Your first paragraph was merely presumptive, false, and ignorant. Your second was also accusatory and rude. Please reconsider.

Edit: To go into more detail in case the above statements are not immediately obvious.

Okay, so now your position is that the makers of Legally Blonde were trying to portray Elle as a member of a tiny, outlier subculture that regards Cosmo as authoritative.

I didn't say tiny. I didn't say outlier. I didn't even say subculture. The people who worked on Legally Blonde portrayed Elle as an individual woman who spends a great deal of time on the sorts of things Cosmopolitan is known to write about. She therefore refers to as Cosmopolitan as "the Bible", in much the same sense a cook might call The Joy of Cooking "their Bible".

And therefore expected the audience to laugh about "hah, that strange, tiny subculture that revolves around Cosmo!" rather than, "heh, women sure do depend on Cosmo a lot!"

I think they're supposed to go, "ha ha, look at this wacky, silly, caricatured protagonist who thinks everything revolves around makeup and fashion and romance!"

Like any bad lie, your position has forced you into defending ever-more-absurd positions entangled with it.

It's not clear if you think I have lied or just that I have said things that resemble lies. Still, such entanglement is not at all obvious to me, mostly because you made distant and unwarranted leaps from what I actually said to the funhouse mirror version of what I said.