Oh, and then there was that story about Jezebel.

Obviously, the nonchalant tone of that last sentence is total bullshit: I — and most of the other staffers, I believe — spent the majority of the weekend reading the Times piece, then reading it again, and again, and again, all in an effort to process how we felt about it. (And, of course, our appearances. I was horrified by vast amount of forehead on display; Tracie thought she looked like a drunk; Dodai marveled at her abundant cleavage; Jessica disdained her lack of it.) My reaction to the story was one of amusement and disappointment, feelings that did not change even on my fifth or sixth reading, although I admit they were much-amplified after I got a look at the crazy-ass commenting thread about the story that sprung up on Gawker on Saturday; all I have to say about that right now is Jesus Christ.

There were some amusing moments in the story, like writer Lauren Lipton's acknowledgment of the alcohol-soaked truce between Moe Tkacik and her sometime-critic, SinisterRouge, and the confirmation of a rumor I'd heard regarding a group of disparate, far-flung, longtime commenters and a pilgrimage they took to Dollywood earlier this year. (Also: Redbook editor Stacy Morrison's defensive-sounding intimation that only the impressionable, "fun"-loving youngsters on the lowest rungs of her magazine's editorial masthead deign to visit Jezebel. Guess she's still mad about that Faith Hill Photoshop controversy.) And despite my disagreement that a Jezebel name-check on the website for Gossip Girl has suddenly led to an influx of younger, more (ahem) immature readers — and my disbelief that the Times compared our traffic to that of iVillage, of all things — on the whole, I felt the piece was fun and more than fair to us. (One quibble: We post from 9am to 7pm, not 10am to 7pm.)

But it wasn't fair to the readers. Why? Because: Problems between editors and commenters and between commenters themselves are not specific to this blog — or any Gawker Media site for that matter — and the tensions in the comment threads are a natural side-effect of our surprisingly speedy growth. Because: At least from my somewhat ignorant vantage point, there is simply no evidence of any group of commenters referring to themselves as "cool kids" in any thing but a joking manner. And most importantly, because: Jezebel readers are funnier, more vibrant, opinionated, impassioned, whip-smart — and yes, infuriating —than the Times made them out to be. (Why the paper chose to showcase an unremarkable, mildly-tense exchange within the thread of an Angelina Jolie "Snap Judgment" instead of contributions from readers on, say, "Crappy Hour" or something equally-loaded, such as this post, is beyond me.) Basically I just wish that the commenters had taken center stage a bit more. They — you — deserved it. Because despite all the thoughtful, opinionated, unique work done by Dodai, Moe, Tracie, Jessica, Jennifer and Maria, in the comment threads on our blog you can find sidesplitting humor, impassioned disagreement, emotion-laden provocations, expert anecdotes, and a variety of voices that inspire as much, if not more, than they annoy.

In fact, I can guarantee that you will.

Not On Our Blog You Won't [NY Times]

Which is why even Jezebel has to take money from marketers such as American Apparel — the pervy, hipster brand that's all about worshipping dewy, cellulite-free, half-naked youths..

Um, Simon, see an optometrist! American Apparel ads are the only reason we knew hipsters got cellulite. And stretch marks! And zits. JUST LIKE US. And Faith Hill. And third-world sweatshop workers. Which brings us to your conclusion, which is true if you substitute "urbanites who make more than $500,000 a year" for "Americans."

But the larger, really obvious truth here is that fewer and fewer Americans — females especially, but males, too — have the strength of character to age gracefully or entirely honestly.

Hey, Would You Want Your Back Fat On The Cover Of Redbook [Ad Age]

Until now, regulators have voiced few objections to the use of cosmetic fakery in advertisements, and the techniques used by L'Oréal are standard in the industry.

'Every actress in Hollywood has got eyelash extensions,' one source in the ad industry said. 'The thought that any model would appear on TV without cosmetic enhancement is rubbish.'

