Looking at a whole bunch of old Cover Lies is a great way to remind yourself that ladymags just recycle the same old weight-loss, man-snagging, and faux-self-improvement tropes again and again and again. In February Cosmo, for instance, we saw the Simple Way To Revolutionize Your Life. Yes, ladies, it's breathing. Millions of women have died because they ignored this basic tip.

Am I normal? Is he? You might not give a shit, but one important goal of ladymags is to make sure you and your genitals are conforming enough. So get out the measuring tape and appraise various aspects of your "down-there."

Of course, the Weight Loss Tip is also an essential part of the woman's magazine anatomy. These tips fall into two categories: Totally Insane, and So Basic That If It Worked Everyone Would Be Skinny. May Glamour offers the latter.

Like the Weight Loss Tip, the Sex Tip changes little from month to month. May Cosmo (May was an especially lie-alicious month) offered pull-out cards with tame sex fantasies — like going to a wedding in nice clothes — for those who can't even think up lame, cliched scenarios on their own.

Another tried-and-true ladymag trick is to promise scandal and deliver saccharine. May Vogue was full of models talking about how nice other models are — just like how every celebrity in Hollywood loves every other celebrity, every famous marriage is perfect, and every star stays thin by chasing after her kids.

It might seem like it's easy just to churn out monthly variations on tired themes, but the staff at magazines actually have it rough: they have to take all the free shit advertisers send to them and somehow shoehorn it into what passes for an editorial feature. A frequent solution is the "20, 30, 40" method — age categories that are, as June Marie Claire makes clear, pretty much random.

Dividing women into age categories isn't just a way to sell cosmetics — it's a way to promote clothes too. August Vogue did this by putting the ancient, decrepit Christy Turlington on its cover, then filling its interior with teenage and twentysomething models supposedly showing off looks for older women. Also a Vogue standby: the terrifying cosmetic procedure. Here it's "Inner Eyelid Laser Incineration."

Elle is often especially good at featuring clothes that look good on no one. As a bonus, the September issue also offered some eyeshadow "tips from hos."

Related to the Completely Unflattering Outfit is the Completely Absurd Photo Shoot — and Vogue really excels in this department. In October, highlights included several combinations of things that shouldn't be combined: tennis and breakfast in bed, boxing and evening gowns, horses and hats.

Of course, the secret weapon of all ladymags is that they're completely depressing. Whether they're telling you that your man will leave you because you're too successful, or doling out confusing, contradictory sartorial advice, if you read enough of them you will not want to eat, have sex, go to work, or even get dressed. All you will be able to do is lie in bed and read magazines. Which is exactly their plan.

Flavorwire's list is itself a response to a list categorizing readers by favorite author ("Thomas Aquinas: Premature ejaculators"), and it includes both gems and headscratchers. Bon Iver fans, for instance, are "People with self-esteem issues and probably hate Ben Gibbard." Do I have self-esteem issues? Don't we all! But who the fuck is Ben Gibbard? But fear not, all such confusions are ironed out in our 100% accurate Magazine Reader Categorization Scheme. Enjoy.

Vogue
People who use the names of seasons as verbs.

Glamour
Women who, if they were men, would claim to read Playboy for the articles.

Playboy
Men who, if they were women, would read Marie Claire.

Marie Claire
Women who host "Girls' Nights."

Elle
Snobs who lost money in the financial crisis.

Lucky
Heiresses who sometimes shop at Target.

Cosmo
Men with very sensitive taints, and the women who love them.

Allure
Boring people.

The New Yorker
People who laugh at things that aren't funny.

The Economist
Libertarians.

Time
People waiting to get a colonoscopy.

Newsweek
Sarah Palin.

Maxim
Thirteen-year-olds.

Men's Health
Assholes.

Cat Fancy
Horny cats.

Stereotyping People By Their Favorite Indie Bands [Flavorwire]
Readers By Author [Lauren Leto]

In the cover story, Portman addresses the recent tabloid stories that claim she made out with Penn behind a curtain at a party in L.A.:

He's obviously someone I'm friends with," she says. "I mean, not 'hey, wassup?' friends, but we were all on the [Cannes 2008] jury together — Alfonso [Cuaron] and Marjane [Satrapi] — and we had a really great time, and then ... It was one of those things where you're like 'Oh my God! I'm that person who's caught in this shitty rumor brigade.' You can't win. You don't say anything and everyone's like, 'It's true.' You say something and you're keeping the story alive. It's bad, bad news."

That sounds like a no, but who knows what secrets are hidden in those ellipses?

