Glossed Over

Cosmopolitan Finds the Worst Possible Men to Give You Advice

Over the years I’ve had plenty of suggestions for Cosmopolitan, but I think this might be a new one: Maybe, O sagacious editors of the only publication that reads like a parody of itself, the next time you seek out men to advise women on matters of sex, you could attempt to find guys who aren’t total dirtbags. They exist!

Instead, in September’s “Guys Answer Your Sex Questions in 20 Words or Less,” Cosmo managed to assemble a bumper crop of judgmental, objectifying men to advise their readership of young women.

Sure, you could argue that these men are just relating their own opinions, and that Cosmo is actually doing its readers a service by including these jerks’ full names, professions, and photos with their comments. You could also argue the moon is made of green cheese.

On to the article! First we have one David Good, who’s written a book entitled The Man Code: A Woman’s Guide to Cracking the Tough Guy. (I hope to one day write a book called The Bullshit Code: A Woman’s Guide to Rejecting the Guy Who’s Seen Too Many James Bond Movies and, As a Result, Is Overly Invested in Stereotypes of Masculinity. Literary agents, email me!) Here’s what Cosmo asked and how David answered:

Are unshaven legs (or other body parts) a turn-off?

Hell, yes. Shave that. It’s not 1973 anymore. --David

Yeah! It’s not 1973 anymore. Back then, when a person went into puberty, surging hormones caused hair to develop in certain areas, and now that it’s 2011--oh wait. That still happens. Will someone please notify David?

If it’s been a while since you got it on, can just seeing a woman in a tight shirt give you an erection?

It could be an XXL, and if a guy’s horny, he’ll find something about any girl to turn him on. --Patrick [Meagher, host of Cosmo Radio’s Cocktails with Patrick]

I originally read this as Patrick referring to the hypothetical woman as “it” and “an XXL” and almost had a rage blackout. But then I realized he’s referring to the shirt. Still, Patrick is really pushing bro-code boundaries here. First, there’s his admission that a woman needn’t be clad in tight clothing to arouse a man, which is something one would never figure out from reading the fashion pages of Cosmo. Then there’s the statement that he can find “something” about “any girl,” which is supposed to be reassuring and instead sounds patronizing. “There, there, little Cosmo reader, some man will find you attractive, if he’s desert-island desperate!” It’s like he thinks of women as objects who exist solely to provide him with aesthetic pleasure, and that is such an original viewpoint for a radio host!

If a woman has sex with a guy early on, does he assume she is like this with every guy?

He probably assumes you are. But if he likes you, he doesn’t care. --Wilder

Wow! How is this guy, Wilder Weir, still “single-ish”? (No, really, that’s what the description says.) I mean, he’s clearly such a prize and all, what with his amazing ability to forgo judging the sexual proclivities of women who’ve deigned to sleep with him. If he likes you, that is. Ugh. (No word on why he’d be sleeping with you if he doesn’t like you, even though there’s an under-20-words answer for that, too.)

Look, I get that some men believe things I find objectionable. So do some women. That fact isn’t a problem. But it is a problem when a magazine that proclaims itself the official publication of the “fun, fearless female” parrots sexist, judgmental nonsense to its readers. And it is a problem to peddle harmful, outdated viewpoints about sex and gender using the not-so-subtle implication that these guys are experts and women who don’t conform to these men’s ideals will remain single forever. (Never mind that it completely ignores the women who--clutch my pearls!--aren’t even heterosexual.)

Admittedly, dropping the how-to-please-a-man mumbo-jumbo would require a major overhaul of the magazine. But getting rid of the men-are-from-Mars nonsense would be Cosmopolitan’s most fun, fearless act yet.

People StyleWatch! Is! Really! Excited!: Five Fast Facts About the World’s Most Enthusiastic Magazine

1. They love exclamation points. They loooooove them. The first time I bought PSW, I was in a terrible funk. I flipped through an issue at the newsstand and saw the exclamation points, the pink arrows, and the pages almost entirely devoid of text, and I was like, “How cheerful!” Except that when everything concludes with an exclamation point--there are ten on the cover of the June issue alone, four in a tiny blurb about a juice drink--it comes off less like genuine enthusiasm and more just plain manic. (Yeah, yeah, I use a lot of exclamation points, too, but I use them sarcastically. Glass houses, etc.)

