Unfortunately, it looks like the footnote to that coverline was omitted in what was surely a grievous copyediting error. After persuing the fashion spread in question, I’m certain that cover line should have read:

The Best Jeans for Your Body—Ever*

*if you are 5’11” and weigh 125 pounds

See, unlike most features that bill themselves as suggesting clothes “for your body” and therefore present at least a token range of body types, Lucky depicts only a slender model, head and torso cropped out of the frame, wearing the featured jeans. Ah, yes, it's the time-honored fashion magazine tradition of publishing cover lines that bear no resemblance to the article! 

So if you are very tall and your thighs don’t touch, you’re in luck! Not under contract with Ford Models? Lucky does not acknowledge your existence. Or your need for well-fitting pants. 

To be fair, the feature does include plenty of advice about how jeans should fit for optimum flattery. But is there a pair of snug pink straight-legs on earth that would look good on anyone but a model? (That's an actual example from page 115.)

While “The Lucky Guide to Denim” lacks body-type diversity, it does feature a range of denim trends. Some highlights:

Studded: Lucky calls these “unapologetically punky” and “a bit dangerous”—and nothing says punky and dangerous like $460 Just Cavalli denim!

Shredded: Ooh, jeans that are “all-out destroyed” are “rebellious.” What exactly are bleached and slashed jeans rebelling against? Pants that are, like, intact?

Dark, clean skinny: Says Lucky, these are the “ultimate day-to-night jean.” And they certainly are, if you work at a fashion magazine and jeans constitute appropriate office attire.

At the end of the guide, there's a promotion for an online video offering “tips on how to look great in jeans.” But why bother watching it? According to this feature, looking fantastic is simple. Just be genetically blessed and let the pants do the rest!

At 16, is Miley too young to be posing “provocatively,” as she does in this feature? Riddle me this,  universe: what is the proper age to don thigh-high boots and a push-up bra in a national publication? Can you imagine the uproar if Elle had photographed an older woman, say Helen Mirren or Judi Dench, in similar attire?

Our culture has fetishized youth. We worship it. Women undergo surgery and inject toxins into their faces to maintain lineless complexions. They wax their nether regions to a pre-pubescent smoothness. Youth and attractiveness are coveted and prized to an insane extent, but a young woman wearing form-fitting black clothes—you know, being youthful and sexy—is somehow crossing a line? Forgive me if I find Botox a far more insidious force than Hannah Montana’s cleavage. 

Sure, these photos aren’t exactly congruent with the squeaky-clean way she’s normally packaged. But so what? Is it so shocking that, at 16, she might want to be portrayed in the media in a more adult fashion? After all, she's been working full-time for years. In many ways, she is an adult. And didn’t we all spend significant portions of our teen years trying really desperately to be viewed as grown-ups?

I'd much rather see a teen star wearing sophisticated clothes in an attempt to look sexy and mature than following that time-honored tradition of posing in lingerie for Maxim. (Hello, double standard! Where are the pictures of Justin Timberlake stripping to prove his readiness to move beyond boy bands?)

All that said, I'm troubled by the pervasive conflation of sexuality with maturity. Can't we have the "not a kid anymore" story without the requisite trying-hard-to-be-risqué photo shoot? (Sorry, Elle. It's just so predictable.) Even so, the downright hypocrisy of a society that so treasures sex appeal but condemns women for cultivating it is far more damaging than a glimpse of Miley’s decolletage ever will be.

The May issue of Vogue sheds some light on the matter, introducing us Target-shopping types to the suffering that occurs when women who've invested in trousers lose their source of income. In “On the Market,” fashion writer Lynn Yaeger details her financial troubles after being laid off from job at the Village Voice—“troubles,” of course, being a relative term. See, after numerous calculations, Yaeger decides that she requires a minimum of $92,000 a year to maintain her rent, utilities, and Wolford hosiery collection.

