Glossed Over

Allure Strikes Out with Sports Advice

If all these magazines are going to relay ridiculous advice, could they at least get together first and be consistent in their totally arbitrary rules? While Cosmopolitan advised that female sports fans are unlikely to find male companionship, the September issue of Allure posits that a cursory knowledge of sports is mandatory. From “How to Be Stylish”:

You are not required to like sports. You are not even required to pretend to like sports. But utter cluelessness is beneath you.

To put this in perspective: Allure did not consider it beneath them to print a two-page spread with a dozen pictures of Michael Jackson and ask plastic surgeons (some of whom had apparently never treated Jackson) to speculate about the procedures he’d had. So knowing enough about MJ that it practically constitutes a HIPAA violation is cool, but not following the NBA is unforgivably churlish.

Also, while no text explains exactly why acquiring some sports knowledge is so important, the facing page features a photo of a couple canoodling in a baseball stadium. Subtle!

Familiarize yourself with the approximate beginning and end of the pro sports seasons. Not having an opinion about the Lakers’ record is fine; not knowing that the season is over is lame.

The same goes for time periods: Baseball has nine innings; football and basketball have four quarters; hockey has three periods; soccer has two halves.

And that's it! No need to worry about such unimportant details as field goals or free throws or anything that would give the impression you actually have the slightest command of any of these games. At least there's nothing here about, like, the Lakers wearing purple and gold...together.

Upsets are the most exciting thing about watching sports. Watch highlights of the most buzzed-about games on YouTube so you can join in the national conversation. (Just check out when the U.S. soccer team beat Spain in this year’s Confederations Cup.)

At last...an explanation! It’s the “national conversation.” Apparently, the country is also absorbed with walking in platforms and cheek-kissing, because those are two of the other life-and-death matters covered in this article. Can I assume GQ and Esquire are instructing their readers to bone up on those topics?

Deeming a lack of knowledge about sports is undignified seems just as arbitrary as declaring which colors of eyeshadow are in for fall. Why single out sports as an essential topic—especially when the only explanation comes in a picture of a couple getting cozy on a baseball diamond? If the idea is that some basic sports knowledge will help readers relate to men, they could at least be upfront about it. (And imagine the amazing conversations that would result from following this article’s advice: Him: “I love hockey.” Her: “I don’t like hockey, and I won’t pretend to like hockey, but Allure says that game has three periods! Now let me tell you how many innings a baseball game has!”)

Instead, Allure’s advice perpetuates the myth that women don’t like sports while simultaneously implying that a lack of interest or knowledge in the subject is a personal failure. I don’t know what game this is, but I don’t think Allure is playing fair.

Related: Cosmopolitan: Sports Fans, Prepare to Be Single Forever

Lowest Common Denominator: Allure, August

33,683: Number of free items Allure is giving away in August, according to the cover

10: Pounds lighter, years younger, and times happier editor-in-chief Linda Wells claimed to appear after a bra fitting

$39.95: Price of faux-leather strapless dress from H&M that’s named as a “must” in “Fashion Cravings”

0: Probability, estimated, that any major magazine’s fashion editor has ever actually worn faux leather from H&M

Far, far too much: According to swimwear designer Malia Mills, the amount of maintenance a suit needs to avoid fading and stretching. Daily rinsing and a secondary suit just for wear in hot tubs? Like it isn’t hard enough to find one!

95: Page on which an advertisement for Latisse appears, asking “Not enough lashes?”

Boundless: The joy I’m apparently missing by not sleeping with my hairstylist, according to “Dirty Blondes.” The article claims stylist-client affairs are a “female pasha fantasy”

Heaps: Amount I loved “Time Warp” on page 141, wherein a fashion historian and a history professor discuss the realism of period-movie hair and makeup. More like this, please!

