hell floweth over

On a whim, I bought Marie Claire while waiting for a train at Penn Station. A couple years ago, I swore off women's mags, but I had (and have) a cold, and my other reading option was The Magic Mountain, which I suspect may be for the sick what Macbeth is for actors: a curse of mimesis, an infectuous story.
But TB isn't as evil, as unhealthy, as bloody awful, as Marie Claire, especially Marie Claire, "The Body Issue." In her monthly column, editor Lesley Jane Seymour reflects on the April issue's theme: "In high school I felt like an outsider, 'dieting' to gain weight -- guzzling cans of disgusting weight-gain liquids hoping they might make me look less like a boy. So the truth is, no one escapes 'the body issue.'" In other words: "While, in earlier issues, we've tried to suppress only fat women's self-esteem, we now recognize the economical short-sightedness of our strategy. This issue proves no body type is immune to criticism, because Marie Claire believes in equality; fat or thin, you're all in dire need of doubt and self-improvement possibilities."
And Marie Claire isn't only introducing new body types to be ashamed of. It's also introducing new body parts. For ex., on p. 222: "If your nipples are pale, make them rosier with a lip and cheek stain." And, body parts may be wrong in ways you haven't previously considered. Page 78: "Does your hair make you look fat?" One way to change that: "Stop straightening." "'Pin-straight hair might as well be pointing down to your hips,' says [hair stylist] Brocato. If your hair is extremely flat, your body will look bigger by comparison." The companion "before & after" pics show Jessica Simpson with straight hair, in a baggy, off-the-shoulder shirt, and then with wavy hair, in a skin-tight tank. The captions: "thin" and "thinner." (Thin is for losers. But you can never be too thinner.)

These complaints probably aren't original. I don't care. A different object of complaint pertaining to MC: the wheeled-in Ph.D., always a professor of psychology and author of a best-seller. In the case of Judy Kurlansky on p.140, the best-seller is The Complete Idiot's Guide to Dating. And Kurlansky's MC-assigned subject: "why we love cradle-robbing celebs."

Celebrities -- with their looks, money, and power -- can clearly date whomever they want. So why all the recent fuss over star couples with a decade or more between them? It's because women are suddenly the ones raiding the nursery, says Judy Kurlansky, Ph.D. "The older male celebrity is a cliché," she explains. "But now that Demi Moore has turned the tables, younger, hipper celebrity women [think Cameron Diaz, Gwyneth Paltrow] are following in her path."

Right, because trends dictate our life partners. If not: they should. Continuing:

The payoff for us mortals? The trend gives us permission to date outside our decade, too. According to the AARP, one-third of unmarried women in their 40s to 60s are dating younger guys.

Well, hell, according to Jerry Springer, that "path" was cleared long before Demi by a caravan of mobile homes.

But MC is a little behind the times; take, for ex., its "Women to Watch" feature, which introduces readers to "stars-in-the-making." Among the stars who haven't made it yet, according to MC: actress Rosario Dawson, singer Ashanti, director Sofia Coppola, and the under-publicized Keira Knightly. I assume that means, for the time being, they're still mortal. But--hey you, Keira! Question: why be thin, when you can be thinner?

-----------------------
Related: lines I read while composing this post.
-"Compared to Mann's masterpiece, War and Peace is like the soap that runs down the crack of your butt in the shower." (source)
-"After her surgery [for her 'cross-eyed condition'] Demi used her looks to earn some money modeling in Europe (after dropping out of high school), and put her now trademark raspy voice to work as a collection agent." (source)

Posted by nchicha at March 16, 2004 10:33 PM