Glossed Over

Cosmopolitan Finds the Worst Possible Men to Give You Advice

Over the years I’ve had plenty of suggestions for Cosmopolitan, but I think this might be a new one: Maybe, O sagacious editors of the only publication that reads like a parody of itself, the next time you seek out men to advise women on matters of sex, you could attempt to find guys who aren’t total dirtbags. They exist!

Instead, in September’s “Guys Answer Your Sex Questions in 20 Words or Less,” Cosmo managed to assemble a bumper crop of judgmental, objectifying men to advise their readership of young women.

Sure, you could argue that these men are just relating their own opinions, and that Cosmo is actually doing its readers a service by including these jerks’ full names, professions, and photos with their comments. You could also argue the moon is made of green cheese.

On to the article! First we have one David Good, who’s written a book entitled The Man Code: A Woman’s Guide to Cracking the Tough Guy. (I hope to one day write a book called The Bullshit Code: A Woman’s Guide to Rejecting the Guy Who’s Seen Too Many James Bond Movies and, As a Result, Is Overly Invested in Stereotypes of Masculinity. Literary agents, email me!) Here’s what Cosmo asked and how David answered:

Are unshaven legs (or other body parts) a turn-off?

Hell, yes. Shave that. It’s not 1973 anymore. --David

Yeah! It’s not 1973 anymore. Back then, when a person went into puberty, surging hormones caused hair to develop in certain areas, and now that it’s 2011--oh wait. That still happens. Will someone please notify David?

If it’s been a while since you got it on, can just seeing a woman in a tight shirt give you an erection?

It could be an XXL, and if a guy’s horny, he’ll find something about any girl to turn him on. --Patrick [Meagher, host of Cosmo Radio’s Cocktails with Patrick]

I originally read this as Patrick referring to the hypothetical woman as “it” and “an XXL” and almost had a rage blackout. But then I realized he’s referring to the shirt. Still, Patrick is really pushing bro-code boundaries here. First, there’s his admission that a woman needn’t be clad in tight clothing to arouse a man, which is something one would never figure out from reading the fashion pages of Cosmo. Then there’s the statement that he can find “something” about “any girl,” which is supposed to be reassuring and instead sounds patronizing. “There, there, little Cosmo reader, some man will find you attractive, if he’s desert-island desperate!” It’s like he thinks of women as objects who exist solely to provide him with aesthetic pleasure, and that is such an original viewpoint for a radio host!

If a woman has sex with a guy early on, does he assume she is like this with every guy?

He probably assumes you are. But if he likes you, he doesn’t care. --Wilder

Wow! How is this guy, Wilder Weir, still “single-ish”? (No, really, that’s what the description says.) I mean, he’s clearly such a prize and all, what with his amazing ability to forgo judging the sexual proclivities of women who’ve deigned to sleep with him. If he likes you, that is. Ugh. (No word on why he’d be sleeping with you if he doesn’t like you, even though there’s an under-20-words answer for that, too.)

Look, I get that some men believe things I find objectionable. So do some women. That fact isn’t a problem. But it is a problem when a magazine that proclaims itself the official publication of the “fun, fearless female” parrots sexist, judgmental nonsense to its readers. And it is a problem to peddle harmful, outdated viewpoints about sex and gender using the not-so-subtle implication that these guys are experts and women who don’t conform to these men’s ideals will remain single forever. (Never mind that it completely ignores the women who--clutch my pearls!--aren’t even heterosexual.)

Admittedly, dropping the how-to-please-a-man mumbo-jumbo would require a major overhaul of the magazine. But getting rid of the men-are-from-Mars nonsense would be Cosmopolitan’s most fun, fearless act yet.

Lowest Common Denominator: Glamour, May

26, 22, 24: Ages of the actresses appearing on Glamour’s multiple May covers (Freida Pinto, Emma Stone, and Ashley Greene, respectively)

39, 40: Ages of Amy Poehler, who’s profiled on page 214, and Tina Fey, whose book is all-too-briefly excerpted on page 72

8: Women in swimsuits depicted on page 32 as the epitome of “total confidence we all envy”

50: Percent of those women who are professional actors or athletes

$45: Price of a dress from Express suggested for its similarity to the D&G dress Stone wore on her cover

$1,395: Price of Stone’s actual cover dress

2: Letters published complaining that size 12-14 model Robyn Lawley, whose photo accompanied March’s “97% of Women Will Be Cruel to Their Bodies Today,” was too “perfect”