The rest of the profile emphasizes that Portman's a "good girl": she didn't go to high school parties, got drunk for the first time in college, and only tried pot when she was in her 20s. Those looking for something scandalous will have to settle for her comments on how she avoided becoming some director's muse even while working with Woody Allen, which could be interpreted as a dig at Scarlett Johansson:

"I have a problem with muse-ship," Portman says, curving into herself as if a little embarrassed. "I feel like througout history, it's been men vampiring on women's specialness. And why do that for someone?" Then she laughs, before adding: "Maybe it's fear of intimacy or something."

She's nobody's muse, but she is willing to dress up as Peter Pan if you ask nicely. (Fig. 1)

Elsewhere in the issue, Marie Claire "explores the darker side of having an affair with the guy in the corner office." The writer (who is married to her former boss) points out that several famous couples, including Barack and Michelle Obama, started out in office romances. There are several titillating (read: corny) stories about workplace hookups, like the lawyer dating her boss who would "slip into his office, sit on his lap, unbutton her shirt, and put his face between her breasts." However, the biggest consequences the women in the article face are being taken less seriously and choosing to find a new job when their office relationship got uncomfortable. None of the women experience the real "dark side," which ranges from getting fired by your ex-lover to causing a Lewinsky-esque national scandal.

Click to enlarge.

Fig. 1

In the January 2010 issue of Cosmo, sex therapist Dr. Ian Kerner reveals: "The bad economy is leaving a lot of guys without jobs, so they sit at home, bored, and start masturbating more often." Ladies should really police their man's masturbation habits more closely, since there's a good chance he's developing a "solo-sex problem" and will soon be unable to climax during intercourse because "a man's hand can provide a lot more friction than a vagina." So now in addition to other women, we have to fight our boyfriend's right hand to keep his attention?

Luckily, the magazine offers some tips for taking control of a relationship, including a four-page article on a wild new move called "girl on top." Or, you could,

Show him who's in charge with a flick of your wrist. Instead of just unbuckling his belt, grab the buckle and pull it fiercely from the loops. Then add a little flourish by snapping it like a whip before tossing it aside.

There are also 50 "fun ways to fire up your love," but we don't recommend you "gift him with a coloring book featuring you naked" or "emblazon a close-up of your bra-covered boobs and his boxer-clad package on mugs," unless you're willing to risk his mom accidentally pouring her tea into a boob cup when she visits. (Helpfully, Cosmo does include an article on "When You Want To Bitch-Slap His Mom.")

There's one woman who is exempt from all of Cosmo's relationship advice this month: Jason Mojica's girlfriend. When asked to describe what sex feels like for a man, the first thought that popped into her boyfriend's head was: "It feels as though my penis has come home, but after a home-makeover show has remade my home into the most amazing home ever." Lady, chronic masturbation is the least of your worries.

(Click to enlarge.)

On the Today show this morning, a Newsweek editor, Dan Klaidman, defended the magazine's choice of a Runner's World photo to illustrate its two stories critiquing Palin as a political figure. He basically stuck to the magazine's talking points, arguing that the picture did "illustrate the themes of the cover story," which is to say, that Sarah Palin lacks gravitas and exploits her all-American image.

And some female critics agree. As Lindsay Beyerstein writes:

The bottom line is that Palin's a clown. She doesn't get a pass because her chosen clown persona is stereotypically feminine.

She caricatures herself. Day in and day out. Good for Newsweek for pointing and laughing.

The story is about why Sarah Palin is a problem for the GOP. The picture answers the question. She's a problem because she's a freak with no judgment who regularly makes a spectacle of herself.

So does this "freak" matter as anything other than as a momentary soap opera for politics junkies? On Today, Tina Brown put forward a theory that's growing in steam (and that liberals fervently wish to be the case): "[Palin is] really not remotely interested in politics as far as I could see... She really was quite happy to play as a celebrity talk show guest, and she did a fabulous job at that." And yesterday, Ana Marie Cox told Rachel Maddow that McCain staffers believe Palin has no intention of running for office, adding, "This is as famous and politically credible that she's going to be."

But NBC Washington Bureau chief Mark Whitaker — who, as former editor in chief of Newsweek, used to be Klaidman's boss — calls bullshit both on the dismissal of Palin's political future and the hypocritical handwringing among his own about how much she's being covered:

The widespread suggestion in some of the media commentary that she simply isn't qualified enough to be considered a viable presidential candidate is ridiculous....Call it sexism or what you will, but why should the media only compare ambitious women to impressive men, when so many ambitious but underwhelming men get so far in this world?