Adverstising Watchdog In A Flutter Over L'Oreal's Fake Eyelashes [Times of London]
Related: Losing Faith [WWD, 2nd item]

According to a new study just released in the U.K., of 70,000 school-age children, 40% of 14-to-15-year old girls admitted they aren't eating breakfast and 25% of those girls are also not eating lunch because over 50% of them listed their appearance as their number one concern in life.

Dr David Regis, research manager at the SHEU, said in-depth interviews with participants suggested media images of superslim celebrities and models such as Victoria Beckham, Kate Moss and Nicole Richie fuelled the obsession with weight. "Dissatisfaction with their bodies often seems to originate from, or is certainly accentuated by, celebrity culture and the print media and magazines," he said.

Starvation diet of schoolgirls aiming for supermodel size [Daily Mail UK]
Related: Memo To Women's Magazine Editors: White Women Hate Themselves After Reading Your Magazines
That Faith Hill Photo Wasn't Actually A Photo, 'Redbook' Editor Explains

Earlier:
Here's Our Winner! 'Redbook' Shatters Our 'Faith' In Well, Not Publishing But Maybe God
The Annotated Guide To Making Faith Hill 'Hot
The 'Redbook' You Should Have Seen On Newsstands
Faith Hill's 'Redbook' Photoshop Chop: Why We're Pissed

ABC News:

Jezebel.com takes a look at a Redbook cover shoot of Faith Hill — before and after the photoshopping. It will make you gasp.

Thanks to Jezebel, we have yet another example of how fucked up magazine airbrushing is. Perhaps at her next concert Faith Hill will dedicate this song to the crack photoshopping team at Redbook.

Check out that picture of Faith Hill and she's lookin' pretty darn fine for a millionaire mom of three who's about to turn the big 4-0. She's even on the cover of Redbook this month! Anddddd that's where her trouble begins. Jezebel got their hands on the original version of Faith's cover photo prior to it being touched up with the magical tools that only magazines and wizards possess, and holy Hollywood standards are the results horrifying. The more you look at the touched up cover picture, the more you'll wonder why we as a society like our celebs to look like straight-up aliens. If the difference in her arm's shape and size isn't enough to freak you out, check out her eyes, her back, her posture and, oh, her disappearing hand. Faith was way better looking before she went under the digital knife, crow's feet and all.

This happened on the cover of Redbook. Not Playboy or Vogue or even Cosmopolitan, but Redbook, which is supposedly geared to more mature female readers. The fact that this same July cover includes lead stories such as "The new skinny pills — yes, they work!" and "Look and feel your hottest" only underlies the utterly depressing and spooky state of the American medium.... I'm appalled at what Redbook has done to Faith Hill, and everyone else should be, too, and this includes men, because most of you have wives or moms or girlfriends or sisters, or especially young daughters, the latter of whom are increasingly doomed to be swept away by our culture's perfection-obsessed tsunami.

Because there's no way a woman almost 40 years old can have wrinkles and be on the cover of a magazine ... And be sure to also read this great analysis of why it matters.

The cover of this month's Redbook has a stunning photo of country megastar Faith Hill. Well, someone resembling Faith Hill! Thanks to our friends at jezebel.com, who dug up the original photo, TMZ readers can have a look at Faith in all her real glory, and see how she was "cleaned up" for her cover. Through the miracle of Photoshop, they gave 39-year-old Faith a body like 24-year-old Carrie Underwood! For a mother of three just a few months shy of 40 with a non-stop schedule, the real Faith looks amazing!

If someone like Faith Hill is not good enough as is to be on the cover of a woman's magazine, than doesn't it make you question why some of us are killing ourselves trying to look celebrities who don't even look like themselves. It also sends the message that no matter how beautiful you are, you're still not perfect enough. Hmmmm?

