Two years ago, Cosmopolitan ran an article that taught me how to get even closer to my man.
I swear I’ve read this article before…several times.
I decided to read it because, hey, I could always use a few tips, right? And Cosmo’s never let me down before. Well, actually…Anyway, the list was chock full of stupid ideas that ranged from asinine to stalkerish. For instance, Tip #3:
“While waiting in line for a unisex bathroom, pull him into the loo with you. You don’t even have to jump him, but even a quick make-out session is electrifying.”
First off, where are all these unisex bathrooms you speak of? Secondly, if you’re waiting in line I assume this means there are people waiting behind you who would be pretty peeved that they had to hold their whiz while you two have sexy time. I’m pretty sure if I tried this, my bf would be like “what’s going on? I have to pee.” And stop calling it a “make-out session!” It’s not like I’m billing him in 15 minute increments.
Tip # 8 is just as asinine:
“Pick a regular time, like lunch hour, and send a what-I’m-doing-right-now e-mail or text. The simple routine will give him a treat to look forward to.”
This is what my text would say every single day: “Right now I am eating lunch, because it is my lunch hour.” Seems like a waste of a texting plan to me.
And then there are the truly scary ideas: Tip #11 says
“Ask his mom for a shot of him as a boy doing something great, like his game-winning Little League pitch. Frame it, and put it in your place where he’ll see it.”
Is it just me, or did Kate Hudson do this in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days?
And my favorite tip of all, Tip #35:
“Skip the contrived chocolate-body-paint routine in bed. Instead, nosh on warm blondies with hot-fudge sauce after you’ve done the deed (but while you’re still nekkid).”
I was unaware that chocolate body paint even existed, let alone that it is contrived. Also, can “nekkid” go the way of “make-out session?”
But I digress. The reason I am returning to this 2-year-old article is because of Tip #21:
It doesn’t seem so bad—maybe a little on the psycho girlfriend side, but it’s manageable. But check THIS out:
This little iota of wisdom was taken from an article titled “Tales of Over-the-Top Romance” from the March 2010 issue. Perhaps they should have just reprinted the entire February 2008 article under this new title.
Conclusion: Cosmo is stupid, or else they just assume their audience is stupid. Which may be quite true.
Do any of you read Cosmo? What's the dumbest thing they've ever convinced you to do?