Zip: Amount of acknowledgement from Glamour about the same readers’ pleas to include all shapes and sizes in their photos (though they did interview Lawley about the readers’ criticism, as if that’s Lawley’s fault)

98: Page on which Glamour recommends a $132 t-shirt screenprinted with a cat’s face 

5: Tricks cited in “What Helps Reese [Witherspoon] Look Like Reese”

0: Mentions of genetics in “What Helps Reese Look Like Reese”

10: Items writer Josh Aiello’s girlfriend carries in her purse, according to “Inside Her Bag: The Final Frontier”

8: Number of times Aiello busts out a girls-are-so-strange stereotype in his commentary. Women carry a lot of stuff! How do they find things in their bags? “I have hands. Do they need cream?” he asks about a tube of L’Occitane lotion. The aneursym-inducing conundrum of differentiating between lip balm and lipstick, he says, “boggles the male mind.” Sheesh.

$20: The “highly affordable” fee for a lap dance, according to “What’s Up with the Stripper Thing?”

None: Despite the claim on the cover and the NSFW tag on the article, actual photos of naked man parts in “The Ultimate Guide to His Man Parts” (There are two models with bare buttocks, but that’s hardly what Glamour’s trying to imply by boasting “with pictures!” on the cover.)

2: Couples who got engaged after the woman cooked “Engagement Chicken,” according to “7 Dishes to Get You Everything You Want in Life”

Thousands: Approximate number of Google users searching for the term “engagement chicken” who've landed on this blog since I first posted about it in 2006. Is my shameless ploy for Google traffic better or worse than believing that a chicken dish can compel a man to propose? You decide!

Marie Claire's Marriage Advice for Millionaires

So! Hello. A lot has changed for me since I wrote here last: The most significant thing is that my husband got a new job on the East Coast. In just a few weeks, we’ll be packing up our cat and moving from a spacious two-bedroom in L.A. to a tiny studio in New York. And in preparation for the move, I’ve left my job.

With all these changes imminent, I eagerly flipped open Marie Claire’s April Couples issue. What timing! Surely with the stress of the move, my search for a job in New York, and the drastic reduction in our living space, I could use some level-headed relationship advice.

Unfortunately, Marie Claire should have required income verification for anyone planning to read “The New American Couple.” Not in a top tax bracket? Then this article is not for you.

One of the couples profiled is Sara Blakely, founder of Spanx, who works from Atlanta, and her husband, Jesse Itzler, Marquis Jet’s cofounder, based in New York. Here’s how they manage:

Not surprisingly, to make their warp-speed, frequent-flying lifestyle work, they rely on a team of minders: personal assistants, drivers, chefs, a 24-hour nanny on call, and “house managers” who ensure that, at any given time, there’s Diet Coke in the fridge, gas in the tanks, and clean sheets on the bed.

That’s clean sheets on the beds in four different houses, by the way. 

Meanwhile, Michelle Rhee, former D.C. schools chancellor, and Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson faced a challenge I’m sure we can all relate to:

Q: Why did you call off your wedding last September?

Kevin: We wanted to get married in Sacramento—the publicity would have been good for city business—but it quickly became a media circus.

Michelle: The local paper got a hold of our invitation and printed it. There were security issues.

And then there’s Sima Baran and Paul Robertson, whose occupations are rather obnoxiously listed in the article as “sailors on their 41-foot yacht, Leander.”

They’ve been sailing since October 2007 and plan to keep sailing for another year and a half. (That’s five years at sea, for those of you keeping track. FIVE YEARS.) Here’s how these nomads keep romance alive:

On Valentine’s Day 2010, we were in Malaysia, and Paul surprised me with local pancakes from a street vendor and a bouquet. We don’t have the “I’m too tired to fool around after work” dilemma. We have time on our hands, which is fun.

What a revelation! People who don’t work aren’t “too tired to fool around after work”? If only I’d known that my sex life could be improved simply by forgoing a paycheck and employer-sponsored health insurance!

Seriously, Marie Claire, who is this article for? Something like 0.002 percent of the population? (And are those people even reading Marie Claire? I assume they’re reading Millionaire Aircraft, Millionaire Fashion, and Millionaire Jewelry with a stack of sticky flags to mark their future purchases.)

On the plus side, the article contains a refreshingly honest recollection from journalist Lisa Ling and her husband, Dr. Paul Song, about going to marital counseling, and the article also includes Louanne Brickhouse, a Disney production VP, and Ilene Chaiken (The L Word producer), a nice break from the typical default heteronormativity of women's magazines.

