men) for your own purposes. Most men can be taught, encouraged, helped along.”
Professor Key put it this way: “The woman controls, the man is controlled.” The male image, Key suggests, is of “an immature little boy who needs mothering,” or a “potential bastard who is responsible for all women’s problems.” Cosmo talks about “men,” but not husbands or fathers. When it does mention husbands, they always belong to some other woman who is unworthy of the man she covets.
Men are a necessary evil. “What else can we do,” writes Brown, “they’re the only sex we have!”
So – who is the typical Cosmo girl?
1) She is eighteen to thirty-four years old.
2) She is single, sophisticated, sexy, liberated, autonomous and in the classic sense, having it all.
3) She eats exotic foods like tiny shrimp fajitas, grilled salmon, strawberries and champaign from room service, raspberry ginger ale and a bowl of pretzels, and cinnamon whole wheat pancakes.
4) She frequents sophisticated places like, Aspen, kayaking in Monterey Bay, a friend’s Manhattan apartment, skiing six hours a day, then bistro-hopping ‘til dawn.
5) She has a big city-type job, travels, competes in a man’s world, and has sex everywhere, all the time with whomever she wants.
6) “The premise for me” wrote Brown, “is that sex is wonderful… being a sex object is a very good thing. If you’re not a sex object you’re in trouble.”
If you’re not a sex object you’re in trouble? Really?
If one is not loved, then one is in trouble. If one is not respected for her judgment, her intellect, her character, and her ability to raise well-adjusted children, and to sustain a successful marriage, then she is in trouble. But to merely be a thing used by those child-like men? Is that what life is all about? Besides, how many people want their sweet daughters to be treated as sex objects? I have three daughters; count me out of that.
Furthermore, the statement, “If you’re not a sex object you’re in trouble,” is a crushing blow to unattractive women, you know, the ones who don’t eat tiny shrimp fajitas or ski in Aspen, the ones who have given up expecting a man – any man – to give them a second look. The old song, You’re Nobody ‘till Somebody Loves You.. must have been so disheartening
Living the life of a sex object is the subject of many Cosmo articles.
Packing for a trip with a man. “Paradise Bound? You’ll delight your travel partner by having the right stuff – for dinner, beach and bed.”
The Agony Column – Questions and answers about big time problems. The first question begins, “For three years, I went wild, slept with a lot of men I hardly knew, and gave them whatever they wanted in bed.”
The Cosmo girl is also a feminist. Ten articles are devoted entirely to the subject.
Rarely in 308 pages is the attitude that being a loving and nurturing mother is worthwhile. Nowhere does this so-called “honest” magazine speak about fidelity, integrity, sacrifice, working through problems, love for parents or love for children. When employment is mentioned, it is often in the context of competing with men in the business world. Work is just a place to dress smartly and show off, not to actually do anything of worth.
Although the Cosmo girl is supposed to be sophisticated and worldly, she shows no interest or knowledge of the world beyond her raspberry ginger ale, bistro-hopping and affairs with married men. She comes across as a controlling, man-pleasing, marriage-wrecking, selfish, beauty-conscious, hedonistic, liberated feminist. She is a self-involved woman-child, oblivious to the feelings of others.
Moral message? Honest?
I don’t think so.
Update - 2025
Cosmo is still around with the same messages. How many more ways can there be to say the same thing? Evidently, as many as there are stars in the sky. And they have become increasingly outrageous.
The Winter 2025 issue of Cosmo includes:
1. I got my tubes removed and it was the most liberating experience…
2. My multi-orgasmic hook-up with my much younger handyman. Fall, 2024 issue.
WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT?
The divisive anti-marriage, anti-family, hedonistic, you-can-have-it-all, let-it-all -hang-out messages are damaging to the individual and to society. Not surprisingly, Cosmo started publishing in the mid-sixties, when The Great Cultural / Psychological / Social / Technological/ Political Transformation was in full swing. Women were duped. It’s not so easy having it all. It’s not fulfilling being a sex object. It’s not gratifying to wake up at the age of fifty with no one beside you because you got your tubes tied at age 28 for sexual liberation.
In 1989, Bonnie Rait put to music a lament against the Cosmopolitan Zeitgeist
Nick of Time (The most relevant lyrics)
A friend of mine, she cries at night
And she calls me on the phone
Sees babies everywhere she goes
And she wants one of her own
She's waited long enough, she says
And still she can't decide
Pretty soon she'll have to choose
And it tears her up inside
She is scared
Scared to run out of time
I see my folks are getting on
And I watch their bodies change
I know they see the same in me
And it makes us both feel strange
No matter how you tell yourself
It's what we all go through
Those lines are pretty hard to take
When they're staring back at you
When did the choices get so hard
With so much more at stake?
Life gets mighty precious
When there's less of it to waste
Just when I thought I'd had enough
And all my tears were shed
No promise left unbroken
There were no painful words unsaid
You came along and showed me
I could leave it all behind
You opened up my heart again
And then much to my surprise
I found love, baby, love in the nick of time
I found love darlin', love in the nick of time
(Love in the nick of time)
I found love baby, love in the nick of time
Meanwhile, at this very moment, young women are reading the following in the Winter, 2025 issue of Cosmo.
I Pegged My Dream Girl at an Ultra Elite Sex Party*
“Love your lingerie!” Mika said from behind me, making
her sweet voice loud enough for me to hear over the spanking
station to our left. We were strangers, standing in a hallway…
* It sounds like a male fantasy, but it’s not. Both “Mika” and the writer are young women.
Marriage and family are the foundations of a stable and orderly society. That stability has been slipping for almost three generations.
I would be grateful for female readers of CRISIS (or anyone else) to weigh in.
Interesting. My parents were married for 55 years before my Dad passed away. So I was brought up in a traditional home except that my Dad raised me to NEVER rely on a man and to only stay with one because I loved my life with him.
I kept hearing about Cosmo while in college so in 1982 I broke down and bought a copy. I remember it had a special cover on it because the woman on the front was too scantily clad for public viewing. I read it cover to cover over the next few weeks. I kept sighing and putting it down because even as a single, very independent woman living on my own, I found most of the opinions to be contrary to what I believed and experienced.
I should point out that I was living on my own, no dorm, no roommate and no help from parents because I had defied my fathers wishes by not returning to Germany after a visit to the US and he was hoping that without his financial assistance I would be forced into returning home and attending the University of Maryland. That never happened and my Dad was proud of me.
I never wanted children and never had any. I was married to the most wonderful man God ever created and was devastated when he died of a sudden heart attack. Although I had sex outside of marriage it was few and far between. I am going on 63 and have “known” 4 men in my lifetime. Sex to me was almost a sacred act and I was very selective. Men who took issue with that while I was dating were sent packing. “This is the good tablecloth” I told them. “This table is only set for very special people who have proved their worthiness “.
Needless to say, that one copy of Cosmo was the only one I read. I have female friends who absolutely treat sex like a big buffet, trying various offerings and sometimes not going back for seconds. Several of them think marriage is simply a way to keep women submissive and catering to men. It’s a topic they know we will never see eye to eye on so we just agree to disagree.
I made very good money before, during and after my husband’s death which allowed me a very comfortable and accordingly to some a bit extravagant lifestyle. So no, I don’t need a man for children or money but even now, 17 years after his passing, I would give up everything I have to get more time with the one I had. Why did I never remarry? Because I don’t need a man badly enough to settle for less than what I deserve. I guess I am a bit of an anomaly but that’s ok, it’s been that way since childhood. No regrets.
Sex does not make people happy. Love makes people happy. A whole magazine devoted to lying about that.