PSA: I'm just not that into you, Cosmo.

Before going with my girl to watch "He's Just Not That Into You," in a concession to a longer than usual day and wanting to spend it somewhere dark and quiet rather than well-lit and full of complaints, I saw an ad appearing before my email login for "You're Just Not That Into Him." So I clicked on it.

It was a Cosmo article on how you can tell when you're not interested in a guy you think you're interested in. Here are the five ways you can tell:

1. You don't think about him much when you're apart.
2. You don't especially want him to meet your friends and family.
3. It doesn't bother you when he goes out without you.
4. You're not excited to hook up with him.
5. You wonder if other guys you meet are available.

Now here's the trouble with this article, not in execution (because I don't have time for that), but in concept: The possible types of women reading this article are as follows.

A. Women who already know they're not "that into" a guy and just want to prove it.
B. Women who really, really want to be "that into" a guy, know they aren't, and are hoping to find evidence in Cosmo that they are.
C. Women who are "that into" a guy and want to feel the satisfaction of checking off a list proving it.
D. Women who don't really know how they feel and are willing to read Cosmo as they would an oracle.

Now I've known for years that Cosmo caters to insecure women, but it had never before occurred to me that the American sex tip master mag is actually written for neurotic women, ones who are (A) in need of constant reassurance, (B) willing themselves to settle for less, (C) control freaks (though possibly minor), or (D) desperate for direction.

Now that it has occurred to me, I wonder how I ever missed it. Women already comfortable with their love lives wouldn't need seventy new sex tricks that will drive him WILD!!! It's a magazine for people with problems.

It's porn for women. But while Playboy gives men an eyeful of what they (think they) want and the chance to do something about it, Cosmo encourages inaction, potential paralysis and codependence -- or else the idea that if you don't know the seventy new sex tricks, you might not drive him WILD!!! You might only drive him WILD!!

Or worse yet, just plain wild.

You have to know what you're doing, in other words, and Cosmo can help.

How is it that men get plain ol' pictures of airbrushed, beautiful women and are trusted to just know what to do with 'em, and women get a jillion-word "how-to" month after month?

Are women really that much more intellectual, or are we just socialized that way?

At any rate, I have no use for Cosmo, and in terms of allaying neuroses, this magazine isn't up to the task of advising me any more than a three-year-old is up to joining NASA -- but in case you're wondering, I clicked on the article because I'm (C).

I happen to like a nicely checked-off list.