Media debate about why Palin is getting all this attention is also pretty laughable. Cable and network news producers cover her on television to boost ratings, print editors put her on their front pages and magazine covers to sell newsstand copies, and then everyone turns around and tsk-tsk's: "What's all the fuss? Is she good for the GOP? Is she good for America?"

That would be, more or less, the headline Newsweek itself went for. Except they went ahead and said that the answer is no, she's bad for both.

Update: Politico's Ben Smith takes the pulse of the presidents of various feminist organizations on the Newsweek cover. Their response is basically to shrug. White House Project president Marie Wilson: "It's much more complicated than sexism... What the [Republican] Party was selling, and people were buying — and what the candidate colluded [in] — is what shows up in that Newsweek picture." And Terri O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, says that while Palin has been at times a victim of sexism, this cover isn't an example of it. She adds, "Women's right's organizations are really clear that we're struggling for the rights of ordinary women...Sarah Palin is not with us on that."

Palin Calls Newsweek Cover Sexist [Today Show]
Where Coverage of "Going Rogue" Goes Wrong [MSNBC]
The Truth Hurts: Palin's Newsweek Cover [Majikthise]

Earlier: Sarah Palin Gets Her Criticism of Newsweek Cover Right

You'd think Rihanna's first cover since her assault at the hands of Chris Brown or the First Lady would be big enough "gets" to warrant their own covers, but instead they're just two of five different versions of the December issue.



Each features one of Glamour's "Women of the Year" and, while we're thrilled to see them recognized in a women's magazine, looking at their covers just highlights what's wrong with Glamour's real "women of the year" — the ones they choose to promote during the other 11 months of the year. The magazine's previous 2009 cover girls were: Britney Spears, Eva Longoria, Jennifer Connelly, Katie Holmes, Miley Cyrus, Renee Zellweger, Sandra Bullock, Taylor Swift, Jessica Simpson, Gwen Stefani, and Scarlett Johansson. That makes December even more special, since it's the only month that features a non-entertainer, a woman over 50, or a woman of color.

When editor Cindi Leive pledged to include more plus-size models in Glamour last month, she also said the magazine would show, "A continued commitment to showing a wide range of body types — and, of course, racial diversity — in our pages..." To illustrate that the mag has always been committed to diversity, Leive said "we've put Queen Latifah on the cover twice." That's true, but she didn't mention that you have to go back two years to find a woman of color on the magazine's cover: Mariah Carey was on the November 2007 cover and Queen Latifah shared the September 2007 cover with Claire Danes and Mariska Hargitay. We'd like to take this month's covers as signs that the magazine will be making good on its promise to feature more women of color, but considering we needed a publicist to point out the plus-size model in this month's issue, we're skeptical.

As for the contents of the magazine, it seems once Michelle Obama agreed to be on the cover Glamour's editors had their own version of that frantic houseclean you do when your family visits for the holidays. The magazine is purged of most of the dirtier sex articles, since you can't have a line like "25 Naked Truths About Guys' Bodies" written next to the First Lady's head. Katie Couric, however, did manage to coax some (classy) dating advice out of Obama at the end of her interview about health care and vegetable gardens. Ms. Obama says:

Cute's good, but cute only lasts for so long, and then it's, Who are you as a person? That's the advice I would give to women: Look at the heart. Look at the soul. Look at how the guy treats his mother and what he says about women. How he acts with children he doesn't know. And, more important, how does he treat you? When you're dating a man you should always feel good. You should never feel less than. You should never doubt yourself. You shouldn't be in a relationship with somebody who doesn't make you completely happy and make you feel whole.

That's advice we'd like to see repeated in every women's magazine, especially if it could reach women in a situation similar to Rihanna's. Though most of Rihanna's interview is about her career, she addresses the fall out from her abusive relationship with Chris Brown being made public saying:

Domestic violence is a big secret... It's one of the things we [women] will hide, because it's embarrassing. My story was broadcast all over the world for people to see, and they have followed every step of my recovery. The positive thing that has come out of my situation is that people can learn from that. I want to give as much insight as I can to young women , because I feel like I represent a voice that isn't heard. Now I can help speak for those women.

It's a little more meaty than most celebrity profiles, but unfortunately, Glamour ends by asking Rihanna about the really important question on everyone's mind: if she's already thinking about finding love again and having lots of babies.

(Click image to enlarge.)

Earlier: Glamour's "Big" Issue: Plus-Size Models, Plus-Size Problems
Spot The Plus-Size Model In Glamour

As posted on Palin's Facebook page last night:

The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner's World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness – a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention – even if out of context.

