weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 16, 2015 16:16:09 GMT -5
More pearl-clutching from the right.
With cleavage-bearing front cover models and sexually explicit content, Cosmopolitan aims to get noticed. But some major U.S. retailers are covering up the women's magazine following pressure from an advocacy group that claims the publication is "pornographic." The crusade is spearheaded by Victoria Hearst, a born-again Christian and the granddaughter of newspaper icon William Randolph Hearst, who founded Cosmo's publishing company.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/cosmopolitan-covered-up-in-u-s-stores-after-advocates-label-it-porn-1.3229403
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Sept 16, 2015 16:17:25 GMT -5
I've seen that around me for a long time in places like Walmart. Not consistently,but I've seen it.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Sept 16, 2015 16:25:44 GMT -5
Good grief.
So the tits are still front and center but the text is covered? Hypocrites like to see women's boobs, but it's inappropriate to know they might have articles about sex.
Are they using these for Maxim? Isn't that basically Cosmo for men?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 16, 2015 16:28:00 GMT -5
Victoria Hearst is the sister of Patty Hearst, aka Tania. Maybe Victoria should get busy on kiddie porn:
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Sept 16, 2015 16:49:17 GMT -5
Yeah, i see how article titles like "Best Sex Ever: Love, Fun, and Butterflies" could be pretty damaging to a child. Sex shouldn't be fun!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 16, 2015 17:09:18 GMT -5
Maybe someday violence will become pornographic and these will be covered at the checkout line:
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on Sept 16, 2015 17:21:03 GMT -5
Victoria Hearst. how is she related to Patty?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 16, 2015 18:08:16 GMT -5
Victoria Hearst. how is she related to Patty? Sister.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 6:52:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 18:14:28 GMT -5
To paraphrase Larry Flynt: "If you don't like the product (women's bodies and or sex), complain to the manufacturer (God)."
Here's a thought... maybe if religious whack-a-loons didn't make it such a taboo... there wouldn't be as much interest in it? Putting covers on the magazines is only going to drive up sales.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 16, 2015 18:29:32 GMT -5
I really hate to burst all of your "I hate God" bubbles but not only religious parents object to this content in the checkout lanes. I have a friend who is a mother of twins - age 7. One of them asked her, in the checkout lane, to explain something he saw on a Cosmopolitan cover. It has something to do with an orgasm. She was actually laughing a little because he could read a bit and was trying to sound out the word. She has no issues explaining things to her children. She has a problem being asked to do it in the checkout lane at the grocery store. She would prefer that she and her husband are the ones who choose the time and place to explain things to her children. She doesn't feel the grocery store should be forcing that on her. She doesn't like the candy in the check out lanes either.
She is not the least bit religious. I know that just blows the shit out of all the hysterical "religion ruins everything" people, but it's the truth. People are people and not everybody - religious or not - wants to see this stuff in a grocery store. I don't care one bit but I don't have small kids.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 16, 2015 18:32:04 GMT -5
Yeah, i see how article titles like "Best Sex Ever: Love, Fun, and Butterflies" could be pretty damaging to a child. Sex shouldn't be fun! Well, of course not! Sex is something a woman should endure by submitting to her husband, in the dark, for procreation only. Yes, it's distasteful, but she can think of something else, like a new quilting pattern. Any deviation from this means the woman is a slut.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 16, 2015 18:36:35 GMT -5
I really hate to burst all of your "I hate God" bubbles but not only religious parents object to this content in the checkout lanes. I have a friend who is a mother of twins - age 7. One of them asked her, in the checkout lane, to explain something he saw on a Cosmopolitan cover. It has something to do with an orgasm. She was actually laughing a little because he could read a bit and was trying to sound out the word. She has no issues explaining things to her children. She has a problem being asked to do it in the checkout lane at the grocery store. She would prefer that she and her husband are the ones who choose the time and place to explain things to her children. She doesn't feel the grocery store should be forcing that on her. She doesn't like the candy in the check out lanes either.