2. They also love irrelevant actors. This issue is packed with the likes of Camilla Alves, Emmy Rossum, and Rachel Bilson. And they! are! excited! about Camilla Belle, who I’m convinced is a publicist’s fabrication and not an actual human being. Has anyone ever seen her in a movie? Doesn’t matter, because PSW has devoted an entire page to her clothes and is looking forward to her upcoming roles in Breakaway and Zebras. Both of which are real movies, I’m sure.

3. They think they have moneybags readers. And perhaps they do. But foolishly, I’d expected PSW to be a low-end counterpart to Lucky. What was I thinking? There’s no advertiser payola in that! While the magazine does feature a decent mix of affordable styles (“Under $25!”), there are also the typical tone-deaf suggestions like “Celebs Love a Deal.” I’ll grant them Kirsten Dunst’s $50 dress from Express, but I refuse to budge on Vanessa Hudgens’ $71 scarf. Come on! It’s a scarf. Did kittens weave the scarf from their own freshly shed fur? No? Then no deal.

4. They run the worst celebrity ads ever. Admittedly, I’m behind on my reading what with moving across the country and job-hunting and all, so perhaps these ads (“celebrity mom Brooke Burke” for Suave, Patricia Field for U by Kotex) are in all the mags. But I want to discuss this Jessica Szohr ad for Dove antiperspirant: it’s THREE PAGES of her in the most awkward, armpit-revealing poses ever committed to print. In addition to pictures so bad they’re not even comical, the ad includes obviously fabricated quotes about the preposterous outfits she’s modeling. For instance:

My hip fedora tips this knit tank bohemian.

Did you have to read that sentence three times before you figured out which word was supposed to be the verb? Me too! Also:

Rocking sleeveless styles makes me feel powerful and feminine.

Uh, it’s a sleeveless top. Where does the power come from? Your hairless underarms? I am so confused by this conflation of armpits with, you know, ACTUAL EMPOWERMENT. I could go on, but I’ll just say this: Dove is merely a deodorant. It’s not a substance that magically confers equality when you apply it. Feminism will not emanate from your powder-scented armpits. Okay?

5. They employ hilariously meaningless statements about fashion. It’s the Lucky syndrome: when you have to describe everything, you’re backed into some truly absurd statements. And I know whereof I speak: in a former job, I had to describe 75 different pieces of lingerie every month, without using the word “sexy.” Try it at home some time. You’ll want to beat your head against a wall, or make friends with a thesaurus, or both!

About a pair of J. Crew espadrilles:

They’re so easy to slip on and off!

Good, because putting on and removing shoes is usually so challenging!

About a JC Penney elephant-pendant necklace:

Adds a unique, global touch!

Because nothing says you’re independent and cultured like wearing a $10 necklace from a national department store chain.

And on Taylor Swift’s tunic:

A drapey top worn off the shoulder adds a flirty, offhand touch.

Offhand? Is it supposed to look like you didn’t try at all? Fashion, you confuse me.

So that’s the June issue People StyleWatch, in approximately the same amount of words that actually appear in the magazine. I’ll save you the trouble of counting: I used twelve exclamation points in this post, not counting the title, and only three of those appeared in quotes from the magazine. Use the comments to castigate me as you see fit.

There's Nothing Sexy About InStyle's "Look Better Naked"

Many many years ago, I briefly dated a guy who was, well, not particularly nice.  Watching a movie at his place one afternoon, he leaned in for a kiss. (Mom and Dad, avert your eyes here.) Matters progressed, he tugged the hem of my t-shirt over my head, and then he rolled his eyes at my basic beige bra. “Don’t you have any sexy underwear?” he asked.

All I could think was: Dude, I’m taking my clothes off for you. How is that not enough?

Therein lies the problem with February’s glut of lingerie and look-better-naked stories: they’re so focused on an artificial construct of romance that they miss the point. If, as magazines often say, feeling sexy means feeling comfortable in your own skin, then endless articles exhorting the virtues of self-tanners, lacy knickers, and styling products aren't exactly conducive to developing that self-confidence.

And that’s what makes InStyle’s “10 Ways to Look Better Naked” so utterly ludicrous. Among their suggestions:

• Weight loss

Got 30 minutes and $85 to spend on detoxifying salts? Great!

