On Cosmopolitan Magazine

According to the September 2007 issue of Cosmo magazine there is a lot a woman can learn about a man from his pubic hair.

For example, an unkempt man is shiftless and slovenly in his personal and professional lives, whereas manscaping reminiscent of the blazing Sahara points to a controlling personality, one which emulates alpha male characteristics as seen in many many many hours of porno.

Obviously, the magazine says, the preferred man is one who grooms himself but in a moderate manner, one with a bit of bush but not an ever expansive evergreen grove.

Guys.

They're telling women what to think of us based on something we usually are unaware of.

Now we really can't fight the logic because you can kind of see how it could sometimes be true and more importantly fighting this notion means we'll be having less sex overall.

So what can we do as super manly men of manliness?

Well, we could just follow the logic and painstakingly maintain proper pubic placement. Sure. But that way lies capitulation. If we kowtow to Cosmo today, what is next? Must we bow to Martha Sterwart Living next week? O Magazine after that? I think not. That is our ruin. Not only will we be subservient to magazine nonsense, we will validate that crap by obeying it.

No, instead we must that the twenty-something upper-middle class Caucasian Prime Directive; we must find ways to show our knowledge of the subject, Cosmo's opinion of it and then express how short-sited and Eurocentric it is while using big worlds like "myopic."

If we can do that than we as men at least stand some small chance of making it with a woman, albeit likely an Indie Hipster chick who herself shares a less topiary style of bodily grooming.