Of course, Marie Claire tries to paint the couples in this article as the new American norm. And in some ways, this is good: interracial couples, non-hetero couples, women running companies? Yes! More of this in magazines, please!

But in portraying these wealthy couples as typical, the article fails to acknowledge that their solutions—hiring household staff, quitting their jobs to travel, even putting off a wedding due to press interference (guess neither needed to get married for health insurance!)—come not from great relationship skill, but from money and privilege. And that has the unfortunate effect of making the advice on these pages as out-of-reach as the designer clothes on the rest of them.

Glamour Knows What You Want from a Man

This is the charming way Glamour opens “What to Do With a Naked Man (That You Haven’t Thought of Before)” in the July issue:

We hate to be all “Here’s how to please your guy…” But if what would please you is to try a whole bunch of fun new tricks, what are we going to do, withhold the info? Hardly!

Yeah! Don’t blame Glamour for perpetuating the notion that a woman’s most direct route to personal fulfillment is to satisfy a man in the sack. They’re publishing these tepid true confessions and unimaginative sex tips because they know what you want.

Or because they had nothing else to run in this space. It’s not like those pages could have been used for ads. Or serious journalism. Or, you know, sex advice focused on your own pleasure.

But I’m sure Glamour has that planned for a future article, right? So, assuming you want to focus on satisfying your man, what wisdom do Glamour’s certified male experts have to offer?

1. Non-verbal cues to relay consent:

Your hand on his upper leg is pretty much the universal sign for “you’re getting some later.”

Excellent! There’s no way a potentially disastrous misunderstanding could result from that.

2. Revealing non sequiturs in personal anecdotes:

“I’m not violent at all, but this girl I used to date would throw me into place during sex.”

Right, see, her “throwing” you has nothing to do with you being violent. And probably nothing to do with her being violent, either. Your need to announce that you aren’t violent, however…

3. Off-handed misogyny about your body parts from a guy who is, ostensibly, interested in your body parts:

Above all, do not cup a man’s chest like he has boobs—especially if he has boobs.

There! Armed with all this knowledge, aren’t you inspired to sexually gratify a man? Maybe just not these men.

There's Nothing Sexy About InStyle's "Look Better Naked"

Many many years ago, I briefly dated a guy who was, well, not particularly nice.  Watching a movie at his place one afternoon, he leaned in for a kiss. (Mom and Dad, avert your eyes here.) Matters progressed, he tugged the hem of my t-shirt over my head, and then he rolled his eyes at my basic beige bra. “Don’t you have any sexy underwear?” he asked.

All I could think was: Dude, I’m taking my clothes off for you. How is that not enough?

Therein lies the problem with February’s glut of lingerie and look-better-naked stories: they’re so focused on an artificial construct of romance that they miss the point. If, as magazines often say, feeling sexy means feeling comfortable in your own skin, then endless articles exhorting the virtues of self-tanners, lacy knickers, and styling products aren't exactly conducive to developing that self-confidence.

And that’s what makes InStyle’s “10 Ways to Look Better Naked” so utterly ludicrous. Among their suggestions:

• Weight loss

Got 30 minutes and $85 to spend on detoxifying salts? Great!

We shed 3 inches of water weight and felt thinner for about 48 hours.

And you can keep those inches off, too, provided you don’t do anything outlandish like, say, eat or drink. People don’t typically go to romantic restaurants on Valentine’s Day, do they?

• Jewelry

The magazine suggests highlighting your back, which it calls “a very sexy region of the body.” The best way to do that? With an $850 gemstone-studded lariat chain, obviously. Without pricey jewels pointing the way, how would a man know what to focus on?

• Home décor

“Amber casts skin in a warm, rosy glow,” says [interior designer Ron] Woodson, who suggests placing a red-hued bulb in bedside lamps and painting your ceiling a barely there shade of peach or pink to enhance the effect.

Painting the ceiling? Painting the ceiling! That seems excessively vain, but at least they didn’t suggest installing a mirror up there.

Of course, the article also covers the usual territory of depilation, exfoliation, and cosmetic trickery to hide any traces of humanity blemishes and bruises. But unless you’re disrobing for a sculptor who’ll immortalize your every detail in marble, isn’t this overkill? There’s probably a 3,000-word essay here about treating women like objects and the deleterious effects of porn and how the media tries to define our sexuality, but I’ll just leave it at this:

If you’re naked and your partner dares frown at your white ceiling or a stray stretch mark, your relationship is way beyond InStyle’s help. Also, you’re probably dating my ex-boyfriend.