First things first: Sarah Palin chose to pose for these photos in Runner's World. Yes, her commitment to exercise is proven and admirable. But she had to have known by then that the cheerleader-esque photos could be used against her. As the Washington Post's Robin Givhan pointed out in an appearance Friday, the obsession with say, Palin's red pumps may have been disproportionate, but she still sent a message by choosing them.

Still, Newsweek isn't exactly exercising its commitment to as be as "intellectually satisfying and as visually rich an experience as the great monthlies of old," in the words of its editor not long ago.

But sparring with Palin and her defenders has been a lucrative strategy for Newsweek (and just about everyone else). It started with its September 15, 2008 cover, which used a 2002 file photo of Palin wielding a gun. The age of the photo was disclosed, but a casual observer would be easily forgiven for thinking that Palin had just posed for the photo during the campaign season.

And then there was the second Palin-Newsweek-cover brouhaha, which consisted of Fox news commentators complaining that the closeup shot had been insufficiently airbrushed.

Newsweek probably couldn't have anticipated such a ridiculous complaint. Still, both cover photos paid off both in news cycle buzz and at the newsstand: each Palin issue was that month's best-seller, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

And let's not forget that this is a magazine for whom a "glimmer of progress" boils down to "we laid off enough people and cut unprofitable circulation to lose less money this quarter than the first two." So far, a major prong of their strategy for stepping out of the muddy middle, away from rusty, team-reported grand narratives, amounts to so much page-view whoring. It's all new packaging for newly sharp-edged commentary — some of it quite nuanced and progressive — from the same old, mostly white and male, voices.

So why not go in for another piece of Palin? After all, we're buying.

Bonus: The ladies of the View are pretty much united in outrage on this one.

How Sarah Palin Hurts The GOP And The Country [Newsweek]

Related: Palin: Newsweek Cover Sexist, Country Needs to Exercise More [Mediaite]
I'm A Runner: Sarah Palin [Runner's World]

Earlier: The Sarah Palin Non-Photoshop Chop: Fox News Wants To Alter Your Reality.

Fresh off a wave of positive publicity for its inclusion of non-size-zero models in its pages, Glamour editor Cindi Leive told New York magazine earlier this week, "We've shot stories for every issue from now through February using fabulous plus-size models, and not just in our feature shoots, but also in fashion and beauty. One of the plus-size models who was featured in our original story is in one of our two major fashion features in December, and looks amazing."

This is good news for anyone who's complained that "love your body" features in women's magazines are relegated to well-meaning corners, near weight loss features yet sequestered from the pole-like, genetically-anomalous, and hungry types that are the standby. So let's take a look at this curvaceous lady in the major fashion shoot in the December issue.

Well, first you have to find her. I paged through the December issue several times but then had to ask to have the plus sized model pointed out to me. This is partly because model Amy Lemons, who also appeared in the November nude shoot, shares the pages with some relatively healthy-looking women (for models). It's also because she appears to be, at most generous estimate, a size 8. The shoot is lovely — exuberant, colorful, even diverse. But plus size? Really?

Of course, Glamour itself admitted that the term was imperfect, in its November spread:

"At most modeling agencies, any girl larger than a size 4 might have trouble getting work because she won't fit the clothes, and over a size 6 she might be moved to the plus division," says Glamour senior bookings editor Jennifer Koehler.

So what do you guys think? Does this count? (By the way: Amy Lemons is the model in the blue and red dresses.)

These Bodies Are Beautiful At Every Size. [Glamour]

Related: Glamour's Plus-Sized Win: Tipping Point For ‘More' to Come? [Mediaite]
Coming This Fall: More Naked Fat Ladies in Glamour

In the December issue, we learn all about what men are really thinking. Or rather, what Cosmo editors pretending to be guys think men are really thinking. The article "Guy Love Diaries" ostensibly features relationship journals from two real men, but we have a hard time believing "Paul, 29" used the term "BFF." Also, he writes:

"When girls get together at showers and bachelorette parties, they usually talk about boys and swap sex techniques. Sara always comes back with new sex tricks and great fellatio.

How could a man know that "wedding shower" is really code for "getting sex tips from Grandma and Aunt Janet?"

In both guys' diaries, they mention that they like it when women pig out in front of them, but stay skinny. Cosmo explains:

"Men fear they will marry a gorgeous girl, and then a couple of years later, she'll let herself go and put on 100 pounds. If you're not eating in front of him, he's nervous about what might happen when you let your guard down later on.

Josh Duhamel must have been terrified when Fergie had to gain 17 pounds for her role in Nine. Yet curiously, he didn't stop loving her! Fergie's secret?: "In Italy, Catholic boys are raised to believe that there are two types of women: the Madonna and the whore. And me? I'm both."