6: In “The New Cocoon,” number of items made of fur, including oh-so-practical shearling gauntlets

None: Amount of the diet advice in “The Fashion Insiders’ Diet” that’s novel to anyone who’s read a women’s magazine before. Really? Eat a piece of fruit before going out to dinner?

Tons: Disbelief inspired by this sentence in the diet’s introduction: “Models aren’t the only ones who feel pressure to be thin, and fitting into a sample size can sometimes feel like a job requirement—if not exactly a virtue—when you work in fashion.” Because, you know, that's just the way it is.

1989: Year from which Allure must have stolen the fluorescent-themed fashion spread “Plugged In”

Naked Celebrities Show Their "Spirit" in Allure

So, let’s discuss the nude women in the May issue of Allure, shall we? It’s a photo spread called “The Naked Truth,” and it does not start off well:

Five celebrities shed their clothes and reveal not just their bodies, but also their  confidence and spirit.

Indeed. There’s no better way to demonstrate self-esteem than by posing nude in a national magazine!

I’m sure taking the pictures was a life-affirming experience for all involved, but sadly, these photos do not provide the same effect for the rest of us. If I have to look like Eliza Dushku (who has three—three—personal trainers) to feel good about my body, I never will.

Also, how does getting naked reveal their “spirit”? Despite what some people (okay, men) I’ve met seem to believe, my personality does not reside inside my bra, and I’d think a women’s magazine would be more interested in fighting that notion than in furthering it. Or have I not mastered Allure’s little lesson in confidence?

“Just being female means we know how to hide our flaws—but this is a nowhere-to-hide kind of thing,” said actress Sharon Leal of Limelight. “It’s about embracing your body and feeling good.”

We may know how to “hide our flaws,” but that knowledge is gender-related only in that being a woman means our “flaws” are continually pointed out.

And why does “embracing your body” require taking your clothes off? The answer:

 “It’s important to do this to show young girls that beauty doesn’t have to be perfect,” said Padma Lakshmi, host of Top Chef.

Lakshmi has a scar on her arm from a childhood car accident, so she would know! I understand her concern, and it’s a valid one. But instead of teaching young girls that beauty doesn’t have to be perfect, maybe we should teach them to value themselves and others for something other than beauty. Maybe we should teach them that they can love their bodies without the need to prove it by disrobing. Conflating self-confidence with nude portraiture only reinforces the idea that our value lies in our appearance and sexuality.

Of course, confidence is inextricably linked with how we feel about our bodies. But I fail to see how painstakingly lit, gratuitously retouched pictures promote self-acceptance for anyone other than the women in the photos. Surely there is something more notable about each of these celebrities than the precision of her bikini wax.

One of the actresses pictured, Lynn Collins, told Allure that “It’s hard not to focus on vanity in this industry, because such a large part of it is about how you look.”  If only the magazine had realized that such an undue emphasis on appearance exists not just in Hollywood—and that photo shoots like this only exacerbate the problem. Next time Allure wants to demonstrate an actress’ “confidence and spirit,” a simple interview will suffice.

We Read It So You Don't Have To: Eva Longoria Parker Wants You to Know She Wears a Size Zero

Near the end of the “The Good Wife,” the profile of Eva Longoria Parker in the November issue of Allure, writer Judith Newman describes her subject this way:

Longoria Parker becomes quite animated during this discussion; there is always the sense that she is the little sister—and the hot girl—who was not always taken seriously.

A lack of self-awareness is so unbecoming. Having read this interview in its entirety, the only thing Newman takes seriously about Longoria Parker is her uterus. The woman is obsessing over the notion that an egg may have implanted itself in the actress’ womb. Such gynecological mania is a little unsettling, honestly.