We shed 3 inches of water weight and felt thinner for about 48 hours.

And you can keep those inches off, too, provided you don’t do anything outlandish like, say, eat or drink. People don’t typically go to romantic restaurants on Valentine’s Day, do they?

• Jewelry

The magazine suggests highlighting your back, which it calls “a very sexy region of the body.” The best way to do that? With an $850 gemstone-studded lariat chain, obviously. Without pricey jewels pointing the way, how would a man know what to focus on?

• Home décor

“Amber casts skin in a warm, rosy glow,” says [interior designer Ron] Woodson, who suggests placing a red-hued bulb in bedside lamps and painting your ceiling a barely there shade of peach or pink to enhance the effect.

Painting the ceiling? Painting the ceiling! That seems excessively vain, but at least they didn’t suggest installing a mirror up there.

Of course, the article also covers the usual territory of depilation, exfoliation, and cosmetic trickery to hide any traces of humanity blemishes and bruises. But unless you’re disrobing for a sculptor who’ll immortalize your every detail in marble, isn’t this overkill? There’s probably a 3,000-word essay here about treating women like objects and the deleterious effects of porn and how the media tries to define our sexuality, but I’ll just leave it at this:

If you’re naked and your partner dares frown at your white ceiling or a stray stretch mark, your relationship is way beyond InStyle’s help. Also, you’re probably dating my ex-boyfriend.

Lowest Common Denominator: Cosmopolitan, February

6: Minutes per day needed to “score a slammin’ bod,” according to the cover

Infinite: The disingenuousness of a Cover Girl ad suggesting readers “go for beauty on your own terms” by eschewing department-store cosmetics for the Cover Girl brand. Thanks, Cover Girl, for telling me what my own terms are! Apparently my terms involve buying slightly less expensive stuff I don’t need.

25: Cosmopolitan’s “magic age” for getting married, as cited on page 36

100: In “Beauty: His Picks,” number of men surveyed about whether nail decals are “fun and flirty” or “too over-the-top”

Apparently zero: Number of women surveyed for the same article about whether they care what 100 random men think of their fingernails

1950s: Decade whose gender stereotypes Cosmo rejects in “Are You Turning Your Boyfriend Into a Girlie Man?”—right before suggesting steak and football are inherently masculine and salad, Cat Power, and French movies are inextricably feminine.

101: Page of the aforementioned article that made my head explode. The culprit phrase? “Do more gender-neutral activities with your man (see our “Manly Date Ideas,” at right)…” Since when does “gender-neutral” default to “manly”?

1: Appallingly evocative reference to an erect penis as a “giant breakfast sausage” on page 105. Sorry, I couldn’t let that one pass!

9: Of the thirteen men Cosmo’s crowned its “Fun Fearless Males 2010,” the number who are actors (The other four are a musician, an athlete, a TV producer, and Dr. Oz.)

“Almost 200” and “up to 300”: The supposedly shocking calorie counts in bottled teas and wrap sandwiches, according to “These Healthy Foods Can Make You Fat”

Endless: Stories in this issue devoted to pleasing men sexually (“4 Traits Men Find Irresistible,” “99 Hot New Sex Tips...In 20 Words or Less,” “Tap In to Your Seductive Powers,” “The One Time He Always Wants You”)

4 apiece: Pages devoted to articles about fertility and inter-racial couples

3: Pages devoted to a story about the decline of the thong

2: Pages dedicated to police officer Ally Jacobs, whose investigative work led to the arrest of Jaycee Dugard's captor

Huge: My—and, I’m sure, your—relief at learning one needn’t get a job at Cosmopolitan to achieve the same success with men that its staffers enjoy, because the magazine found 13 of them to give us the inside scoop. Lessons offered by current and former magazine staffers in “Engaged at Cosmo!” include these gems: cook his favorite dishes, avoid discussing marriage, don’t freak out when he plays Guitar Hero (like someone would?), and always wear the latest nail polish.

Zip: Actual eroticism in this month’s edition of “Red Hot Reads,” as exemplified by this decidedly unsexy sentence: “It felt so good that coherent thought was behind her, but she did realize it had never been like this with any other man before.”

Bazaar: Bare Your Body to Boost the Economy

In an essay in the February issue of Bazaar, Derek Blasberg tries valiantly to explain the phenomenon he calls "The Sexification of Fashion."