That may work for pop stars, but Cosmo advises you drop the whole "Madonna" thing in the bedroom. There's one dirty move guys "crave" and "you're gonna want to drop the magazine and do it on the spot." Thing is, it isn't actually a "move"; guys just "want to be wanted." Tips? Try sneaking up behind your boyfriend while he's on the phone and grabbing his penis, putting lotion on your nipples and dragging them across his chest, or taking his dick to "massage his tip all over your upper body — lips, cheeks, breasts — all while maintaining eye contact." That should give him a hint.

(Click to enlarge.)

It's no surprise that Self put Clarkson on its key September issue – her August 2007 cover was a top seller that year, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. But according to WWD Memo Pad's Stephanie D. Smith (a former colleague), "The issue was the magazine's worst seller through September on newsstands, pulling in 220,000 copies and causing the magazine to miss its rate base that month." What went wrong? It's tempting to believe that widespread disdain at a grotesque Photoshop job was to blame, but that's not the whole story.

Once upon a time, women's magazines had a list of rules of what worked on covers –- which teases, colors, numbers postures, type of celebrity. The media world is a lot more crowded now, the rules are continually broken and disproved, and any ladymag editor will readily admit that predicting what will sell on a cover is by no means a science. Would you have guessed, for example, that Zooey Deschanel would be Self's best selling cover so far this year, outselling even number two contender Beyonce? (That's according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations' publisher reports).

Something that fanned the popular outrage against the Self cover was the fact that anyone who cares could find out exactly what Clarkson really looks like online – and did. Everyone knows there's an element of fantasy in magazines, but when the reality (seen in hourly paparazzi and red carpet shots on blogs) and the polished image are so glaringly far apart, you can't blame readers for feeling like they're being taken for fools and walking on by.

Aggressive Photoshopping also serves to make all celebrities look exactly the same — who hasn't stood at a newsstand and wondered which indistinguishable blondish and lean cover star is which? A casual glance might easily miss the fact that that's the ever-popular Clarkson, thoroughly transformed. (Incidentally, Clarkson also got the shrink treatment from the photo department at Elle in 2007, but fewer people seem to expect body-positivity - or reality - from a high fashion magazine.)

Yeah, Deschanel hasn't moved as many units as Clarkson or Beyonce. But take a look at that cover photo again. It's sunny and appealing – and it looks like her.

A Better Self In 2010 [WWD]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop

Before I start, I want to tell an unrelated anecdote, which dates from the early 60s. Apparently my grandmother Sadie 1.0 went, with her sister, to visit a third sister in Yonkers. But as they approached the house, in heels and sun-dresses, their nephew Johnny, then 13, appeared on the porch. "Whores! Whores! Get out of here, whores!" he screamed. So, they ran away. There has never been any explanation of this bit of family lore, save that Johnny was "an angry boy" who later went on to a successful career in sales, so.

In case you hadn't guessed, Whore! the magazine is all about reclamation.

Whore! magazine is dedicated to celebrating the current and historical qualities of women who have defined a role for themselves outside the status quo. Through written word, art, design, fashion, and music, Whore! magazine will create a dialogue about what women are as opposed to what traditional society has dictated they should be. Whore! will also explore issues largely untouched by mass media, while reclaiming a derogatory word that has long been used to censure those who would desire, express, resist, or simply take a different path. We intend to recognize those women, both modern and historical, who strive for experience rather than conventional "goodness," and continue to fight an age-old battle against expectation.

And from the Editor's letter:

Desire has driven civilization. Historically, many women have earned the title of whore for daring to engage in such masculine pursuits as getting an education, providing medical care to the underprivileged, leading an army, or just going out in public in a very dashing tuxedo. "Fags," "dykes," and "queers" have also been a part of this history, dancing with the whores and just as often condemned. While their battles still rage, in many places they've succeeded in claiming their identity and owning the words that were once used to demean them.

Issue 1 includes "Gay porn and the women who dig it," "A history of vibrators," "A step-by-step guide to automotive empowerment," "the trials of hipster stripping" and a smattering of historical whores (!) There's also fashion and beauty ("Trashy Clothes for Classy Ho's.") The aesthetic is sharp and sophisticated. From the magazine's blog, it looks like there are some good, smart writers and thinkers on board. The emphasis on outreach and women's issues is terrific. But it seems Whore! is still figuring out just what it'll be - more Bitch (which, by this standard, sounds practically quaint!) earnest Ms., irreverent Bust or flippant Jane. (And it must be said, in my reader's opinion there are one or two ill-judged Anais Nin moments which I trust will come out in the wash.) Then there's the Whore! gear - in which you can aid in the term's reclamation by sporting the epithet over your vadge, pregnant belly, or French Roast as the case may be.