But that’s not all the article contains! Also included:

• Multiple insinuations that, despite her denials, the actress is pregnant (Among the less-than-convincing factoids presented as evidence of an impending birth: she drank iced tea instead of wine with lunch and wore flats instead of Louboutin wedges)

• A painstaking dissection of the actress’ seven-pound weight gain

• The author “begging” the Desperate Housewives star to reveal whether she’s with child

Thought-provoking stuff, right? I’m not saying the two should have discussed the ongoing clashes in Congo. But even the most uninformed examination of that topic would have been a more enlightening read than the four outraged paragraphs that the star’s slight weight gain commands.

“I’ve stopped working out and gained about seven pounds over the summer, which is a lot for a small person,” she says. “But I’m still a size 0.”

Oh, good! Those size 2 women are just slothful!

“And yet every magazine is tearing me apart,” the actress continues. “It’s like, ‘Oh, my God! She’s fat!’ I hate that message they’re sending out to young women everywhere who think, ‘God, she’s a size 0, and she’s still too big.’…”

Magazines like this one, for which pregnancy is the only explanation for gaining weight?

Ordinarily, I’d concur wholeheartedly with Longoria Parker’s assessment—except that she vehemently reminds us readers that canceling her workouts was motivated by her character’s weight gain, and that she’s wearing padding on the show to simulate a more dramatic change. If you’re trying to sell the notion that the media is promoting unhealthy ideas about weight, maybe you shouldn’t protest at every available opportunity that you deliberately put on a few pounds for your extremely well-paying job. Maybe you shouldn’t announce that you’ve already gone back to your trainer to shed that extra weight, meaning you were a slightly more substantial size 0 for a month or two. Oh, the sacrifices thespians make for their art!

This is how she concludes her anti-tabloid screed:

“I never went up a size. I just got a little rounder.”

Why the repetitive rationalization based on her clothing size? Because if her size zeroes became a bit snug, then the criticism would be warranted? Because sizing up to a 2 would be definitive proof that she is, in fact, “fat”?

Of course not.  But judging by this article, Allure would probably take it as proof that she’s carrying quintuplets.

Why Allure Can't Let Carrie Underwood Be Happy

If there’s one thing that women’s magazines are about—other than, you know, hawking appallingly expensive stuff no one needs—it’s self-improvement. Every month, there are breathless reports on how to drop those extra pounds, science updates on the latest research proven to kick start our sex lives. In every issue, there’s a new technique for getting noticed in the office, another suggestion for dressing to hide figure flaws. (It’s always a v-neck wrap dress. I’ve seen that particular solution so many times I’m nearly convinced the right Diane von Furstenberg frock could settle the conflict in Georgia.) The message? You’re inadequate! But, with practice and some cash, you might one day measure up!

So what are we readers supposed to make of it when an article about someone who’s generally triumphed over such magazine-mandated adversities focuses on her dissatisfaction with her life?

That’s the case of “Country Girl,” the profile of Carrie Underwood in the September issue of Allure. As spelled out in excruciating detail, Underwood’s life veers close to the ideal perpetuated in women’s mags: She’s trumped the sexism of the country music scene to launch a spectacular career; she dates a constant stream of attractive, famous men; she has the money to indulge in luxuries; and her looks (including, yes, her precise weight) are described in rapturous terms. All of which is why I was surprised to discover that the article leans much more heavily on Underwood’s worries than her successes. According to the piece, Underwood is scared. She frets that her earning power may come to a halt, that her few splurges may alienate her fans; she worries about building a lasting relationship. She spends too much on clothes and notes that all her friends are married with children.

Even though these are concerns that resonate with many of us (if not quite on par with Underwood’s distress about a $2,500 Dolce & Gabbana sweater), it seems like Underwood should be celebrating. Actually, it seems like Allure should be recognizing a woman who’s conquered the same foes it counsels the rest of us to vanquish.