As individual women, it can be easy to wonder why we fall into the trap of trying to live up to an unattainable standard. It's something we absorb on an almost subconscious level. Deconstructing this month's Redbook magazine cover shows us just how manufactured the images of beauty we see really are. I didn't think twice about the cover image of country singer and actress Faith Hill when I first saw it. But an untouched original photo obtained by Jezebel shows just how much "digital magic" even a certified star needs to be ready for her close-up....am at a loss for ways to combat the media's standards of beauty. But seeing the curtains of digital magic pulled back to reveal reality can remind each of us to give ourselves a break when we look in the mirror.

To say that magazines contribute to an unattainable ideal is to undersell the point: The art directors and retouchers of the world get paid to create women who literally do not exist and never could. It's worse than the old Women's Studies 101 complaints about Barbie's proportions; everyone already knows Barbie isn't real. The more insidious — and therefore more dangerous — manipulation occurs when they take away the natural crook of a woman's arm or tighten up her droopy earlobe. Really: They digitally adjusted her earlobe!...And to add verbal insult to visual injury, the cover line next to Faith Hill's head screams, "The New Skinny Pills: Yes, They Work!" To my knowledge, science has not yet yielded a pill that can create a 1-inch elbow.

Have Redbook gone a bit too far with this one? Jezebel have a wizzy animated picture so you can see all the details. So what's with the arms? Seriously? Is this what Redbook readers must aspire to? Bone replacement anyone?

Why Don't Women Feel Beautiful? Jezebel.com has uncovered the Photoshopping of Faith Hill committed by Redbook Magazine. It should make every woman mad....No wonder regular women feel bad about themselves - none of us walks around with a photoshop editor fixing our acne and wrinkles or making our actual back disappear - yet, we are told we can expect to look like this picture. NO ONE LOOKS LIKE THIS PICTURE - not even Faith Hill and it's a picture of Faith Hill!

Basically, Redbook has taken a majorly attractive 39-year-old woman and digitally airbrushed her back into some indetermine 20-something age, erasing eye wrinkles, thinning out arms and straightening out her back. The end result looks great; it's just doesn't look like what Faith Hill actually looks like. What should be done about stuff like this? Not much, I suppose; I don't see how, say, outlawing the Photoshopping of celebrity covers on women's magazines would much of anything useful, even if it were constitutionally possible, which it isn't. But what I think that such extensive Photoshopping indicates is a tacit admission by women's magazines that the image they're trying to promote — that they're trying to get their readers to buy and live — is absolutely unobtainable.

Faith Hill is a beautiful, tall, elegant woman, but even she needed to have her imperfections airbrushed out in order to be beautiful enough to grace the cover of Redbook....Why the facade? Why do we accept this? Why do continue you believe this to be true?...It's all part of the game, and they gotcha. I guarantee you will walk past a newstand in the next 24 hours, compare yourself to the covermodel, and think about what you can do to measure up. The fashion industry is demented. From today forward, they can kiss my ass.

Earlier: Here's Our Winner! Redbook Shatters Our Faith In, Well, Maybe Not Publishing But God
Faith Hill's Photoshop Chop: Why We're Pissed

Using the latest technology, experts at website PlanetHiltron.com - which lets the public poke fun at celebrities - have taken genetic traits from the families of the world's biggest A-listers and transported them into a parallel universe where they are untouched by fame.

Genetic traits? How exactly does that work? Did someone take a sample of Aniston's DNA and discover that she's in reality supposed to be a size 16? Whatever. There are some amazing goodies to be had on the PlanetHiltron site, like an amazing Jessica Simpson and what may well be the best Ann Coulter ever.
A-List Stars Get A 'Normal' Makeover... And The Results Are Shocking [DailyMail]
Planet Hiltron]
Earlier: Here's Our Winner: Redbook Shatters Our Faith In Well, Not Publishing, But Maybe God

HYPNOTIC:

um why does she have so many lines around her eyes shes been rich for like 10 years
my mom is 54 and doesnt have that many wrinkles wtf

JERSEYLICIOUS:

They took away half her arm! And gave her Elisha Cuthbert's face shape (and age). And God forbid an almost-40 year old woman has a few lines around her eyes. Wow. Just... wow.