Is there room out there for a smart, politically engaged women's mag? You betcha, as someone who's one of those two things might say. Historically, it's been hard for woman-centric publications to balance the cerebral and the aesthetic, and we say good luck to anyone who tries - especially in this economy. My primary concern is that, reclamation or no, I'll never be able to see the cover without thinking Regina George - which is the one sort of empowerment not in short supply. Nevertheless, we await Issue 1 with interest.

Whore!

The Naked Fat Girl Extravaganza Glamour promised after the huge response to showing plus-size model Lizzie Miller's belly in the September issue is finally here, and it's nothing short of a "revolution" (according to Glamour).

(Click images to make them larger.)


In her Editor's Note, Cindi Leive repeats the declaration she made when the photo was unveiled on The Ellen DeGeneres Show.

As Kate Harding wrote earlier, "it's a good effort... But let's not kid ourselves - this isn't a revolution. Yet." Seeing seven models with average-sized bodies (deemed "plus-size" by the industry) along with an article on why that's such a rarity and Glamour's promise to change that is great. However, using the hyperbolic term "revolution" only draws attention to what hasn't changed. Rather than a full length fashion spread, all the models are crammed together into one shot. They're also naked, which solves the problem of finding 7 designer ensembles bigger than a size 4.


Though Glamour has used plus-size models without comment in the past, the "revolution" hasn't really spread to the rest of the magazine. The only larger lady not on pages 198-199 is a non-model learning to make her "hot self look sleeker, curvier, whatever-er" in a Spanx body suit. (Thankfully no one had to model the shapewear thong.)



As Ms. Leive mentions, the model featured in the issue's one fashion spread that ran immediately before the plus-size model article is quite Twiggy-esque.


Of course, no one is angling to have thin models banned from magazines in lieu of larger ones, but aside from the liberal use of inflatable monkeys, the story didn't scream "revolution."


The rest of the magazine features the usual articles on the products every woman must buy to ward off wrinkles, in addition to answers to readers' questions on acceptable sexual behaviors ( "Should you pee with the door open when he's home?" and "Is it ever OK to sleep with your ex?"). Larger models are not featured in any of the posed pictures accompanying the beauty, health, and sex articles, because apparently Glamour can't find the requisite plus-size long johns, bras, and pink boxing gloves.


Let's face it. At any size, we ladies need magazines to guide us through the day-to-day problems we face. Like whether or not to date vampires.


And as always, the cover was chock full of lies.

Earlier: Coming This Fall: More Naked Fat Ladies In Glamour
Glamour's Plus-Size MOdel Photo Unveiled on Ellen
Naked Fat Girls On Ellen! Sort Of!

We didn't realize that when we learned to tie knots in Brownies, the Girl Scouts of America were actually preparing us to "turn him into our love slave" (Fig. 1) Otherwise, the November issue is actually more about being a good partner (i.e. giving in to all of your boyfriend's desires) than a "bad girl." The article "What He's Really Thinking During Sex" claims to be "educational for maximizing your pleasure," but all we learned is that the handful of guys interviewed like Brazilian waxes, feel push up bras are deceitful, and are bored by the sight of their fiancée's naked body. And then there's Jeremy, 27, who says:

When you reach in a girl's pants it's like an exploratory thing: You're reaching around, hoping you don't feel anything weird. And if I am in there and feel some kind of bump or something, I'm like, Excuse me, but what the hell is that?

Maybe it's good that Jeremy is so vigilant about STDs, but are most guys really that focused on checking for abnormal growths? We may never know, because according to Cosmo, it isn't our place to question men about their thoughts or actions. The article "The Six Worst Things You Can Say To a Guy," advises that if a man is unreasonably upset about something minor like running late, we should just apologize, not tell him to lighten up. And we should never ask a guy, "Can you really afford that?" because, "It'll make him associate you with the least sexy, least desirable women in his life: Mom." Who knew men had such terrible Mommy issues?

(Click the image below to enlarge.)

Fig. 1

In a flurry of bill-signing yesterday, Schwarzenegger approved a measure to make the taking or selling of unauthorized photos a crime punishable by a $50,000 fine. The bill also allows lawsuits against media companies that publish such photos. As the ABC News clip above points out, Schwarzenegger himself has been the victim of paparazzi pursuit, and he signed another bill a few years ago that tripled the damages stars could receive if they sued paparazzi for assault. But of course, paparazzi are still chasing people, and it's doubtful whether this new bill will make much of a change either.

