My Love-Hate Relationship with Vogue Magazine

I have made it to page 580 of the gargantuan 902 page September issue of Vogue magazine, and I trying to remember why it is I’m still subscribing to this running advertisement for conspicuous consumption.

Initially I subscribed because it was one of the few magazines I thought I might enjoy from the list of magazines offered as the reward for taking some long forgotten survey online.

And I enjoyed the first year. Vogue was a new experience. I marveled at the fashions, coveted the shoes, and was impressed with the writing in the articles. The people depicted in Vogue live a fantasy life compared to my small town existence. Never mind that the haute couture that filled their pages would never grace a hanger in my new closet; I could look, just the same.

So I renewed my subscription for another year.

But as I labored through page after page of clothes I had no place to wear, let alone the big bucks to buy, read the articles full of name-dropping and about people who would think my life dull, I wondered if surely there is not a better way to waste my time.

And what about those ads? Now I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and taste is a personal choice, but some of the ads contain no beauty or good taste, as far as I can see. The really pretty models are never allowed to smile, but at least they look good. And then I turn the page and am face to face with some gaunt, really ugly face with terrible hair and make-up, and the clothes would be just as bad! Many of the ads don’t even show the clothes to any advantage, but the designer or name of the fashion house is proximately displayed.

The shoes are always seductive, and I would love to have a need for a pair of six-inch heels of fabulous design. And in every issue there will be at least one ad showing shoes worn with socks! America Ferrera wore socks with heels in Ugly Betty, but I thought that was just to keep her in character as a less than savvy fashionista. And to make matters worse,  in this issue a picture accompanying an article shows some hot-shot male designer in a suit, dress shoes, and no socks! Emulation of the no hosiery style rampant in women’s fashion, no doubt. I guess when his shoes get to smelling from his feet sweating, he just gets another pair. And if the shoe designer would put a pair of hose on that model with those heels,  they would feel and fit and look a whole lot better than heels with socks.

So it is becoming clear to me that the main problem is that I have absolutely nothing in common with the people, the lifestyle, or the clothes in this magazine. I guess  I just don’t get the world of fashion. And yet I dutifully turn the pages, alternately fascinated and aggravated with how the other half lives and dresses.

My subscription runs out in a month. I guess what I need to do is save my $19.97 and use it as a nest egg for a nice vacation. Or a new coat.

Or a pair of socks.

Bare Legs and Bad Choices

Well, I made the mistake of clicking on one of those MSN teasers about what the movie stars wore to the People’s Choice Awards and saw that the so-called well-dressed are still undressed with bare legs. Britain’s  new royal princess may have had brief success in making hosiery acceptable again, but America’s fake royalty are still showing up with ugly legs. What is it with current trends in fashion these days?

Yeah, I know. For the same reason that I don’t know who half of the young movie stars are, and the fact that bare legs look unsightly to me, I am showing my age. I do realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is relative and subjective, that styles do change, and all that, but come on, some things are just not attractive.

I’m not sure why or when, exactly, bare legs became acceptable. According to an article by Greg Morago in the Los Angeles Times in 1999, much of the bare legs movement can be attributed to the bare legs of the four stars of Sex and the City, those paragons  of proper and acceptable behavior. That explains a lot.

That article also talked about bare legs being this generation’s answer to going braless in the 60s. Both are supposed to be liberating and empowering for the individuals who embrace the style. Really? Freed you up to have ugly legs and sloppy shirt fronts?  If you are younger than 30, are tan and/or have olive skin, you might be able to get away with no hose. That and an endless supply of self-tanner or that stuff Joan Rivers sells to cover up the fact that you don’t have on hose. So what exactly is it that you are liberated from? If the legs have to be camouflaged to look good, and in the process probably  get make-up all over your skirt hem, why not just wear hose and have your feet feel more comfortable in your shoes besides?

I suppose bare legs  also go along with the trend of dressing down in general that has been going on the last several years. Kind of like the frayed, holey jeans which I haven’t seen as much of lately, thank goodness. I read an article in the paper last August that said hosiery was making a come-back, at least for fall, but what I see doesn’t support that.  I can remember the last three awards ceremonies we have attended at the high school auditorium and the bare-legged female teachers who presented awards apparently didn’t own or didn’t bother to check their image in a full-length mirror to see how gross those legs were going to look up on that stage in the bright lights for all to see.

I also read an article  last January that talked about the demise of the necktie for businessmen. Then today I read an article in Vogue magazine (full of beautiful, expensive, impractical clothing that the average woman will never wear-but some of their articles are equally beautifully written) about  hair that was all about looking unfixed, what they called the “deliberately disheveled-couldn’t- care-less-but-doesn’t-it-look-chic look.” They are right about one thing-it does look like they couldn’t care less. The hair looked stringy and dirty to me, but definitely not chic.

And apparently the next  hot fashion statement is wearing pajamas to school and shopping. That one is so lacking in class I don’t think I will even waste the time and space commenting on it.

It used to be you could walk into just about any type of business and the employees looked clean, neat, proud to be there, and  like they knew what they were doing. Not as reassuring today when flip-flops, hoodies, tattered jeans, talking T-shirts, and grungy hair is what greets you. Well, that is, what greets you when you can finally take an employee’s  attention away from the blasted cell phone or just get them to get up out of the chair to begrudgingly wait on you.

I like to wear flip-flops, too, where appropriate;  I don’t want to go back to the days of corsets, girdles, layers of petticoats,  and raised disapproving eyebrows  either,  but  I would like to go back to an attitude of pride in one’s appearance and appropriate dress that shows respect for the occasion, whatever that occasion might be. We tend to act commensurately with how we look, and some of society’s actions could use a dress-up day, too.

 

Critchell, Samantha. “Fashion says hosiery is making a comeback, but is it pure torture or polish?” Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, August 24, 2011.

Harris, Sarah.”She’s Come Undone,” Vogue magazine, October 2011; p. 268-69.

Morago, Greg. “Fashion’s New Trend Appears to Have (Bare)Legs.”  http://articles.latimes.com/1999/nov/19/news

Wolf, Alan M. “Neckties begin to lose corner-office following.” Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, January 30, 2011.