Allure Strikes Out with Sports Advice

If all these magazines are going to relay ridiculous advice, could they at least get together first and be consistent in their totally arbitrary rules? While Cosmopolitan advised that female sports fans are unlikely to find male companionship, the September issue of Allure posits that a cursory knowledge of sports is mandatory. From “How to Be Stylish”:

You are not required to like sports. You are not even required to pretend to like sports. But utter cluelessness is beneath you.

To put this in perspective: Allure did not consider it beneath them to print a two-page spread with a dozen pictures of Michael Jackson and ask plastic surgeons (some of whom had apparently never treated Jackson) to speculate about the procedures he’d had. So knowing enough about MJ that it practically constitutes a HIPAA violation is cool, but not following the NBA is unforgivably churlish.

Also, while no text explains exactly why acquiring some sports knowledge is so important, the facing page features a photo of a couple canoodling in a baseball stadium. Subtle!

Familiarize yourself with the approximate beginning and end of the pro sports seasons. Not having an opinion about the Lakers’ record is fine; not knowing that the season is over is lame.

The same goes for time periods: Baseball has nine innings; football and basketball have four quarters; hockey has three periods; soccer has two halves.

And that's it! No need to worry about such unimportant details as field goals or free throws or anything that would give the impression you actually have the slightest command of any of these games. At least there's nothing here about, like, the Lakers wearing purple and gold...together.

Upsets are the most exciting thing about watching sports. Watch highlights of the most buzzed-about games on YouTube so you can join in the national conversation. (Just check out when the U.S. soccer team beat Spain in this year’s Confederations Cup.)

At last...an explanation! It’s the “national conversation.” Apparently, the country is also absorbed with walking in platforms and cheek-kissing, because those are two of the other life-and-death matters covered in this article. Can I assume GQ and Esquire are instructing their readers to bone up on those topics?

Deeming a lack of knowledge about sports is undignified seems just as arbitrary as declaring which colors of eyeshadow are in for fall. Why single out sports as an essential topic—especially when the only explanation comes in a picture of a couple getting cozy on a baseball diamond? If the idea is that some basic sports knowledge will help readers relate to men, they could at least be upfront about it. (And imagine the amazing conversations that would result from following this article’s advice: Him: “I love hockey.” Her: “I don’t like hockey, and I won’t pretend to like hockey, but Allure says that game has three periods! Now let me tell you how many innings a baseball game has!”)

Instead, Allure’s advice perpetuates the myth that women don’t like sports while simultaneously implying that a lack of interest or knowledge in the subject is a personal failure. I don’t know what game this is, but I don’t think Allure is playing fair.

Related: Cosmopolitan: Sports Fans, Prepare to Be Single Forever

Lowest Common Denominator: Glamour, September

3: Number of exclamation points in the coverline touting the Jessica Simpson story

$13,000: Value of “stuff you want” that Glamour is giving away, per page 64

1: Number of days editor-in-chief Cindi Leive’s assistant spent dressed as Lady Gaga for the “Dare of the Month”

3.5: Time, in minutes, before most women would be sent home from the office if they showed up in fishnets and a leotard

So, so much: Amount I covet the Hugo Boss bag in the ad following page 78

12: Size clothing worn by model Crystal Renn, whose book, Hungry, is reviewed in “Do Get the Season’s Stylish Reads Here,” complete with an excerpt of a “moment we love”

Perhaps 1: Number of size-12 models photographed by Glamour for this issue (keep reading)

2009: Year in which Glamour apparently thinks red lipstick was invented, given their extravagant praise of the stuff on page 89

3: Pages of lipstick ads surrounding the aforementioned feature (1 immediately before and 2 right after)

Nil: Value of the advice given by Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana to “play up your prettiest parts.” Really? I shouldn’t highlight my worst features?

100: Page on which Faith Hill recommends Coldplay. You know, they’re that obscure new band you might otherwise have never heard of?

100: Coincidentally, also the page on which I lost my patience with mega-rich celebrities sharing their “knowledge.” See also: why I don’t subject myself to GOOP

50: Percent of men surveyed by Glamour who told the magazine they “groom their privates”

15: Age, approximate, at which I last used the word “privates” non-ironically

1987: Year in which pleated high-waisted pants, like those shown on page 116, should remain. What’s next, paperbag waists?

