The other night, I was studying Glamour, which prompted Mr. MILF to ask a question.

“Does it make you feel glamorous?” he asked. I paused, giving his very obvious question some very serious consideration, for, oddly enough, I had never thought about a magazine in such a literal way. “No,” I answered. And the realization floored me. Besides false advertising, it was depressing. Had I become cynical? Or had magazines lost their way? Probably a bit of both. But still, remember when you graduated from Seventeen to Sassy? It was an experience and it was transporting. Just looking through those mags put you into a hopelessly — dare I say — glamorous world. Key to the experience was the sense of mystery. Now, too many of the women’s titles feel familiar and stressful. A quick analysis of Glamour’s cover lines this month proves the point:

“LET’S TALK ABOUT SEX! The Stuff You Wonder About Most, Explained by Very Satisfied Women”: Ugh. Do I need to take sex ed with a smug, oversharing girl from Omaha who shares a post-coital cry with her boyfriend because it’s all so touching?

“23 Great Thing To Do With Your Hair Tonight”: That’s a lot of do’s for a single evening! And is it too much to ask for one measly suggestion for us pixie-cut girls?

“Keira: She Cooks. She Cleans. She Curses!”: Talk about stripping away the glamour. And why is her cursing something to preen about anyway?

“3-D Bonus Section”: This made me feel old. The experience was cumbersome and, visually, I didn’t get it.

“Free & Easy Strees Cures: 52 Simple, Health, Beauty & Happiness Secrets”: Thankfully, I could only find four of these stress cures in the magazine. Much more manageable!

Obviously, our ideas of glamour have changed. Publishers says readers today don’t want some remote editor in New York telling them what to do. But, really? Who doesn’t love to put down their thinking caps for a few? And why are editors so fearful of testing this supposed truism? More than money, I fear it’s laziness. If the industry’s going to survive, editors need to figure out a way to make an experience that feels fresh, fun and glamorous again. And 3-D specs are not a solution.

Say it ain’t so! The Times reports that as a young man, Milan Kundera, the handsomest novelist ever, informed on a supposed spy, who served 14 years in prison, including hard labor. Although I don’t believe in moral relativism, late revelations about historical cases are tricky. We want to believe that people act with absolute morality in totalitarian situations, but as Kundera’s novels remind us, life is nuanced, people are fallible and compromise is constant.

I’m thinking there are quite a few religious fundamentalists who could learn a thing or two from Kundera’s enigmatic worldview. Certainly, they’d like all the womanizing.