The differences between men's and women's magazines.

My conversational opposite and I, having previously discussed time-travel, multiverses and alternate dimensions soon moved on to the differences between men's and women's magazines. I can't remember how the conversation evolved into this.

Oh yes I can, it was discussing Nancy and Stacey's previous conversation involving the watermelons.

First of all I said that if you read the kind of magazines that feature watermelons so heavily, it's of course going to be very likely that you will have increased exposure to them. I also pointed out that one does not have to read every article in a magazine, there's no law against skipping a page - remember that folks.

Then we digressed into which magazines I read. My CO(conversational opposite) asked me if I had read Zoo and Nuts (I think he was joking), but I replied that yes I had. I said I think they're better than their female equivalents. At least they're not full of contradictions and confusing statements such as "Woah, look how fat celebrity X has got since she put on 2lbs", flip the page, "Why can't we be happy with our body shape?" flip the page again, "here's a diet to help you lose weight". And remember, you can't be happy with an imperfect body shape, but you should feel mighty guilty about that. Happiness = thinness, unless you go too far, then you're an anorexic disgrace, but what made you like this in the first place? What a nightmare.

Just stick to Zoo, you know what you're getting, a naked lady, something about a car, a joke, a bit about football and maybe something a bit weird. That's much better than all the crap that comes out of Cosmo and the like. I also said something highly profound about the male icons being famous for doing something such as being a good football player or an actor, whereas female ones were more likely to be famous for having a pretty face or big knockers.

I really was on a roll today.

That's it, no more thinking for ten years. Officially.