That I can’t fully relate to Underwood’s problems doesn’t make them less valid, and I understand the imperative to posit famous people as, well, actual people. I’m not lobbying for celebrity hagiographies in the glossies, but an emphasis on the shortcomings of a woman notable enough to land a magazine cover in the first place, combined with the anti-aging and diet advice in every issue, further reinforces the message that the rest of us are inadequate. There’s nothing wrong with encouraging self-improvement or aspiration or even faking it with that wrap dress. But there is something wrong with a system that doesn’t celebrate those who’ve already achieved the kind of success the rest of us are striving for—especially when it’s the kind of success these same magazines claim to help us attain.

Victoria Beckham Tackles Weighty Issues in Allure

When clothing sizes are mentioned in magazines, it’s most often in the context of ignoring them. Buy based on fit, not on what the tag says, we’re told. Your worth isn’t linked to your pants size, they say. Don’t diet for the way you look, diet for your health! It’s perfectly sound advice that makes hypocrites out of the very magazines that espouse such philosophies. The real message? Love your body, but don’t expect to see anyone who remotely resembles you in a fashion glossy!

Perhaps such looming dishonesty is why Allure discarded any hint of that approach in “Through the Looking Glass,” August, wherein writer David DeNicolo practically interrogates Victoria Beckham about her measurements. Obviously, Beckham’s fame isn’t just about her tiny waist, but the magazine puts an awful lot of emphasis on it all the same.

Here’s how it starts:

Allure: What size are you?

VB: I’m the smallest size that you can get. It depends with different designers, different stores.

Which is an admirably discreet response, so he steps up the pressure.

Allure: What do you weigh?

VB: That’s a bit personal. What’s your weight? I’m not going to ask you what your weight is!

Allure: [I tell her. Twice.]

Surprise! DeNicolo’s weight is not printed in the magazine. Presumably, if Posh had answered, her weight would have been printed. In bold. With a box around it. And with an accompanying tear-out diet plan for the rest of us.

VB: I’m not going to tell you. I don’t want everybody knowing what my weight is.

Ah, Posh isn’t cooperating. Solution? Ask a totally inappropriate question in the hopes of flummoxing her with sheer chutzpah!

Allure: How do you feel about fat people? Is there an ick factor?

Well, I guess we know where Allure stands on the matter.

Putting aside my righteous outrage about indiscriminate fat-shaming, I just don’t get this question. What is the expected response? Her choice to wear heels to Disneyland aside, Posh isn’t dumb. Like she’s going to say, “Oh, I despise them. They should be deported to a deserted island and forced to resort to cannibalism until they’ve achieved a negative BMI.”?

Instead, she offers a pretty reasonable response:

VB: That’s an awful question. People have to be healthy. Some people can’t help being thin; some people can’t help being fat. People can’t help the way they look. I don’t like it when people are mean about me, so I’m not going to be mean about anybody else.

Well! That topic of questioning exhausted—or failed—the chat moves on to less cosmic topics like David Beckham’s tattoos (she likes them! imagine!) and whether the couple ever finds time to hang out with Mr. and Mrs. Tom Cruise. (Sometimes, but it’s tough to coordinate their schedules!)

But DeNicolo hasn’t given up all hope. Discussing a 2007 photo of VB at the Vanity Fair Oscar party, he offers this delightful non sequitur:

    VB: This dress was Alaia.

    Allure: Your boobs look amazing.

Hey, you know what else is amazing? That asking an interview subject to reveal her weight, commenting on her body in a vaguely prurient way, and asking whether “fat people” have an “ick factor” is acceptable. Note to magazine editors: Maybe we could all appreciate our bodies a lot more if we could stop focusing on them for just a second.

Business as Usual: Blonde Celebs Land September Covers

We’re just a few weeks away from the massive September magazines! That means it’s almost time for the same crop of overexposed celebrities who appear on all the covers to snag yet another one. (Vanity Fair, while not strictly a fashion mag, will feature a handful of models.) Here’s who’ll be gracing, er, appearing:

Vogue: Keira Knightley (and just like last year, I’ll be liveblogging as I read the issue)

Allure: Carrie Underwood

Cosmopolitan: Blake Lively

Elle: Jessica Simpson (who, apparently, was on the cover of Elle’s best-selling issue ever. Ever. How is that even possible?)