What is this "sexification," and how do we know it's occurring? I've read his article three times and I'm not exactly certain. But it has something to do with Megan Fox earning a lot of money as the face of Emporio Armani Underwear, Jenna Jameson wearing a tasteful blue frock on Oprah, and pop stars like Lady Gaga, Rihanna, and Shakira merely existing.

Blasberg's theory rests on two things: a catalog of strange ideas about how women should express their sexuality, and—you guessed it!—the economy. He writes:

A woman tarting up her lifestyle, according to many, can be traced back to a very familiar recent event: the Great Recession.

Riiiight. Like Lady Gaga doesn’t wear pants because she can’t afford them.

“Maybe you can’t afford a new condo or a couture blouse,” [Simon Doonan] teases, “but hanky panky is free!”

Spoken like someone who’s never paid for birth control!

New York’s Upper East Side novelist Jill Kargman argues that a woman feeling a renewed sense of sexual energy and power in the light of the recession shouldn’t be surprising. “Since men’s egos are so wrapped up in their bank accounts, maybe their sex drive mirrors the Dow?” she wonders. “Perhaps women are trying to play into their fantasies more to lift spirits and electroshock them back from the dead?”

Maybe so! I mean, it is our responsibility as women to use our bodies to ensure men feel good about themselves at all times.

“Why dress meekly when things look bleak?” the designer Antonio Berardi asks.

Excellent point! So I assume Berardi wore a see-through singlet and hot pants during this interview. Men are also subject to the new dress code, right?                                               

He agrees with Kargman that in this economy, it’s all about a sexual woman and says, “Every once in a while fashion is dictated not by trends but by the need to feel sexy, to be adored, and to be wanted. Now more so than ever it’s about playing the female card.”

And every once in a while, fashion is dictated by men who justify objectifying women by claiming to know how women feel.

By the way, what constitutes “playing the female card”? Possessing ovaries?

Still, the midst of all this trenchant socio-economic analysis, there is some ever-so-helpful fashion advice. For instance:

…why not try an over-the-knee boot? It’s official: they’re not just for prostitutes anymore!

And, to close the article, this charming reminder:

But [Berardi] warns novices…: “Slutty is just too much and totally wrong.” In other words, ladies, wear underwear!

What a coincidence! “Just too much and totally wrong”—much like this article.

A Sticky Situation in Lucky's September Issue

In its patriotic mission to stimulate the economy, Lucky does everything it can to make shopping easier for the few, the proud, the misanthropes who detest malls, and the between-sizes Americans prone to fitting-room meltdowns. With the stickers marked “YES!” and “MAYBE?” in every issue, vicarious shopping has never been easier! 

This month, instead of tearing out the stickers to annotate a publication with actual paragraphs (like, say, a book), I actually affixed them to the magazine's comparatively noteworthy pages. And in my mission to help you avoid “reading” Lucky, here's what I culled from the September issue:

YES! I may need the entirety of Anna Sui’s Gossip Girl-inspired collection for Target, now that I’ve seen the two-page ad near the front of this issue. Unchecked spending on stuff I don’t need makes me a good American, right?

YES! Just as expected, Kim France’s “Editor’s Letter” does acknowledge the crummy financial climate, but adds that “against all odds,” the magazine’s fashion editors found plenty of great stuff for fall. Such sacrifice!

YES! Lucky continues its slaughter of the English language on page 94, trotting out the non-word “splurgier.” Are there fuses in my brain? Because I think one just blew.

MAYBE? It is totally acceptable to shop at outlets. If you’re in Italy and buying stuff at the Prada outlet, that is. (page 108)

YES! There exists an article of clothing called “zoot pants,” and Lucky’s “Style Spy” expects you to wear them for fall.

YES! Lucky’s editors may suffer from long-term memory loss, since they’ve managed to load up “The Smart Shopping Sourcebook” with heaps of accessories and clothes under $100, but can’t seem to remember those stylish bargains long enough to insert many of them in other features.

YES! According to “Accessories Report,” eyeglasses are in for fall. Great! I hate when glasses are out and I have to go around squinting. Suffer for fashion, right? (Or, you know, wear them and look like I don’t care about my appearance at all.)

MAYBE? Ed Hardy’s new perfume, which, according to the ad in this issue, is a “vintage tattoo inspired fragrance,” could be less appealing. But probably not.

