I don't have the slightest idea what to make of NewBeauty, the self-proclaimed "world's most unique beauty magazine." In between straight-out-of-Dr.-Evil's-lair banter about "age-reversing lasers" and "liquid lifts," it prompts readers several times to sign up for its BeautyPass and TestTube offers/sampling programs. Too, it appears to have quite the cushy relationship with Nordstrom, which is plugged throughout the Fall/Winter issue.

That ain't all. From page 169 onwards, NewBeauty presents a Workbook/Doctor Finder, which doubles as a Yellow Pages for high-end surgeons and dentists (excuse me, "aesthetic" and "cosmetic" dentists). They soliloquize about their "legacy of care." They proudly accessorize their blurbs with softly focused black-and-white photos. They note the "generous use of natural wood" in their offices.

They also may or may not be entirely on the level, as witnessed by the colossal disclaimer that rests beneath the masthead: "The information contained in this publication is provided with the understanding that neither NewBeauty nor its affiliates are engaged in rendering medical services, advice or recommendations... Though NewBeauty uses its best efforts to ensure the scientific accuracy of the information it publishes, it is not possible to ensure that all information provided within this magazine is entirely accurate and up-to-date and impossible to determine whether it would apply to or be effective for any particular individual in each or any instance." Related: do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

The disclaimer also includes all sorts of information that speaks to the mag's credibility. You know, like, "Be advised that some of the medical providers throughout this publication have furnished consideration to NewBeauty magazine and/or its affiliates for advertising in the form of display advertising or paid advertorials some of which may be featured within the magazine."

Yeah, I lost consciousness midway through those two excerpts, too. Nonetheless, they say volumes about the amount of trust that should be placed in anything between NewBeauty's front and back covers. My distinct impression is that pretty much every piece of editorial real estate here is for sale.

On the other hand, nobody reads a Botox-and-butt-lift publication like NewBeauty for its editorial independence. People read it, I imagine, for a quick summation of occasionally healthy steps they can take to avoid looking like the Crypt Keeper. It's probably great company during their few idle minutes in the Restylane clinician's waiting room.

When you view NewBeauty through that lens, the mag comes across much more favorably. Say what you want about its beyond-narcissistic bent, but with its proud embrace of any/all cosmetic surgical procedures and borderline disdain for the natural aging process, the mag boasts a truly unique editorial positioning. After all, where else can you go to learn about breast implants made of sugar? Well, besides Central America.

NewBeauty certainly looks good, with a beyond-spacious layout and lotsa green and orange hues. Some of the before-and-after photos (mostly the latter) of women who have undergone surgical or non-surgical treatments are vaguely terrifying, as is the shot of a late-30s mother of five whose "sensible" eating reduced her to a size negative-3. I also credit the mag for its organizational framework. Each of the main sections (Body, Skin, Anti-Aging, Smile) boast a two-page "I Want..." (ageless hands, thinner thighs, to look 23 again with the white-hot intensity of 1,000 burning suns oh please please please, etc.) spread and then either one or two enormously comprehensive features (on eyelid surgery, anti-aging destinations and the "science behind a beautiful butt").

Still, even within the context of a beauty mag for shallow women (did I say "shallow?" I meant "appearance-conscious"), NewBeauty makes some ghastly choices. I can't even begin to comprehend why any editor would showcase "take the fat from where you don't want it and add it to where you do" as a pull-quote. "Aesthetician" is not a legitimate profession; one cannot "reverse DNA damage" with skin cream. And really, there's gotta be another celebrity besides Julianne Moore who can be held up as an embodiment of mid-40s beauty.

Such lapses, coupled with the near-total absence of editorial credibility, make it impossible for me to consider NewBeauty as anything more than a doorstop (it weighs roughly as much as some of the models depicted therein). Unless you're a Peterina Pan sort who gazes into the mirror and simply can't stomach what you see, you should look elsewhere for your restorative beauty fix.

Next story loading loading..