Glamour: Penelope Cruz

InStyle: Uma Thurman

W: Kate Hudson

No word yet on which flaxen-haired tabloid fixture will land Marie Claire, Lucky, or Bazaar.

Magazine Marriage Madness • What does Cosmopolitan consider the prime age for a marriage proposal? What did Allure’s second-time bride wear underneath her wedding gown? And what $950 bauble does W recommend for the “unconventional” bride? Find out all that, and more, in my index of June-issue intimacy advice on The Frisky.

Poverty Chic Puts New Perspective on Fashion Prices

Think designer clothes are too costly? Tired of being told by fashion magazines that a $1,500 trench coat is a worthwhile investment? You’re in luck! It’s officially hip to be poor!

Or, at least, it’s cool to be outrageously wealthy and merely dress like you’re poor. It’s like role-playing! Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, ever vanguards, flirted with dumpster chic in 2005, and Tyra Banks recently forced a whole coterie of models to pose as homeless. What’s behind this? Is it a reaction to the floundering economy or a misguided attempt at empathy?

Maybe it’s just the arrogance of people who’ve never sweated next month’s rent. Here’s Christina Applegate’s reminiscence of her child star days in “Christina Who?” from InStyle’s spring Shape Issue:

Her role models were the usual eighties teen-rebel idols—The Smiths, and Siouxsie and the Banshees—as well as the occasional unknowns she spotted on the street. “The same girlfriend and I were in the back of my mom’s car, and we saw this girl, and she had the coolest outfit and we said, ‘Mom, drive up closer.’ And it turned out she was a bag lady. We coveted the outfit of a bag lady.”

The “unknown” was actually a bag lady! Ha!

But at least Applegate’s homeless fashion fixation is a thing of the past. Nicole Richie, on the other hand, is still carrying a torch for the domicile-free look. As quoted in “Nicole Richie’s Domestic Bliss” in Bazaar, June:

She was sanguine about her bad behavior and frank about her friendships, and she confided that she fancied a sort of rocker boy who looks “really pale…really skinny,” adding, “I like people that kind of look homeless.”

So that explains her relationship with Joel Madden! Seriously, Nicole? Don’t pose for a fashion magazine at your father’s spacious Beverly Hills estate while opining how great homeless people look. Don’t they lecture about that in finishing school? (In one of the photos, Lionel Richie is wearing a t-shirt that reads “Hello.” Outstanding!)

But there is one starlet who has never once harbored ambitions of living out of a shopping cart, though she does attempt to impersonate Charlie Chaplin in the baffling accompanying photo shoot. In “Comic Timing” (Allure, June), Jessica Alba bluntly expresses her desire for material success:

What she craved was an acting career and money. Maybe not in that order…“I grew up not having a lot,” Alba says, her face solemn. “I’m really happy to be making money, not depending on a man, and not having to suffer to survive in this business. Struggling is not fun. Been there, done that.”

But dressing like you’re struggling when, in fact, you’re loaded? Fun!

After heroin chic and the current homeless chic, what’s the next imitating-the-less-fortunate craze that celebs will engage in? Hungry chic?

Oh, wait. They’re already doing that, aren’t they?

Allure Explores The Important Topic of Celeb Tattoos

You know how Star magazine prints paparazzi photos of actors and then brands their activities “normal” or “not normal”?  We often have a similar reaction to the famous faces we see in magazines, mentally labeling them as reasonable or, more often, adjectives that aren’t nearly as positive.  A quote from Jenna Jameson in Allure’s “Private Eye,” January, provoked the latter type of reaction.  Take a gander at her response to Jeffrey Slonim’s query, “Any tattoos you’re glad you didn’t get?”

Well, it’s not like there’s anything else about her the grandkids would question! 

See the full feature after the jump.