ONCEUPONATIME:

Wow! She DOES have arms! I was wondering how the flock she was holding herself up. And, ya know, she still looks really good...for a human. (As opposed to the Cherry 3000 version on the "finished" cover.)

MISSMADE:

I really want to kill myself after the thought "Wow. They did a good job."
What the fuck is wrong with me.

PISSER:

I re-touch for a living and to be quiet honest these boys (because it's usually men that re-touch) went liquify happy on her arm.

TRIXIE FROM TORONTO:

All I want for Christmas is my own personal photo-shopper.

THEGINTHECITY:

I feel pretty darn good about myself right now. My arms and backfat look just like Faith Hill's (real) arms and backfat!

CONNPOSSIBLE:

for some reason, I cant stop laughing that they even rounded out that wisp of hair on the left side of her face.

SHEISTOLERABLE:

What's amazing is 90% of what they did to her body could've been skipped if she just sat up straight. This is fabulous, though. Worth every pen-well, maybe not, but still fabulous.

THATSHOT:

You'd think they could do something about her roots after going thru so much trouble.

EDITRESS:

thank you, jezebel! i had heard legends of elizabeth hurley's nickel sized pores and drew barrymore's back fat, but there is nothing like an animated gif to drive it home.

ONE_MORE_SALUTE_TO_VANITY:

That's it. I'm off to revive Ophelia.

C_WEBB:

Wow. You could take all the scraps they snipped and make a picture of Nicole Richie.

THENWEMADEOUT

It's not just her arm - her thigh is about 1/2 the size of the original too. WHY DID THEY DO THAT to her jaw?? Can none of these celebrities put it in a contract that they refuse to be photoshopped into oblivion?? That Dove ad has nothing on this scary jumping comparison.

THEREMUSTBEAPONY:

She looks like the typical overly tanned gone-to-fat desperate-to-look-younger (dressed inappropriately for her age) middle-aged woman who was once unimaginatively hot-ish. In other words, pre-photoshop, she looks a lot like me. Prettier hair though, but yes, thinning; and maybe the camera does add 10 lbs because i think she's quite a bit more of a fatty than me too. Personally, I can never get past the distorted look of her "WHAAATTTTT??!!" into the camera when she was outraged at not being named Country Enertainer of the Year, particularly as she was already taking bows before the name was announced ... and losing to Carrie Underwood who is younger, hotter, and ostensibly more talented. I feel for her (Faith) ... as least my fade into into ignomity is a private undocumented one. But i'm not a sore loser either.

SALLY TOMATO:

Eh, this isn't so incendiary. Can you get your hands on someone we all collectively hate next time? I for one would love to see Posh looking more Miss Havisham than Fembot.

MCPASTRY

It's also interesting that she looks more down-to-earth, female-friendly in the untouched photo because her pose in comfortable and open, whereas the touched up version makes her look more come-hither-ly, as if men are buying redbook. Although I wonder if market research says that women respond to sexy pics of women better than friendly pics of women...does anyone know?

MAULLEIGH:

I hope someone didn't get fired for this. I worked at a fashion catalog where we had early pictures of a famous model girlfriend in really stupid outfits. I kept thinking of uploading them to the internets but didn't cuz I figured I'd LOSE MY JOB if I was ever found out.

LADYSHARK :

What is more shocking with Faith Hill on Redbook is how they seem to have taken her character away: "when it's her with all lines and beauty marks - she's got character and then suddely she's just another pretty empty painted up doll face," my friend Froglozoid said. And me to reply: "Yeah, it's not the same soul."