YES! Cosmetics are the sure path to happiness and fulfillment! According to “Beauty Spy,” hot pink blush will make you “instantly feel 5,000 times prettier.” The latest anti-wrinkle potions are “kind of miraculous.” A saffron lip stain is “unexpectedly gorgeous”—for $65, it had better be. A new Maybelline lipstick is “perfect,” and a handful of acne products work with “stunning efficiency.” Yay!

MAYBE? Despite the wisdom so altruistically dispensed on page 214, most readers probably don’t need detailed instructions on shampooing.

YES! It is possible to “Love Your Hair,” as page 224 exuberantly instructs. It doesn’t require a shift in perspective—just a heap of drugstore products, a $140 flat iron, and a $34 shampoo. Easy!

MAYBE? We shouldn’t take beauty editors’ advice as gospel, since in “Skin Regimens of Beauty Editors,” one confesses that she hates washing her face at night and another never takes off her eye makeup before bed. As all of us who’ve been indoctrinated by a lifetime of women’s mags know, not washing up before sleeping is a cardinal sin.

MAYBE? I might have actually used the stickers to mark various pages of the “Lucky Fall Shoe Guide.” I’ll never tell.

YES! As noted in “40s Modern,” the right clothes can make me “magpie-cool.” Whatever that means.

YES! A $415 leopard-print blouse can be worn for work, weekend, and evening, according to “Fall’s Most Versatile Pieces.” Good thing, too, because at that price, it’d be the only blouse I own.

MAYBE? An $1195 Emporio Armani jacket and $630 Bruno Frisoni pumps, as seen on pages 280 and 281, aren’t the best exemplars of the “punk rock” or “collegiate” style the spread is supposed to embody. But then, neither is posing those “punk rock” models in front of a nightclub advertising a show presented by Radio Disney. Oops!

YES! Now that I’ve read the entire issue, I do want to purchase a new wardrobe! Lucky, you’ve successfully completed your mission.

Lowest Common Denominator: Glamour, September

3: Number of exclamation points in the coverline touting the Jessica Simpson story

$13,000: Value of “stuff you want” that Glamour is giving away, per page 64

1: Number of days editor-in-chief Cindi Leive’s assistant spent dressed as Lady Gaga for the “Dare of the Month”

3.5: Time, in minutes, before most women would be sent home from the office if they showed up in fishnets and a leotard

So, so much: Amount I covet the Hugo Boss bag in the ad following page 78

12: Size clothing worn by model Crystal Renn, whose book, Hungry, is reviewed in “Do Get the Season’s Stylish Reads Here,” complete with an excerpt of a “moment we love”

Perhaps 1: Number of size-12 models photographed by Glamour for this issue (keep reading)

2009: Year in which Glamour apparently thinks red lipstick was invented, given their extravagant praise of the stuff on page 89

3: Pages of lipstick ads surrounding the aforementioned feature (1 immediately before and 2 right after)

Nil: Value of the advice given by Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana to “play up your prettiest parts.” Really? I shouldn’t highlight my worst features?

100: Page on which Faith Hill recommends Coldplay. You know, they’re that obscure new band you might otherwise have never heard of?

100: Coincidentally, also the page on which I lost my patience with mega-rich celebrities sharing their “knowledge.” See also: why I don’t subject myself to GOOP

50: Percent of men surveyed by Glamour who told the magazine they “groom their privates”

15: Age, approximate, at which I last used the word “privates” non-ironically

1987: Year in which pleated high-waisted pants, like those shown on page 116, should remain. What’s next, paperbag waists?

Zero: Amount the use of “Kate Moss” as a verb, as in “11 Touches That ‘Kate Moss’ Your Wardrobe” on page 133, should be tolerated. Please stop. Now.

