Dear fashion mags...

please stop fucking with my fantasies. Listen, I understand that it's tough all over, and that maybe you think that CONSTANTLY including "budget" items and using the term "recessionista" (which is so lame) is going to make your mags more "relevant" and "consumer friendly". Well, nope, I gotta disagree. I do NOT read Vogue or Harper's Bazaar or Nylon for REALITY!!! Are you kidding me? It's not like myself or any of those fun gals like me could afford those clothes any better before the recession. But I don't read those mags for what I CAN have; I read them for what I want to dream about, aspire to, fantasize about... And when you lower both your pricepoints and your standards, well, why am I still dishing out my $5? Frankly, if I want cost-saving measures, I'll pick up Ladies' Home Journal or Redbook, or better yet, I'll go all Canuck on you and grab a Chatelaine (which is getting really good, actually). Not to mention, the "cheap" stuff you feature is ridiculous and still overpriced... but now instead of beautiful, elaborate, creative clothing, I'm being fed cheaply made clothes whose only seeming redeeming quality is the name on the label. So, do us all a favor, wouldya?? Don't let me catch you running Sorel ads in Vogue ever again, mmmmkay? Because, frankly, when the hockey moms around town are embarassed to be caught wearing them, they don't exactly scream "escapist fantasy", now do they? Like, do you really need the advertising dollars THAT bad? And, btw, fancy ads do NOT make ski-doo boots "FASHION". Argh. Dream killers. Image from here.