Parade editor Jeanne Wolf (who rocks a pretty impressive Kiss of the Spider Woman look above) tells ABC,

Everyone would applaud this law if in fact it did teach paparazzi how to be dignified in their treatment of celebrities and public figures. I don't see that happening right away. What I do see happening is a bunch of court cases.

Maybe said court cases will make paparazzi a little more careful — for a while. But as long as there's significant money to be made in the "undignified treatment" of celebrities, paparazzi are going to be as undignified as they have to be. And the truth is, they are only a very small part of America's fucked-up relationship to its actors, especially female ones. The publicity actually sanctioned by celebrities — the airbrushed covers and tedious interviews and faux-inspirational weight-loss photo shoots — is just as big a problem as paparazzi photos. The only difference is that such publicity asks us to look up to celebs, while some paparazzi pis ask us to mock them. The latter is more fun, especially given the boring, self-serving content of most celebrity profiles, but both contribute to the idea that we should be watching actors' every move. If said actors really wanted to combat this, they could stop giving interviews, posing in bikinis, and selling exclusive photos to favored magazines. Until they do, they send the message that fame is okay as long as they control every aspect of it — which is more than a little hypocritical.

Schwarzenegger Signs Tougher Anti-Paparazzi Law [AP]
Gov.'s Surprise Bill Signings: Harvey Milk Recognition, Paparazzi Restrictions And Ammo Tracking [LA Times]
Governor Signs New Anti-Paparazzi Law [ABC]

Like just about every Megan Fox interview, her comments veer from annoying to awesome... sometimes in the same paragraph. We're tired of hearing about how she's "completely, hysterically insecure" about her appearance and hates people looking at her (well, that goes for all starlets). But then she admits to Cosmo that she lies in interviews because she's bored. Whether quotes like, "male actors drop lines about their private jets, trying to seem powerful, but I don't give a shit. I don't need someone else's power. I'm obtaining my own" are true or not, they're certainly entertaining. Sadly, the rest of the magazine doesn't promote Megan's view of female power. In the article "Why He Calls You a Nag When You're Not," writer Matt Titus informs us that, "No matter how much we love you, we're only capable of listening to about 20 percent of what you have to say." According to his armchair psychoanalysis:

"In guys' minds we already did everything a woman (i.e. Mom) asked for 18 years, and it almost killed us. But now that we are, ahem, all grown up, we don't want to be told what to do. If we do everything our girlfriends and wives say, we will actually lose our manly status and turn into children again. Yes, we really think that."

Titus offers a tip for ladies who want to get their man to do what they want without nagging: simply walk out of the room when he's doing something that bothers you. In Cosmo's world playing games is always preferable to having a civilized conversation or treating guys like fellow human beings. But, that goes both ways. Our favorite sex tip from this issue involves your boyfriend treating you like a piece of meat... literally:

Have him tie your hands with a scarf and hang them on a hook on his door (the kind you would hang your coat or towel on) before he tantalizes you with oral. Since you'll feel totally like his sex toy, you can add to the arousal of being restrained by begging him to "release" you and let you orgasm."

What could be hotter than having sex while hanging from a meat hook? Oh right, using your dirty thong as a hair tie.

(Click on the image below to enlarge.)

Earlier: Cosmo: Wear Your Dirty Panties Around Your Ponytail

This isn't Tina's first time on a women's magazine. She was on the cover of Marie Claire in 2008 to promote Baby Mama — pre-SNL Sarah Palin impression, and before Feynaticism had reached critical mass. At the time, it was a little surprising to see her dressed up on the cover of a magazine since she'd mostly been seen in blazers on Weekend Update and frumpy writer's attire on 30 Rock. In retrospect, she wasn't actually that glammed up in Marie Claire. Sure, her infamous scar was Photoshopped out of every shot, but she's wearing a simple trench coat Liz Lemon might wear, without the diamond earrings and popped collar, and perhaps with a few more mustard stains.

Inside Marie Claire, Tina was pictured with her signature glasses, sitting at a typewriter. She's cute, but she's a writer, not some starlet famous solely for showing up on the red carpet and appearing on magazine covers.

In the new Harper's Bazaar, the tools of Tina's trade are nowhere to be found. Rather than slaving away over a 30 Rock script, she's actually posing.

Of course, Bazaar is generally more focused on fashion than Marie Claire, but the Marie Claire shoot was totally about what Tina does, not what she was wearing. The only notes about her clothes are written in fine print along the magazine's spine, after the hair and makeup credits.