LENSDOG:

Are you kidding? I've worked with the lady and she is a great talent, but like most female stars she is very concerned about her appearance, and undoubtedly had a big say in what pictures would appear on the cover. That doesn't make here a bad person; there is a long history of female stars protecting their publicity photos. This is just the technique of the new century, and I'll bet George Hurrell would approve.

MEECH:

As a artist with a background in anatomy — I think this is priceless. They've given her a severe case of Scoliosis by whittling her back into an hourglass curve! They've also eliminated all the "slow" lines of the body (the concave areas where the body can bend on itself) to eliminate any hint of actual flesh on thiose bones. It's Mannerism at it's best — the artificial trumping the natural.

Now if there was just a way to photoshop the Iraq war, or New Orleans, or healthcare...

There is... it's called Fox News.

July Redbook Wins Website's 'Most Photoshopped' Contest [HuffingtonPost]

The Vogue cover turned out well, as many remember: Oprah looked hot. But there was something spooky beneath the Vogue image's Meisel-perfect, glossy veneer; namely, the idea that even a woman who had made her fortune validating women's strengths, hopes and dreams — and becoming one of the most powerful people on the planet in the process — would so eagerly and willingly help to perpetuate the "cover lie" of a medium that has made its mark by invalidating women's strengths, hopes and dreams with an endless parade of stories on how to be thinner, sexier, trendier, and — ugh — better in bed.

The post we put up yesterday of an unretouched Redbook cover image caused a bit of a stir. It was meant to. But more than courting publicity and traffic, the image we obtained and displayed was meant to show just how far the Cover Lie extends; that even in and on a women's magazine meant for a more mature female audience (working moms, etc.) and featuring a more mature female celebrity (career-woman and mother-of-three Faith Hill) the lies and half-truths continue to be perpetuated. Honestly, it sort of broke our hearts that it was Redbook; the magazine has been criticized before for some questionable covers (see Aniston, Jennifer; Roberts, Julia) and, after all, readers of magazines like Redbook worry that they can't have it all as it is (the great career, the loving husband, the healthy kids, the perfect body). Plus, at this point in the evolution of the celebrity-sartorial complex, who or what exactly is Redbook — or any number of other women's magazines — fucking kidding with such a female forgery? Go to any name-brand, pop culture website and you can see galleries upon galleries of images of celebrities (female and male alike) in their normal, un-retouched, unlit and still-sickeningly-hot states. These pictures are perhaps the new cultural currency, as Virginia Heffernan of NY Times wrote the other day (they certainly increase our traffic!) So why do women's magazines continue to insist on providing readers just the opposite? Is it stubbornness? The selling of fantasy? Or the selling of other things, i.e. advertising revenue? And if so, is it really necessary to shave 10-15 pounds off a woman and erase exactly what it is (the freckles, the moles, the laugh lines) about her that makes her human and accessible and interesting in order to sell a bit of fucking soap? Look at the picture above, and tell us that Faith Hill is not fucking gorgeous and vibrant just the way God — not Photoshop — made her.

Some would say yes, the half-truths of women's magazine covers and cover-lines are necessary (these people usually work on the business sides of such magazines). Others would say yes because they know no other way, or are too afraid to say no (these people often toil on the editorial sides of such magazines). But as necessary as retouching may seem in order to fill the coffers of corporate behemoths like Procter & Gamble, Revlon or Warner Brothers Records it is not okay for the rest of us — the readers, that is — that this goes on. In a world where lying, deception, and the fudging of facts has become endemic in everything, all the way up to the highest levels of government, this is yet another example of a fraud being perpetrated on the public... and the public, for the most part, is not yet in on the joke. Magazine-retouching may not be a lie on par with, you know, "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," but in a world where girls as young as eight are going on the South Beach Diet, teenagers are getting breast implants as graduation gifts, professional women are almost required to fetishize handbags, and everyone is spending way too much goddamn time figuring out how to pose in a way that will look as good as that friend with the really popular MySpace profile, it's fucking wrong. And we're glad you agreed.

