If I were to try and diagnose why couples who move in together fast continue to get judged, I think it’s because we’re still shaking off old (read: Puritanical) attitudes about monogamy and marriage. Don’t get me wrong: Moving in together is obviously a big decision and one you should consider thoughtfully. But if the reason you’re waiting X-amount of time to do it is because of “relationship advice” you heard somewhere or social norms you think you’re supposed to keep, remember that these “norms” are mostly patriarchal and stem from ancient bible scriptures grounded in sexual immorality, unlawful lust, and keeping the marriage bed pure. As a society, we’ve moved past these outdated standards in more ways than one. Let’s face it, “They’re living in sin!” is no longer the sick burn it used to be.
The magazine was based upon both the idea and discovery that effective contraception should and now did exist.
This changes near everything about cross-gender human interaction. So, it changes everything. Which seems to be the bit that the folk who currently write for Cosmo haven’t grasped. The old rules made sense – for the protection of young women more than anyone else – for that pre-contraceptive (and, to an extent, pre-DNA certainty about paternity) age.
Sheesh.
Yeah, why not move in straight away, Cosmogirl. You’ll feel independent and sophisticated then.
You’ve been taught how to give fantastic blow-jobs, now put up with his train set, dodgy mates, mild depression, and addiction to video games.
Cosmo.. the FeMag that tells you to ignore Silly Made-Up Rules while at the same time ( sometimes same page…) announcing the New Silly Made-Up Rules ( now 100% morebettergood, trust us.. ), with an article of the reconfirmation of the Absolute Necessity of the Old Silly Made-Up Rules because your Feminist Horoscope tells you so. Since 1894.
Then again… “Reading Cosmopolitan” is a very good and accurate marker for “women to avoid like the plague”.
Is this a joke? Historically, marriage was either arranged or strongly encouraged. Dating only became a thing with the beginning of female empowerment.
In the early 20th Century, there was a massive fad for early marriage and unmarried cohabitation was scandalous. Extended courtships and waiting to move in together have nothing to do with scripture or the patriarchy. These are modern psychoses.
these “norms” are mostly patriarchal and stem from ancient bible scriptures grounded in sexual immorality, unlawful lust, and keeping the marriage bed pure. As a society, we’ve moved past these outdated standards in more ways than one.
True, but… has anybody taken a look outside? Does “society” seem healthy, these days? C’mon, let’s be honest. It’s not exactly going great, is it? Those “norms” (lol, take that, norms) were found to be useful to God-knows-how-many generations of our ancestors. Since we decided we were cleverer and betterer than boring, fusty old DAAAD, things have been sliding towards the shitter like a rocket-assisted Eddie the Eagle on methamphetamines.
Of course, the Bible is informed by the fornicatory habits of Bronze Age perverts. How could it not be? There’s no form of sin under this sun that’s new, although the current Western fad for voluntary castration is starting to get out of hand and make me wonder how long until we start erecting stepped-pyramidal gender clinics in every town for the sacrificing of thousands of penii to Saints Greta and George while golliwogs twerk and caper and Ant and Dec simper into the television cameras about how good this is for Climate Justice.
Probably after Labour gets in.
Back in the day – quite a few days ago – young female friends read Cosmo, and it seemed then to combine from the editorial side the importance of strong radical feminism, with from the advertorial side the availability of breast implants. I am not sure that Cosmo’s intellectual coherence has improved greatly in the intervening period.
Lots of the (highly male skewed) contributors here seem to be avid cosmo readers. Is it for the blowjob tips or the stories?
e do need a new pejorative to replace “Living in sin” I’s suggest living in Croydon.
BIS. I was on a game server, and we got bombed. A Teutonic voice said “they’re friendly bombs” which made me laugh and quote Betjeman… result…someone in sausage land now knows Slough’s a shithole.
@HB
It’s an interesting proposition. If the Luftwaffe had expended their munitions more thoughtfully & concentrated on the middle-class suburbs, there’s every chance Britain would have been suing for peace before the end of ’40.
In the early 20th Century, there was a massive fad for early marriage
My great-grandmother fell in love at about 18, her mother told her: ok, as long as you do not get married until you’re 21. So they courted for three years, with the war getting in the way at times, and getting married at 22.
A similar thing then happened with her daughter, my grandmother, she was “stepping out” with a chap she met at university, and the instruction was: not until you’ve graduated, and make sure you do graduate. Again, the war got in the way, and after graduating (with, from memory, a First) and war work “for the government”, married at 28.
An influence could have been that in both instances the young lady’s mother was a widow.