Okay, Yaeger has a mortgage in New York City, which could easily run several thousand dollars a month, but excuse me if I can’t quite empathize with someone for whom that kind of cash is a bare minimum. Vogue certainly knows its audience: Why bother with the stories of families struggling to eat when you can reveal how the upper crust might have to cut back on the Bergdorf's shopping benders? The essay includes so little focus on expenses like housing and insurance and so much attention to items sold at Henri Bendel that only two conclusions can be gleaned: The Village Voice must have paid Yaeger in wheelbarrows full of cash, and maybe Comme des Garcons skirts really are essentials.

So, could you scrape by on 92K? I’ve devised this quiz to help you decide.

1. If dozens of employees at your company were being let go in the weeks before your layoff, what would you be likely to purchase?

A. Nothing unnecessary. I’m saving!

B. “A Victorian diamond-and-sapphire snake ring…just because I liked it, just because I wanted it.”

2. Oh no! The axe fell. Now that you’re unemployed, you need some quick cash. Check your closet—are there any garments with tags still attached that you can return?

A. Yeah, but...is it worth braving the crowds at H&M for a refund on a $24.90 cotton skirt?

B. “Back went the Lanvin bag…the tulle Comme des Garcons skirt that looked like a benign black mushroom cloud, recently acquired at Saks, had already been worn once, so that was a reluctant keeper.”

3. The biggest obstacle to getting by on just savings, severance, and unemployment benefits is:

A. Giving up Starbucks and lunches out

B. “I am the consummate compulsive shopper.”

4. You schedule a consultation with a financial planner. After considering your fixed expenses, the planner gives you a daily pocket-cash allowance of:

A. Enough to buy dinner off the Taco Bell value menu

B. $50

5. On this strict budget, the item you’re most concerned about purchasing is:

A. Health insurance

B. Rene Furterer Okara shampoo, T. LeClerc face powder, Wolford tights, and tickets to South Pacific on Broadway

6. You decide to freelance to supplement your income, but you need a printer/copier. You find one for $99. That sum is:

A. A lot of money now that you’re out of work, but a worthwhile investment

B. “Far less than the cheapest Marc Jacobs T-shirt” (And anyway, you simply require it: “The prospect of having to wait in line with other unemployed people at the local copy shop…had filled me with horror.”)

7. After a few months of unemployment, your perspective on money changes. You realize this when:

A. You discover in the worst possible way that the least expensive bath tissue really isn’t the same as the national brand.

B. You meet with a friend and “neither of us could believe that only a few months ago we thought $900 was a typical price for a sweater.”

8. Good news! You’ve landed some freelance work. You treat yourself to:

A. Name-brand toothpaste and a pedicure at the neighborhood salon (skip the callus removal treatment!)

B. “I found myself looking at the Web site of…the dealer who sold me the snake ring, and gazing weakly at it. I was terrified that one day the ring would be marked SOLD and slip out of my life forever.”

9. Even though you’re now financially stable, you’ve had to work out a payment plan with:

A. Your student loan financier and the electric company

B. Your antique jewelry dealer

10. Now that you’re back on your feet, you decide it’s time to plan for the future. You:

A. Open a high-yield savings account and max out your retirement contributions

B. Admire your jewelry! “And if I’m wrong, well, a diamond-and-sapphire cobra will always be worth something—which is more than you can say for a 401(k).”

If you’ve chosen mostly Bs, then you’ve opted to invest mostly in your appearance. And isn’t that what matters? You’re wearing an antique ring shaped like a cobra! (As for the actual Yaeger, talk about cognitive dissonance. How can she write both this Vogue essay and an article noting that $49.90 dresses are “not the cheapest things in the world”? Different readership, I guess.)

If you’ve selected mostly As, you’ve chosen money in the bank over money on your back. Priorities, people! Invest in yourself! Does solvency really feel better than the flawless fit of designer pants? It’s a choice every woman has to make, but I think we all know where Vogue stands on the matter.

Five celebrities shed their clothes and reveal not just their bodies, but also their  confidence and spirit.

Indeed. There’s no better way to demonstrate self-esteem than by posing nude in a national magazine!

I’m sure taking the pictures was a life-affirming experience for all involved, but sadly, these photos do not provide the same effect for the rest of us. If I have to look like Eliza Dushku (who has three—three—personal trainers) to feel good about my body, I never will.