Zero: Amount the use of “Kate Moss” as a verb, as in “11 Touches That ‘Kate Moss’ Your Wardrobe” on page 133, should be tolerated. Please stop. Now.

5: Number of “fantasies he’s having about you right now” and suggested “real way[s] to romance a guy,” as detailed in the “Men, Sex & Love” section

194: Page you should turn to right now to see a model who actually might be a size 12

+1: Points for featuring Robin Givhan in “Meet the Woman on Michelle Watch”

-10: Points for the article not actually being about Givhan, despite its title

35: Percent of survey respondents who think cover star Jessica Simpson should reunite with ex-husband Nick Lachey

Infinite: My astonishment that people actually have an opinion about who Jessica Simpson should date

0: Approximate number of Americans other than me who have neither read nor seen any part of the Twilight series. Four of the films’ stars appear in a beauty feature called—what else?—“Twilight Beauty”

+1: For including a same-sex pair in “Secrets of Happy Couples”

2,497: Estimated appearances of Clinique’s Dramatically Different Moisturizing Lotion in stories similar to “24 Best Beauty Buys Now”

36: Financial tips dispensed in “Your Money,” starting on page 268

Not surprisingly, 0: Recommendations in the aforementioned article to invest in clothes or shoes

4: Violent incidents mentioned in “Sex with a Stranger”

1: Number of men in the same article confessing to “really want[ing] to kill” a woman because she wouldn’t have sex with him

5: Meals actress Meryl Streep claims to get from a single chicken in “Hey, Glamour Readers! Julia Child is Making You Dinner”

The 20 Life-Changing Lessons in September's Cosmopolitan

Until I read this month’s issue, I thought Cosmopolitan was like the TSA: a mostly pointless institution that nonetheless will never go away.    

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong. So, I’m just going to come out and say it: I’m a big person. The September issue was full of top-notch journalistic insight and information that will undoubtedly change my life—and yours, too!

Here are the top twenty things I gleaned from those precious 262 pages:

1.    “Hoo-ha” an acceptable word to print on a magazine cover. But is it better than “va-jay-jay”?

2.    Cosmo’s reporters doggedly pursue their subjects in a quest for truth. For instance: After a showdown that must have rivaled the Frost-Nixon interviews in tension, actress Kristen Bell finally admitted that—ready?—she eats no salad dressing except Bob’s Big Boy bleu cheese. Scandalous!

3.    Interacting with a male in the wrong way can have disastrous consequences. That’s why “Grab His Butt Like This” so painstakingly described four different ways of, well, grabbing a man’s butt. The stakes are high!

4.    At last, there is a cure for the dreaded football addiction that strikes so many men. And about time, too, because there’s no way we would enjoy watching football with them! (“The Guy Report,” page 76)

5.    The Rolling Stones are relevant in 2009, because a $44 Stones logo tee is a must for fall. Guess my New Pornographers t-shirt needs to hang unworn in the closet until I’m eligible for Social Security. (“8 Must-Have Items,” page 83)

6.    It’s possible to be “ballsy” and have a hoo-ha, and the best way to demonstrate that is by pairing socks with high-heeled sandals! Could this be the fourth wave of feminism? (“Ballsy Looks to Try Now,” page 86)

7.    Someone at Cosmo thinks “brond” is a word meaning a mix of blond and brunette hair. And I’d pegged “shootie” as this year’s ubiquitous portmanteau!

8.    Camilla Belle is more well-known than I thought. Cosmo surveyed 100 men to find out which shade of lipstick they prefer on her, and none of the responses were “Who’s Camilla Belle?”

9.    Actress Anna Faris is “ballsy,” just like socks and sandals! Good for her! She even has a hoo-ha. (“Fun Fearless Female,” page 120)

10.    Cosmo girls aren’t concerned with a man’s looks. That’s why the magazine devised a “Stud Meter” to inform readers of famous men’s physical charms. Among the findings: Ryan Reynolds and Chace Crawford are more attractive than a cross-dressing Mariah Carey or Coolio. Yes, Coolio. If the Stones are relevant now, his time is coming!

