Before Cargo's launch, people had been speculating about all the toys that would be found in the first issue of Condé Nast’s new shopping magazine for men.
   But, two weeks after its launch, much of the talk has shifted instead to trying to out Cargo: is it a gay magazine, is it a straight magazine, is it gay passing for straight, is it perhaps bisexual?
   Among Cargo's strengths may be its ambiguity on the entire matter of sexual orientation. Might it be hiding in a closet even from itself?
   Yes, there's a feature called "Does This Make Me Look Gay," but the title alone is quite tongue in cheek, and there's also design tips from "Queer Eye" guy Thom Filicia. 
   This is leaving critics to study the subtext of the issue, searching from page to page for this hint or that of sexual orientation. And at least among some there's detectable discomfort, as if along the way they're being called upon to examine themselves at some level.
   Here’s a look at what critics around the country are saying about Cargo:

Michael Musto, Village Voice:

“Meanwhile, gays can say bon voyage to Cargo, the new men's merch magazine that obviously caters to paranoid heteros. (And yes, I'm aware that a ‘Queer Eye’ guy is one of its contributors.) An item on shirts in the premier issue is geared strictly to straight guys living in fear of gay stereotypes. Titled ‘Honey, Does This Embroidered Shirt Make Me Look Gay?’ the not-tongue-in-cheek-enough piece then decides, ‘Kinda, if it has . . . busy patterns.’ Well, the A.D.D.-currying magazine happens to be so busily designed, it clearly takes it up the ass!”

Larry Smith, Salon.com:

“Although Cargo's edit mix is at least half fashion and style, I'm more geek than groomer, so I turned straight to the gadgets section, ‘The Whole Shebang,’ which looks at cell phones in the debut March/April issue. It quickly became clear that CNET.com does a much better job of breaking down the gadget Americans purchase every 18 months, so I only skimmed the story. …

“… the first issue doesn't feel like it's for anyone -- straight, gay, whatever -- in particular. The magazine isn't littered with half-naked babes in men's suits, bitchy queens telling straight guys how to behave, or hopeless geeks prattling on about the wonders of WiFi, but it doesn't read like a cool Consumer Reports, either. It's neither very gay nor very straight but rather fey, lacking a personality, as if the magazine truly wants to be all things to all people.”

Peter Carlson, Washington Post:

“Cargo might be the worst idea for a magazine in human history. It's certainly the worst idea for a magazine since December 2000, when Condé Nast launched Lucky, a shopping magazine for women.

“The apparent idea behind Lucky was simple: Women are too dumb to read magazine articles. They just want to look at pictures of shoes and makeup and handbags and hairdos. The idea was profoundly insulting to women, and women responded by enthusiastically embracing Lucky, which now sells 900,000 copies a month.

“Needless to say, advertisers also embraced Lucky, where their ads are pretty much indistinguishable from what passes for editorial matter. …

“Flipping through Cargo (you can't really call it ‘reading’) is like being trapped in the ‘back of the book’ section of a real men's magazine -- you know, the kind that has actual articles in the front of the book. After 204 pages of stuff, I longed for some sign of human life. Except for the models, Cargo is devoid of human beings. It's a magazine for mannequins.”

Sam McManis, Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune:

“When I picked it up at the newsstand, I almost was knocked over by the odoriferous Ralph Lauren cologne ad on Page 42. Once I regained consciousness, I noticed something unusual -- no articles. Just photo spreads and charts (charticles, anyone?), because apparently it's more important to accessorize your head than feed your mind.”

Manuel Mendoza, Dallas Morning News:

“What Cargo is not is Consumer Reports. Keeping itself advertiser friendly (like sister publication Lucky for women, which started the shopping-mag phenomenon), the slick Condé Nast bimonthly does a nice job of digging up cool stuff and describing its finds, but there's not much testing or recommending of one model over another. Some features are nothing more than glorified touts, including a front section called ‘Cargo Gets.’

“On these pages, products are beautifully pictured, but often with only information on where to get them and how much they cost. Cargo works better as a primer for the metrosexual lifestyle than as a reliable comparison shopper – for instance, what books you should read, what video games you should play to be part of the in-crowd.”

“On the Newsstand,” New York Post (receiving two stars out of four):

Just like its sister, Cargo has those groovy little reminder stickers up front that let you flag your favorites. (We recommend the suit suggestions - long on tropical whites - and decorating tips from ‘Queer Eye’ expert Thom Filicia.) To mitigate the ‘sissy’ factor, Cargo takes pains to feature power tools, cars, digital gadgets and other manly products, along with the clothes and Clinique Cx Redness Relief Cream, which might be best left in the medicine cabinet.”

A. Scott Walton, Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

“Give Cargo magazine credit for loading its premiere issue with timely, useful info on updated ways to dress, work, play, interact, preen and decorate. Hold on to your receipt if you buy it expecting the latest and greatest spin on the industry-leading Maxim-FHM-Stuff motif. You may sense there's something missing from Cargo's hold; a void that steers it toward that treadworn metrosexual end of the men's mag racks.

“Its ‘Peep Show’ feature on sports cars (Pages 174-183) was refreshingly candid and price-conscious. Its ‘No Fail Guide’ to wearing suits (Pages 166-173) is a model of detailed simplicity. Even to my Luddite eyes, its reviews of new digital gadgetry earned second and third glances.

“Still, for all Cargo's got going for it, it lacked that intangible you count on even from higher-brow, more literary men's mags like GQ and Esquire.”