Waiting room reading.

There are many things that men get shit for. We smell, we are messy, we look like a footprint. One thing in particular women love to get on their high-horse about is men's magazines.

To some extent, I agree. Men's magazines are trash. There are a few different types, but most are rubbish. You've got the sport/hobby magazines, which, unless you're a big find of Big Bass Fishing Monthly or Rugby League Weekly, really aren't interesting. They're a pretty niche market. Importantly, anything that involves body-building or tattoos is usually just an excuse to fill the pages with scantily clad women selling vitamin supplements.

Then you have the men's adult magazines, and I needn't say much on this topic. I am impressed as to how long they have survived considering how much better the internet is for porn. Obviously there is a strong market of gentlemen who crave the tactile page-turning experience of Hustler as opposed to the often laggy delights of RedTube.

The remainder of men's magazines are lifestyle journals which, if anyone has flicked through a Men's Style or Men's Health will know that they are full of wank and are aimed at wealthy unattractive men who are desperate to latch onto the latest trend, like bespoke suits or kayaking.

Understandably, those publications are the subject of much criticism. However, very rarely do people turn the magnifying glass around and look at the other side. Probably because no one wants to admit to reading the trash that is women's magazines.

Actual trash magazines aside (Who, NW and Famous) what is on offer for women in magazine form is pretty poor, and as bad if not worse than men's magazines. Besides the niche publications (anything related to weddings or crafts) there are really only two types of magazines.

Firstly, you've got your Mature Lady journals, which includes things like Women's Weekly (published monthly mind you, if that simple error is not a cause for concern then I don't know what is) and House & Garden. These magazines have become what is essentially glorified monthly cookbooks. Rarely is there anything of any substance in them. I bet the editors of Women's Weekly had a conniption fit when Julie won MasterChef.

The other type, and the type that is the target of my scorn, is the Woman's Lifestyle magazines. Cosmo, Madison, Cleo and Marie Claire fall neatly into this category. And they are, on the whole, absolute trash. I was lucky enough to have the most recent copy of Cosmo at my disposal while I was at work this week. It features Britney Spears on the cover, who I can only assume is their desperate attempt at giving women in their 20's a role model. Not a good start Cosmo. She's lip synced her way through a career in which she's had a complete mental breakdown and lost control of her children and finances. She also has a problem wearing underwear. But sure Cosmo, "she made it."

As the cover points out, this month's issue contains such riveting stories as "5 Snappy Fixes for Everyday Beauty Problems", "Clever Fashion Tricks to Beat Your Body Quirks" and "5 Little Ways to get Sexier Summer Hair". Oooo, topical. This is just the tip of the iceberg people.

Firstly, these types of magazines always have some sort of "Real Women, Really Naked" special. It's gone beyond being a gimmick and now almost every issue features average women getting naked and talking about how much they love their body. We get it Cosmo, different women look different naked. So often do these magazines speak out against men objectifying women, yet they are now doing just that. Women's bodies have become less an empowering element of their lives and more a point of discussion, a thing for people to look at and judge and say "Oh, look how real her body is, she's so comfortable getting naked." The real concern is that in every interview they do with these naked women, they always ask "What don't you like about your body?" or "What is your least favourite part of your body?" I suppose this is meant to illustrate that everyone has body hand-ups, but all it achieves is enforcing that idea that no one should be happy with the way their body looks, no matter how much you say "real women are all different and we embrace them!"

There is also always a section on understanding guys, specifically what some trivial behaviour they perform says about your relationship. In this issue, the big article that fills this criteria is "What His Sex Style Reveals About Him... And Your Future Together". Firstly, I can pretty much guarantee that if a guy is having sex with you, he sees some future with you. That future may just be more sex, but men certainly do not have sex with someone and think "Now I will never see or talk to this person again" let alone not think about the possibility of future hook-ups. Secondly, basing the future of a relationship on something as trivial as someone's sex style is completely ridiculous. I'm no sexpert, but I am well aware that no matter what kind of person you are, you usually want different styles of sex depending on any number of external factors. Not only that, people can have the most dramatically personality changes once they start having sex with someone. It would be foolish to try and find a pattern and then use that to judge their long-term potential.

One of my favourite sections is all the pointless quizzes. They link your favourite number to your success with men, your last meal with your relationship with your mother and your shoe size to whether you were reincarnated. I believe this is referred to as a 'pseudo-science'. The December issue of Cosmo contains, amongst others, an article that hopes to explain the connection between your favourite colour and your prowess in the bedroom. When I saw this I thought "Wow, there are a lot of colours, this should be interesting." To my surprise, Cosmo had taken some liberties with the concept of colour. The options? Orange, green and purple. What the fuck kind of colours are they? No one likes those colours, let alone wants to compare them to their skills in the sack.

Finally, these types of magazines have a real problem with contradicting themselves. For example, the issue I was flipping through had an article that warned of the dangers of over-exercising, specifically intense "crash exercise". A handful of pages later was an article that encouraged a quick-fix (read: crash) guide to getting a bikini body. Make up your mind Cosmo, do you want me to exercise or not? Not content with just one level of contradiction, they also had an article that warned of the dangers of exercising, specifically relating to assaults on women who exercise alone. You're sending some very mixed messages Cosmo. No wonder you have a bunch of over-weight readers who need to see their naked counterparts to feel better about themselves.

I have reached my offensive quota, so I'll call it a day.

Thanks for stopping by!