Earlier: Here's Our Winner! 'Redbook' Shatters Our 'Faith' In Well, Not Publishing, Maybe God
The Annotated Guide To making Faith Hill Hot
The Five Great Lies Of Women's Magazines
Related: Oprah Winfrey & Beloved [BBC]
Doctored Cover Photos Add Up To Controversy [USAToday]
The Beautiful People, The Uglier The Better [NYTimes]

• Harper's Bazaar editor-in-chief Glenda Bailey is appearing as a Simpsons character in the magazine's August issue. No, see, it makes sense because of the eight-page Simpsons fashion spread! [WWD, 1st item]
  
• Actor Ewan McGregor is the new face of Davidoff's newest, still unnamed men's fragrance. You know, this fragrance could smell like a heroin addict's toilet and we'd still buy it. Sigh. [Antara News]
  
• Yves Saint Laurent: Still a hypochondriac, but now also a Grand Officer of the French Legion! [WWD, 1st item]
  
• H&M sales up 17% in the month of June alone, for which the retailer credited good weather, a popular merchandise mix, and an uptick in visits from us and all our friends. 'Cause Zara has really sucked lately. [Vogue UK]

• Also joining Stella McCartney for a return to Mother England for London Fashion Week after showing elsewhere? Luella Bartley and Matthew Williamson. [WWD, 3rd item]
• Rhetorical question: Does Vogue never tire of patting itself on the back? [Vogue UK]
• Oh, to be 15 again! You can be cast as the official face of Australian Fashion Week and then fired for being too young. [Australian Broadcasting Corp]
• If you're reading this in Port au Prince, Haiti and your luggage has been lost, fret not: The New York Times has provided a handy guide to where to buy clothes quickly. [NYT]
• What? Some website ran an un-retouched Redbook cover? What? Who could it be? [WWD, 2nd item]

Earlier:The Annotated Guide To Making Faith Hill Hot
Here's Our Winner! Redbook Shatters Our 'Faith' In Well, Not Publishing But Maybe God

From: Bruce Perez, Photo editor, Redbook
To: Intern David

Okay, it's not Kate Winslet or Oprah or anything but don't expect to make it to Quiz-o or Misshapes or wherever you young folks are buying your cocaine these days: call it in delivery because this is a, ahem, project. It turns out Faith Hill looks sort of like your mom. Frankly, of course, if your mom looked like this, I'd still have to do her, but Redbook is under strict instructions to skew younger and if anyone is going to be in touch with what the Girls Gone Wild generation is looking for in a magazine it is not the editors over there. And so weight of the task, kid, falls on us.

Some more salient of the fixes:

1. SCALP: You know what we need here? Some more frickin hair. Please, we could practically reuse her to illustrate one of those perennial female pattern baldness pieces. HELLO, did she not get the message that extensions are the new earrings? Take it from Lauryn Hill, white bitches INVENTED the weave, just like Koreans invented fake nails. And speaking of, Faith: nice manicure! For me to poop on!!

2. CROWS FEET: What's this under those eyes? Blanche? Dorothy? Jesus Christ, we'll try to get you overtime for this shit.

3. THOSE CHEEKS: What exactly do you think she's hoarding in there? Snacks to get her through Ramadan? And boy could bitch take a little time out on that deviated septum...

4. OMG THAT EARLOBE: This is a personal one, since no one will probably be able to tell once it hits the cover, but please do some work on that hideous earlobe of hers for me and ixnay on the fucking MOLE. Lasers were invented for a reason, lady!

5. NECK: I feel bad about hers.

6. LIPS: More lines! Ugh: What's this bitch do, move her mouth into unflattering positions for a living?

7. CLAVICLE: I know they're hot in New York, but so are those fucking terrorist scarves. This shit does not fly in Middle America. Just pretend like she has no bones. Also, get rid of that welt from the strap of her dress digging into her flesh; we know she's fat. Everyone else doesn't need to.