Also, how does getting naked reveal their “spirit”? Despite what some people (okay, men) I’ve met seem to believe, my personality does not reside inside my bra, and I’d think a women’s magazine would be more interested in fighting that notion than in furthering it. Or have I not mastered Allure’s little lesson in confidence?

We may know how to “hide our flaws,” but that knowledge is gender-related only in that being a woman means our “flaws” are continually pointed out.

And why does “embracing your body” require taking your clothes off? The answer:

Lakshmi has a scar on her arm from a childhood car accident, so she would know! I understand her concern, and it’s a valid one. But instead of teaching young girls that beauty doesn’t have to be perfect, maybe we should teach them to value themselves and others for something other than beauty. Maybe we should teach them that they can love their bodies without the need to prove it by disrobing. Conflating self-confidence with nude portraiture only reinforces the idea that our value lies in our appearance and sexuality.

Of course, confidence is inextricably linked with how we feel about our bodies. But I fail to see how painstakingly lit, gratuitously retouched pictures promote self-acceptance for anyone other than the women in the photos. Surely there is something more notable about each of these celebrities than the precision of her bikini wax.

One of the actresses pictured, Lynn Collins, told Allure that “It’s hard not to focus on vanity in this industry, because such a large part of it is about how you look.”  If only the magazine had realized that such an undue emphasis on appearance exists not just in Hollywood—and that photo shoots like this only exacerbate the problem. Next time Allure wants to demonstrate an actress’ “confidence and spirit,” a simple interview will suffice.

The May issue fulfills this requirement with “Read This Before You Live Alone,” which begins soberly:

Well, that seems perfectly reasonable. Safety is a major concern for most women, and we’ve been told our entire lives that being alone makes us more vulnerable.

But is that actually the case? Who knows? Although there are plenty of statistics about crimes against women in their homes included here, there isn’t a shred of evidence in the article that confirms women living alone are more likely to be victims.

And of the four victims mentioned, only one, TV anchor Anne Presley, is specifically described as having her own place.

What’s the implication here, Cosmo? That a woman must choose between financial success and personal security? There’s even an entire paragraph devoted to explanations that Presley lived in one of the “most affluent” neighborhoods in Little Rock, “not far from the Little Rock Country Club,” and surrounded by “wealthy neighbors.” Good luck, then, if you live in one of those “divey place[s] in a borderline neighborhood”!

Convinced to have roommates forever? Take a look at the next page:

Oh, so paying the mortgage alone doesn’t qualify you to live alone. Excellent.

Well, then, what is safe to do alone? In “50 Things to Do Naked,” the magazine suggests such life-affirming activities as watching Arrested Development on DVD, applying a deep-conditioning treatment, or arranging flowers while solo (and nude). Really.

In the event that moving some roses around in a vase doesn’t assuage your concerns, “Read This” does conclude with a helpful admonition:

And that, at least, is easily accomplished. Step one: stop reading Cosmo.

Instead, let’s talk about “Tracy Anderson Muscles In,” a profile of the woman Bazaar dubs a “fitness guru” and I would call a “fitness guru, but only if you consider magazines’ absurd ideas about women’s bodies to be absolute gospel.”

14 drinks a day? And that’s it? There’s some shock for you. My awe is reserved for the fact that a woman whose diet vacillates between liquid fasts and junk food binges is considered a fitness expert.

Silly me, I thought it was a penis that made one’s lower body manly! And the problem with weight training? Apparently, we women are supposed to be delicate and small—or, in Anderson's parlance, “teeny-tiny dancer types” with “teeny tiny” muscles. (Never mind that, like, every magazine ever has explained why lifting weights is beneficial and how to do so without adding unwanted bulk.)

But is wanting to look good naked vanity or self-esteem? Does it even matter? Claiming that potentially harmful fitness regimens—like, say, refraining from actual food—are about self-esteem doesn’t instantly render them innocuous, and unilaterally imposing the "teeny tiny" standard isn’t particularly conducive to anyone's self-esteem.

In fact, I’d say it’s precisely the opposite. If the only way to be “teeny tiny” is to subsist on 14 glasses of lemonade a day, well, I’d rather eat cake.