This is the birthday I click over to the next box. The box that takes me out of the desired 18-44 age group advertisers so salivate over. And apparently that means I will no longer covet the things magazine advertisers might try to sell me; the luxury cars, the expensive watches, the high-end shoes.

According to a piece in the New York Times, More Magazine, a publication geared toward women 40 and over, has fewer luxury ad pages than any of its competitors. Why? Because advertisers prefer aiming their upscale shills at younger people.

This only proves what everybody already knows: Advertisers are morons.

Doesn't this defy common sense? Aren't women over the age of 40 more likely to have not only the experience and taste but also the resources to buy the kinds of higher end consumer goods marketers love most?

As my mother has often complained, "I could buy a Mercedes for cash -- tonight if I wanted to. But they're not advertising to us grandmas for some reason."

I can't buy a Mercedes -- for cash or otherwise. But it's the idea that advertisers don't want me anymore that chafes.

Indeed, although More Magazine has weathered the recession and diminishing ad pages better than many magazines because of its wide appeal, perversely, it has a hard time selling upscale advertising because it caters to "older" women.

To wit: The July/August issue has ads for products such as Crystal Light, packaged meals from Oscar Mayer, wine under $10 a bottle...and Friskies, the cat food.

According to Mediamark Research and Intelligence, the average More reader earns some $93,000 a year. You can buy a helluva lot of Friskies on that income. Not to mention any pair of $600 Jimmy Choo's you want.

As women of a "certain age" continue to break barriers in Hollywood and business, let's hope that advertisers get a clue and realize that women might get more financially savvy with age, but also more inclined to buy the beautiful things they can finally afford.