8. BACK FAT: What is this, the new muffin top? She's spilling out all over that attractive sundress. Gross. And could her posture be worse?

9. THAT HAND, #1: What's it DOING there? Ugh, I don't even want to know. Make it an arm. And pleaaaase make it look like she's sucking in her tummy like a good celebrity.

10. ASS: Chop.

11. ARM: is absolutely FINE, with about 50% less girth and 80% less Mystic Tan! It'll probably look unnaturally long and frail and Teen Vogue on the cover: I'm okay with this. Anything to spare readers the grotesque sight of THAT HAND, #2.

All right, see what you can do, and don't stop till she looks at least as young as Reese Witherspoon, or someone, you know, the kids your age would jerk off too. I have faith in you. Ha.

—BP

• You know they're not fucking with you the "Red-Hot Read", page 81 concerns a woman whose husband is such a relenetless cheater he actually sends her away on vacation to cheat on him. AND SHE CAN'T DO IT. That's right! No "hot"-ness this month. Sigh.
• Then there's a story about how four women learned how to "Love Yourself Thin," but not only are none of them remotely thin (Crystal, for instance, went from 266 to 250 pounds), the biggest font in the profiles is reserved for examples of "Your typical negative self-talk about your body." Examples: How did you let this happen? I never thought I would let myself get this big!"and What's the matter with you? Why can't you stop eating and start exercising? Why are you so lazy? Yikes.
• Which doesn't make it any easier that fucking Faith Hill (on page 125, not in that stupid shirt) is, like, Holy Shit hot. Seriously, she looks like Ashlee Simpson, post-surgery, only she's hever had surgery and she's old enough to be Ashlee's mom. Fuck her.
• In "The Secrets Couples Keep", page 143 a woman relates how her husband didn't tell her about the million dollars of debt on his company's balance sheet until he announced they were going to lose the house and that, oh yeah, he'd have to take a second job.
• Page 120: "My Mother Abandoned Me At Birth." This is for a new section called "Your Stories" that is sort of like a similar section in Jane, only in Jane the stories are more like "I gave my second cousin a blowjob during a family reunion but everyone was on mushrooms and we're hippies so it's okay."
• And the macro, colossal sad story to end all sad stories: "How Bad Does the Health-Care Crisis Have To Get?" on Page 166 is a serious, thoughful explanation of the problems plaguing the American health care system accompanied by profiles of sympathetic working women who struggle to keep their health insurance.
• The woman with the dead daughter, Ann Hood, wrote a book called The Knitting Circle. This is the back page essay, page 214, and she died from strep throat. So it turns out you can die from strep throat. Wow.

In conclusion, thank you, Stacy, for thoroughly reminding us of the important things in life, and how lucky we are to be here. Not sure you're really lowering the age of your readers, but our eyes didn't roll back into our brains as we were reading your magazine, so that's, you know, something.

Redbook
Earlier: Will 'Redbook' Blogger Trade Anal For Home Furnishings?

How much is the butt love worth to Dan? Maybe it's worth some custom draperies for our new house or an upgrade to Hunter Douglas blinds instead of the cheap plastic blinds from Walmart.

Oh Jane, as fellow proponents of the big O, we'd just like to say: Please, please don't stop.

Hot & Bothered [Redbook]

Ha ha, funny we asked, because Redbook answered this same question back in May! We almost forgot! Turns out women over the age of 35 who read Hearst magazines really are taping themselves having sex. Soccer moms! Completely not like us!

'We think [Blige] is just gorgeous — tattoos or no tattoos," said Redbook editor in chief Stacy Morrison. 'We were just disappointed that her management requested that we airbrush them from her photos because they are so much a part of who she is. But the ink doesn't make the woman."

No, but caving into the demands of a woman who doesn't even represent your target demo does make you sort of a pussy!

No More Ink[WWD]