5: Number of “fantasies he’s having about you right now” and suggested “real way[s] to romance a guy,” as detailed in the “Men, Sex & Love” section

194: Page you should turn to right now to see a model who actually might be a size 12

+1: Points for featuring Robin Givhan in “Meet the Woman on Michelle Watch”

-10: Points for the article not actually being about Givhan, despite its title

35: Percent of survey respondents who think cover star Jessica Simpson should reunite with ex-husband Nick Lachey

Infinite: My astonishment that people actually have an opinion about who Jessica Simpson should date

0: Approximate number of Americans other than me who have neither read nor seen any part of the Twilight series. Four of the films’ stars appear in a beauty feature called—what else?—“Twilight Beauty”

+1: For including a same-sex pair in “Secrets of Happy Couples”

2,497: Estimated appearances of Clinique’s Dramatically Different Moisturizing Lotion in stories similar to “24 Best Beauty Buys Now”

36: Financial tips dispensed in “Your Money,” starting on page 268

Not surprisingly, 0: Recommendations in the aforementioned article to invest in clothes or shoes

4: Violent incidents mentioned in “Sex with a Stranger”

1: Number of men in the same article confessing to “really want[ing] to kill” a woman because she wouldn’t have sex with him

5: Meals actress Meryl Streep claims to get from a single chicken in “Hey, Glamour Readers! Julia Child is Making You Dinner”

The 20 Life-Changing Lessons in September's Cosmopolitan

Until I read this month’s issue, I thought Cosmopolitan was like the TSA: a mostly pointless institution that nonetheless will never go away.    

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong. So, I’m just going to come out and say it: I’m a big person. The September issue was full of top-notch journalistic insight and information that will undoubtedly change my life—and yours, too!

Here are the top twenty things I gleaned from those precious 262 pages:

1.    “Hoo-ha” an acceptable word to print on a magazine cover. But is it better than “va-jay-jay”?

2.    Cosmo’s reporters doggedly pursue their subjects in a quest for truth. For instance: After a showdown that must have rivaled the Frost-Nixon interviews in tension, actress Kristen Bell finally admitted that—ready?—she eats no salad dressing except Bob’s Big Boy bleu cheese. Scandalous!

3.    Interacting with a male in the wrong way can have disastrous consequences. That’s why “Grab His Butt Like This” so painstakingly described four different ways of, well, grabbing a man’s butt. The stakes are high!

4.    At last, there is a cure for the dreaded football addiction that strikes so many men. And about time, too, because there’s no way we would enjoy watching football with them! (“The Guy Report,” page 76)

5.    The Rolling Stones are relevant in 2009, because a $44 Stones logo tee is a must for fall. Guess my New Pornographers t-shirt needs to hang unworn in the closet until I’m eligible for Social Security. (“8 Must-Have Items,” page 83)

6.    It’s possible to be “ballsy” and have a hoo-ha, and the best way to demonstrate that is by pairing socks with high-heeled sandals! Could this be the fourth wave of feminism? (“Ballsy Looks to Try Now,” page 86)

7.    Someone at Cosmo thinks “brond” is a word meaning a mix of blond and brunette hair. And I’d pegged “shootie” as this year’s ubiquitous portmanteau!

8.    Camilla Belle is more well-known than I thought. Cosmo surveyed 100 men to find out which shade of lipstick they prefer on her, and none of the responses were “Who’s Camilla Belle?”

9.    Actress Anna Faris is “ballsy,” just like socks and sandals! Good for her! She even has a hoo-ha. (“Fun Fearless Female,” page 120)

10.    Cosmo girls aren’t concerned with a man’s looks. That’s why the magazine devised a “Stud Meter” to inform readers of famous men’s physical charms. Among the findings: Ryan Reynolds and Chace Crawford are more attractive than a cross-dressing Mariah Carey or Coolio. Yes, Coolio. If the Stones are relevant now, his time is coming!

Is Marie Claire Just Messing with Us?

Marie Claire’s cover proclaims it’s “More Than a Pretty Face,” so you’d expect the content would reflect that slogan. Sure, the format has its limitations. No fashion magazine is ever going to be The Economist.

But some of the content in the August issue is brutally, unbelievably dumb—or, at least, seems to think we readers are. Is any of this for real? Was this issue ghostwritten by the staff of The Onion? And if it were, would any of us even be able to tell the difference? Below, my picks for three articles in the August issue that read like parodies of themselves.

1. In “Marie Claire Bulletin,” there’s a Supreme Court primer entitled “How to Talk About Issues You Don’t Understand.” The “shamelessly oversimplified” page even suggests smart-ass comments for use in conversations about abortion, gun control, and gay marriage. Because not only do you not understand, you have no opinions of your own! This is the magazine’s quip in support of gay marriage:

“At the last gay wedding I attended, the grooms’ tuxes were brushed satin, the centerpieces were Cattleya orchids, the palate cleanser was yuzu sorbet, and the DJ was Samantha Ronson. How could something so right be wrong?”

