‘Instant Pot For Two’ cookbooks have a bizarre idea of how cooking goes down
Stock photos are often pretty strange, and Twitter noticed that canned poses on the fronts of “Instant Pot For Two” cookbooks are even stranger.
Like, a lot stranger.
Writer Mike Rugnetta tweeted out a bunch of covers from “Instant Pot For Two” cookbooks to point out a bizarre trend — they all feature a woman preparing a recipe with a men creepily/sensually behind her “helping.” He writes, “these poor women.”
And seriously, we feel bad for them. This is awkward AF.
these poor women pic.twitter.com/MeVjZvpyb1
— Mike, but Trying to Be Less Furious All The Time (@mikerugnetta) January 22, 2018
It’s important to note that these cookbooks are actually not affiliated with Instant Pot and are totally unauthorized. They just use the Instant Pot name to promote their hover-y version of cooking for couples. None of Instant Pot’s actual cookbooks feature any people on the cover at all, let alone a dude infringing on a woman trying to cut vegetables in peace.
The unauthorized versions, however, are super into it.
Seriously, why? There’s an entire library of “couples” cookbooks out there just being creepy and we had no idea. Now we can’t un-know this.
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY OF THESE pic.twitter.com/gegJICoCvT— Mike Rugnetta: Always Already Tactical (@mikerugnetta) January 22, 2018
The absurd photos are really confusing. Is there a woman on earth who wants her partner fondling her while she cooks? Is there a woman on earth who can’t cut a bell pepper with her weak lady hands and requires her husband to help push the knife all the way down? And if that’s the case, why doesn’t he just slice the fucking pepper by himself? Is that not sexy and dangerous enough, cookbooks?
What in the ever living hell do you think she didn’t know about this pepper pic.twitter.com/6IpRMkZD26— Kristin Russo (@kristinnoeline) January 22, 2018
also how in the hell is THIS helpful in ANY way? pic.twitter.com/EasVbqWsZy— Mike Rugnetta: Always Already Tactical (@mikerugnetta) January 22, 2018
It’s not. It’s not helpful or normal in any way. If my husband tried to “help” me like this he would be down a finger or two — and it wouldn’t be an accident.
Twitter is definitely just as weirded out as I am.
At what point will we be using the pot in the preparation of what looks like cucumber sandwiches? pic.twitter.com/w6iV8FUtTy— human disaster radley (@angharadyeo) January 22, 2018
Like, there’s a lot to unpack here.
I'm more wondering the odds and possible statistics of a left handed couple. Or maybe he's just left handed and that's why she looks a little worried.— Katy Jean (@katynotie) January 22, 2018
Handsplaining— Mark Vanderhoff (@Mark_Vanderhoff) January 23, 2018
Now she totally gets it.
My guess he's holding her hand down because otherwise she would stab him.— Peggy Blair (@peggy_blair) January 22, 2018
Neither do I, Lori King. Neither. Do. I.
He's gropin probably 😉, my spouse getting smarter about approaching me when i have knife in my hand 😄on a side note I don't know any one who likes to have someone so close when you're trying to cook 😂— Lori King (@1loriking) January 23, 2018
Seriously, so many peppers.
All these books have 200+ recipes, but all the recipes use bell peppers.— Dr. Hideki Omega (@baddromega) January 22, 2018
Is this why I burn so much shit? Because I tell my husband to GTFO when I’m wielding a knife?
Oh that’s why some of my recipes don’t come out exactly right, I don’t cook with a man standing over me— Felicia (@Felicious1908) January 22, 2018
Ah ok, I see.
dyk that if a strong man does not stabilize a woman while she cooks, the recoil of a knife will lift her off the ground #safetyfirst— Hannah Weinberger (@Weinbergrrrrr) January 23, 2018
Pretty much this, though.
someone is going to lose a finger— Hank Green @ VidCon London! (@hankgreen) January 23, 2018
We get that the cookbook cover designers are just trying to convey that these are definitely recipes made for two people, but all they’ve really done is completely weird us out. We can cook just fine without a man hovering, thanks.