Lowest Common Denominator: Cosmopolitan, March

1: Number of cover lines that made me cackle. “We are not kidding” is pure comedy

32: Page on which the word “shoegasm” appears

8: Actresses featured in “Red Carpet Confidence: Who Has It, Who’s Faking It”

Boundless: The inherent hypocrisy of a magazine that encourages its readers to be confident and then speculates about the confidence of celebrities. Does it serve any purpose to have a body-language expert declare that Renee Zellweger, Eva Mendes, and Brittany Snow appear uncomfortable in one particular red carpet photo?

59: Percent of men, according to “Guy Spy,” who “don’t want to know your nooky number”

6: Months I would like to travel back in time and use an assumed name to infiltrate Cosmo HQ and somehow prevent the term “nooky number” from ever appearing in print

$175: Retail price of a tank top deemed “cheap” on page 78

2: Number of pages between the $175 tank and “How to ‘Stretch’ Your Clothes,” which offers fashion-coping tips for those times “your checking account has taken a hit”

11: Number of “His Biggest Sex Secrets”

99.9: After reading “Is He Normal Down There?” and its incessant chorus of "it depends,” my inexpert estimate of the number of men who are, in fact, “normal down there”

13: Judging solely by the apparent necessity of using “down there,” the average age of Cosmopolitan readers

3: Assault and murder victims profiled in “The Hidden Work Danger”

Infinite: Locations where a woman can be brutalized by a man, according to “The Hidden Work Danger” and the psychopathic-behavior-of-the-month articles that appear in every single issue of this magazine

5: Bedtime rituals on page 164 that, claims Cosmo, will “keep you and your man connected”

2 weeks: Shelf life, approximate, of any relationship in which the participants need a women’s magazine to suggest that a kiss on the cheek might be a pleasant way to say good night

Onesie: Okay, it’s not exactly a number, but it is the name of a piece of clothing featured on page 173

2: Of the “45 Ways to Instantly Feel Sexy and Healthy,” number of tips which include the phrase “V zone”

InStyle's Relationship Rule: Clothes Make the Man

Ah, it’s February, the season of love and romance! It must be time for yet another article telling us eager women how to dress to please our men! How else will we prove our love?

Of course, no one wants to come across as promoting ideas from the Stone Age, so any magazine worth its faux-feminist salt won’t hesitate to preface its article with a declaration that relationship-related fashion rules don’t really matter…thus freeing them to detail an increasingly ridiculous, impossible-to-fulfill list of directives for dressing to seduce.

And that’s exactly what InStyle does in February’s “Dating Rituals”! It kicks off with this:

There are absolutely no rules when it comes to looking hot

Which isn’t a bad start, except that there are actual rules cribbed from The Man Plan (yes, it is a real book) at the bottom of each page of the story.

First, a cliché:

Men are attracted to power. And self-confidence is the most powerful thing.

Do I even need to explain the inherent contradiction in prescribing specific outfits to delight the typical male’s oh-so-discriminating eye for fashion while simultaneously touting the virtue and power of self-confidence?

Oh, and speaking of clichés, did you know that men and women enjoy different movies?

Casey says, “These fall halfway between chick flick and ‘I’ll still be a guy to all of my guy friends if they find out I saw it’—When Harry Met Sally, Wedding Crashers, Jerry Maguire, Bull Durham and the always classic Casablanca.”

Well! Someone hasn't seen Wedding Crashers!

Next:

“When a man feels he is in a place that’s comfortable—a woman’s home that has things he can relate to—he feels a closer bond to her. But when she overdoes it with the feminine accents, his impulse is to move out and move on,” Casey says.

So arranging your wardrobe to suit him isn’t enough—your décor has to please him, too! Here’s a novel idea: why not develop relationships with men who appreciate the way you choose to dress and decorate?

They’ve saved the most stereotype-riddled rule for last:

“No matter what his backstory is, never comment on the quarterback’s cute backside,” says Casey. “Do you want him commenting on the cheerleader’s cute ‘L.A. face and Oakland booty’?”

Do you want to feel secure enough in your relationship that the two of you can benignly discuss the attractiveness of people you'll never meet? More importantly, do you want to date a man who quotes Sir Mix-a-lot with a straight face?

Fortunately, Instyle does offer one surefire way for the average woman to compete with a professional cheerleader: a $335 mini! It's practically a bargain when you consider the attention that'll accompany the purchase!

In case all this gender-based wardrobe advice isn’t enough, the magazine follows “Dating Rituals” with the essay “He Says, She Wears,” wherein the author lets her husband choose her clothes for a week. Given InStyle's emphasis on making wardrobe choices with men in mind, I don’t think I need to tell you how that ends.