The description of this photo in Bazaar is:

Great style is a cinch. Dress, $1,495, and belt, $1,295, Michael Kors. 212-452-4665. Earrings, $175, Alexis Bittar. alexisbittar.com. Cuff, $14,500, Frank Gehry for Tiffany & Co. 800-526-0649. Shoes, $860, Manolo Blahnik. Barneys New York, NYC; 212-826-6900.

Great style isn't even "easier than putting lipstick on a pitt bull," it's just "a cinch," the same as it would be if Lauren Conrad were wearing that $1,495 Michael Kors dress.

But when Tina stares off into space in Marie Claire, you can tell she's using her "mind grapes" to come up with more ways for Tracy to annoy Jenna.

Tina took her first steps toward a sexier image on the cover of Vanity Fair in January 2009. Much of Maureen Dowd's profile was devoted to the weight loss and makeover that took Tina from "very mousy" to everyone's favorite "brainy glamour-puss." At this point Dowd still need to qualify that she's brainy albeit a glamour-puss.

Despite the irritating emphasis on her figure, the description of Tina's clothing is just as hard to find in Vanity Fair as it was in Marie Claire. Though she isn't actually wearing her glasses anymore, they're still in her hand.

Or in her mouth.

She finally loses the glasses in this shot from Vanity Fair, but it seems Annie Leibovitz still wanted to emphasize her personality rather than the little black dress she's dancing in.

It's a far cry from this shot in Bazaar, in which all Tina's saying is, "Hey, check out my $1,995 Yves Saint Laurent cotton-twill bustier dress!"

Now certainly, Tina is smart and talented whether she's holding nerdy accoutrement or not. But are her new fashion-focused photos in Bazaar a step in the right direction? Previously, magazines pushed the image of the smart girl who suddenly looks hot when she whips off her glasses; now Tina is just hot. On the one hand Bazaar is featuring a cover girl who isn't considered conventionally attractive (even though she does have an attractive face and a tiny body) but is famous for her work. On the other hand, why have a celebrity who admits she knows nothing about fashion and compares herself to Tootsie in the cover profile model clothing? Though it's great to see a woman of substance on the cover of magazine aimed at women, we're still more interested in what Tina does, not how she looks in Manolos.

Tina Fey's profile and cover shoot are available online and in the November issue of Harper's Bazaar, on newsstands October 20.

Tina Fey's Cover Shoot [Harper's Bazaar]
Tina Fey Rocks! [Harper's Bazaar]

Earlier: Why Do Women's Magazines Pick Cover Girls Who "Don't Work"?
Vanity Fair: Tina Fey Drops 30 Pounds, Is Scarred For Life

The first thing we thought when we saw Vanessa Hudgens on the cover was "her?" which, as it turns out, is appropriate, because the only entertaining part of the magazine was a brief interview with Alia Shawkat about Whip It, her first major role since Arrested Development (Fig. 1). Plus, at this point in her career, Hudgens may be wishing she was a "never nude." The High School Musical star is now 20, which means it's time for her to reject her squeaky-clean Disney image and transition into adult roles. Usually this is accomplished with a few women's magazine covers and maybe a racy Maxim shoot, but Hudgens has already been involved in a nude photo scandal. Thus, throughout her Allure interview Hudgens references various Disney princess movies and emphasizes that she's still sweet and "naive."

The rest of the magazine seems to feature even more ads than usual, but that's probably because the article on scientific beauty breakthroughs sounds like it was copied off the back of a shampoo bottle. As usual, to make sure those jars of anti-aging creams and gels (which Allure's own editor admits are pretty useless) really fly off the shelves, the magazine resorts to scare tactics. This month's aging horror story concerns identical twins who "look years apart." Though it looks like one twin was photographed in bad lighting, in most cases the magazine claims one twin's face looks worse than her sister's because she's overweight. While Catherine Deneuve is quoted as saying "after a certain age, a woman needs to choose between her face and her behind," the article explains that:

For women under 40 the effect turns out to be just the opposite: Extra pounds can obscure youthful features like a smooth jawline and cause facial features to sag.

By that logic, wouldn't the best anti-aging strategy be to stay slim until you hit 40 then start packing on the pounds? We're not sure why Allure's editors seem to think there's some scenario in which our faces aren't going to age in the next 60 years (or why that's so terrible). Another mystery: How did Allure find the sets of twins for this story? Who would call up their twin sister and say, "I know we're the exact same age, but I think you look much older than me. Want to be photographed for Allure?"

(Click the image below to make it larger.)

Fig. 1

Earlier: Allure Editor Defends Pushing Beauty Products That Don't Work