I was never fascinated by beauty magazines. They were part of a monthly repertoire that I would flip through to check out the hottest stories, the newest fashion trends, makeup and hair tips. When I was a flight attendant, it was not uncommon for us to walk through the planes after all the passengers had left and look for magazines left on the seats or seatback pockets. The beauty ones and People were always the most popular.
But a couple years ago, I stopped looking at them. I didn’t want to face what they had to say about beauty. They made me feel ugly.
I have 3 sitting in front of me. 
Glamour, Marie Claire and Cosmopolitan. What I’ve become fascinated about is the question of if beauty magazines didn’t exist, would the world become a little less fixated on the almost unattainable definition of what it means to be beautiful? Would I become less fixated on what it means to be beautiful?
Jennifer Aniston graces the cover of Glamour this month. She has been an icon for hair-dos, diet plans, workout regimens and maintaining a high level of sex appeal even into her forties. She was on one of my flights years back. I can’t say there was much about her that stood out and she wasn’t exactly friendly to any of the crew. I get it. She probably gets tired of having to be such an uber-popular icon, people doting on her, and can’t be nice all the time. I gave her the benefit of the doubt even if no one else did. Maybe she was having a bad day.
At $3.99, this magazine is kind of a steal. Seems as though magazines keep getting more expensive. Maybe it has to do with the fact that ¾ of the magazine appears to be filled with ads for every possible beauty product you could ever want. Effortless precision eyeliner, Dolce & Gabbana’s new fragrance, L’Oreal’s new color vibrancy hair color that now lasts 8 weeks, Prada eyewear. Even if I wanted to buy all these things promising to transform me into a better person, there’s no possible way I could afford them. Not to mention I’d try to put that eyeliner on myself and I’d look like a clown. Even though I attempted for years to master eye makeup based on tips and tricks from these magazines, I am still incapable of making it look like it does in the pictures.
After finally getting to the Table of Contents page, I flip through a bunch more ads until I get to the first “article.” How Do You Define Glamour? I skim through some of the other stories. The Do’s and Don’ts of Turning 30. Fall Fashion, none of which I would be able to afford, but cute nonetheless. I then run into Fall’s Major Beauty Looks. Makeup, hair, fragrances, lessons from beauty icons. As long as you go through the painful sometime hours-long regimen of covering, applying, smoothing, curling, altering, and admiring, you’ll finally look like a completely different person. I wonder, though, what happens when it all comes off? Who is the real person?
I am most intrigued by the Love & Sex section. How to Meet Someone Anytime you Leave the House. They summed this one up in one small paragraph. It’s so easy! How to Look Better in Your Profile Picture. Just 5 steps here. Finally, How to Not Get Divorced. Wow! 4 steps and you’re goo to go.
Finally, on page 318, is Jennifer’s interview. The focus of the article was geared towards her finding happiness. Good for her. Despite everything, they made sure to focus on her weight-loss since the early days of Friends and the beauty transition through the years.
I open Marie Claire. At a dollar more than Glamour, I hope for even more amazing…content? Ads, ads, ads, but the Table of Contents comes sooner. Ah, they tricked me. Leaves room for many more ads before getting to the first bit of content. Fashion, hair and makeup. Most of the pages look the same as Glamour. With so many lists and steps of things to do, I have no idea how to keep them all straight. What if I mess up? Ugh.
Cosmopolitan is a $3.99 mecca of hot looks and sexy hair secrets. It’s known for its sex advice and what guys are really thinking. Amazing how they can get inside their minds…The ads seem to be less, the products more affordable, but generally the same as the ones you find in any other beauty magazine.
I won’t go on as you can pick them up for yourselves, but I am proud I was able to withstand going through these 3 without feeling too bad about myself. I did think that I should probably run home and do something different with my appearance to help me feel better about being a woman. Weird how they can do this to us.
There is a reason why women pick them up. They’re cheaper than a lot of magazines, they display an “I have flawless hair and makeup with the smoothest, blemish-free skin one could possibly want, don’t you want to be like me” woman on the cover, and portray the most intriguing tag lines for articles found inside (that more often than not are disappointing to the reader).
I completely understand why they are popular. I have to imagine that if I were the same person I was three years ago (meaning the superficial attribute of having my old hair back), I would probably not be afraid of looking through them from time to time.
But what I am trying to understand is what actually defines beauty? Magazines will never change. TV and movies will never change. People, including myself, want to see beautiful people, men or women, who are easy on the eyes and can be fantasized about regardless of one’s relationship situation. Beautiful people are treated differently, looked at differently, and act differently. Do they know they are beautiful? Are they able to pick out others like them? Do they actually feel good about themselves or think they too need to be more beautiful?
I’ve had this conversation before. 
And what it comes down to is believing I’m the only person I will ever be regardless of what my body, my face, my hair looks like. If I feel the need to define myself based on a magazine, I will lead a very unhappy life chasing something that very possibly no one can attain. Not even the most beautiful. There is no airbrushing in real life.
Interestingly, I found a website that asked the question: What do men find really unattractive in women? The answers were not what I thought they’d be. With quite a few responses, most of the unattractive qualities were in regards to lack of confidence, wearing too much makeup, trying to be someone they were not, not taking care of themselves. There was very little that correlated to what magazines portray of women. Nothing about not being fashionable, not having a certain type of hair, not doing their makeup right.
My point in this is not to berate magazines for what they are trying to sell. Beauty does sell. And it sells well. Look at all the industries focused around it. I am challenging myself to stop focusing on physical aspects of how to achieve symmetry, or the number one criteria of beauty according to scientists and researchers. Careful if you read the article. Instead of focusing on the superficiality of it push yourself to believe you are so much more than what someone else says you should be.
I did not comment on the article even though it bothered me. It concluded with telling those less “blessed” in the looks department to work harder and they’ll get there. Feel free to comment here if you have any thoughts.
As always, thanks for reading!
looking without striving 