I don’t know. How could so many stereotypes fit into one sentence?

2. The cavalcade of stupidity continues with “Where the Guys Are,” for which the magazine “mined the latest census data” to find the cities with the highest ratio of available men to women. Did Marie Claire lift this article straight out of Cosmopolitan? Maybe! Is there an explanation why Columbus has so many single men? Nope! But the article does tell you how to dress to attract them. Also, I don’t grasp the premise—are we supposed to, like, drop everything and move to Seattle? Excuse me while I pack a suitcase so I can find validation in the arms of a man!

3. And let’s just start with the title of this one: “Hair to Get You Hired.” What helpful advice for those of us with absolutely zero qualifications or experience!

…a stiff job market means the slightest detail—even the wrong updo—can make or break your chances…

Translation: you can be hired (or not) because of your looks! I’ve heard that’s rampant in some industries—like, say, fashion magazines.

Never look like you spent hours getting primped—it suggests you’re not serious.

And never mind reconciling the preponderance of fashion and beauty content throughout the magazine with the advice to avoid looking overly groomed. Is Marie Claire serious? (Quick! Check the editors' hair.) Sadly, these features seem to be entirely straightforward. If they were satire, at least they would have been funny.

A Cavalcade of Barely Tolerable Personalities in Bazaar

Is Karl Lagerfeld the most abrasive person in fashion? Not being personally acquainted with him—or Anna Wintour, for that matter—I can’t say for sure. But he certainly makes a strong push for the title in the March issue of Bazaar.

Of course, if I consider everyone who appears in this edition, Lagerfeld has some serious competition. There’s the fawning Ivana Trump story, replete with the explanation that her husband is younger than Donald’s wife. Oh, what a victory for women all over the world! (To be fair, this may be a case of the writing being far more irritating than Ivana herself. On the other hand, the erstwhile Mrs. Trump does refer to herself as a “glam-ma.”)

There’s Sarah Jessica Parker in full-on Pollyanna mode, recommending we plebeians hand-write our correspondence, save our pennies in a jar, and use the public library. To use what’s purported to be one of SJP’s favorite words, golly! And I’d been throwing my spare change in the trash!

And I’m just going to completely disqualify the spate of economy-related articles, wherein multiple writers employ tortured logic to explain why a $3000 dress is a solid investment—if you wear it twice! What an adjustment that must be for those dowagers accustomed to burning their frocks after each wearing.

Nonetheless, the title undoubtedly belongs to Karl Lagerfeld. He may be brutal, but he’s also a genius. How else could a man who wears the EXACT SAME THING in every single photograph be a fashion guru?

In “Fashion Therapy,” he plays the role of, well, therapist, tackling the queries of apparel-beleaguered Bazaar staffers. Oh, the agony! Here's a selection of his gems, some of which are startlingly spot-on:

The t-shirt can be impeccable, and the jeans, too. The body has to be impeccable as well—that helps a lot. If it’s not, buy small sizes and less food.

I guess Bazaar wasn’t bold enough to include that particular tidbit of advice in the articles about cost-conscious dressing.

Please, your question is childish. Don’t drink when you wear stilettos. I can’t advise you to get drunk at home to find out if you would be able to walk in them at a party. Plus, you aren’t on the runway. Life should not be a fashion show.

Oh, and speaking of heels:

Very high heels actually look better on tall girls, but men hate to walk around with giants who make them feel like midgets.

When I said “heels” a few lines back, I was referring to men who’d impose their own insecurities on a woman’s choice of shoes. Seriously? Men other than Tom Cruise do that?

I am very much against looks that put women under what I call “permanent sexual alarm.”

I don’t even know what this means, but “permanent sexual alarm” is admirably colorful. Then Lagerfeld says this to a woman clinging to the resurgence of 1980s-inspired fashions:

This look is not back for people who wore it when it was new. And why did you let your “flawless figure” go? Good excuse, but it explains your need to hide behind shopping trophies.

Burn!

And a final bon mot from Mr. Lagerfeld:

Better a split personality than no personality at all.

As for the types of personality on display in this issue, well, that's debatable.