She is not the least bit religious. I know that just blows the shit out of all the hysterical "religion ruins everything" people, but it's the truth. People are people and not everybody - religious or not - wants to see this stuff in a grocery store. I don't care one bit but I don't have small kids. I don't see any evidence of "I hate God" from any of the posters in this thread. I do see a strong dislike of this type of censorship. Neither do I see evidence of "religion ruins everything." People's takes on issues like this are different but to accuse others of hating God or believing "religion ruins everything" based on the posts on this thread is not realistic. Folks can hate censorship without hating God or religion.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 16, 2015 18:40:52 GMT -5
I really hate to burst all of your "I hate God" bubbles but not only religious parents object to this content in the checkout lanes. I have a friend who is a mother of twins - age 7. One of them asked her, in the checkout lane, to explain something he saw on a Cosmopolitan cover. It has something to do with an orgasm. She was actually laughing a little because he could read a bit and was trying to sound out the word. She has no issues explaining things to her children. She has a problem being asked to do it in the checkout lane at the grocery store. She would prefer that she and her husband are the ones who choose the time and place to explain things to her children. She doesn't feel the grocery store should be forcing that on her. She doesn't like the candy in the check out lanes either.
She is not the least bit religious. I know that just blows the shit out of all the hysterical "religion ruins everything" people, but it's the truth. People are people and not everybody - religious or not - wants to see this stuff in a grocery store. I don't care one bit but I don't have small kids. It's a good thing she doesn't live here, then. You can't opt out of sex ed in schools. One woman who was protesting insisted she didn't want her children to know the proper terminology for their body parts. In grade 6. Moron.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 6:52:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 18:41:07 GMT -5
I really hate to burst all of your "I hate God" bubbles but not only religious parents object to this content in the checkout lanes. I have a friend who is a mother of twins - age 7. One of them asked her, in the checkout lane, to explain something he saw on a Cosmopolitan cover. It has something to do with an orgasm. She was actually laughing a little because he could read a bit and was trying to sound out the word. She has no issues explaining things to her children. She has a problem being asked to do it in the checkout lane at the grocery store. She would prefer that she and her husband are the ones who choose the time and place to explain things to her children. She doesn't feel the grocery store should be forcing that on her. She doesn't like the candy in the check out lanes either.
She is not the least bit religious. I know that just blows the shit out of all the hysterical "religion ruins everything" people, but it's the truth. People are people and not everybody - religious or not - wants to see this stuff in a grocery store. I don't care one bit but I don't have small kids. I don't see any evidence of "I hate God" from any of the posters in this thread. I do see a strong dislike of this type of censorship. Neither do I see evidence of "religion ruins everything." People's takes on issues like this are different but to accuse others of hating God or believing "religion ruins everything" based on the posts on this thread is not realistic. Folks can hate censorship without hating God or religion.In fairness... I kind of did take the religious route... But that's because, in my personal experience, crap like this 99% of the time comes from the religiously repressed.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 16, 2015 18:41:42 GMT -5
Hate God? Huh? That's like hating Spiderman.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 6:52:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 18:43:31 GMT -5
Hate God? Huh? That's like hating Spiderman. LOL... yeah... I know.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 16, 2015 18:47:38 GMT -5
I don't see any evidence of "I hate God" from any of the posters in this thread. I do see a strong dislike of this type of censorship. Neither do I see evidence of "religion ruins everything." People's takes on issues like this are different but to accuse others of hating God or believing "religion ruins everything" based on the posts on this thread is not realistic. Folks can hate censorship without hating God or religion.In fairness... I kind of did take the religious route... But that's because, in my personal experience, crap like this 99% of the time comes from the religiously repressed. You referred to "religious whack-a -loons." You did not indicate "religion ruins everything", Richard. While there may be those who are "religiously repressed" that doesn't equate to all religion. You're entitled to your beliefs, just as those who are religious are entitled to theirs. Neither group needs to resort to over-kill to make its point.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 16, 2015 19:00:27 GMT -5
Fair enough. You see what you see. I see what I see....in this thread and every other thread where the regulars go off on tangents like this. My opinion only. Still my opinion. Will be my opinion tomorrow. It's not really important to me whether people agree with it or not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 6:52:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 19:02:49 GMT -5
Fair enough. You see what you see. I see what I see....in this thread and every other thread where the regulars go off on tangents like this. My opinion only. Still my opinion. Will be my opinion tomorrow. It's not really important to me whether people agree with it or not. Even though it doesn't matter to you, I agree with you.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 16, 2015 19:16:25 GMT -5
Hickle....you crack me up! Now laughter DOES matter to me!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 6:52:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 19:53:17 GMT -5
In fairness... I kind of did take the religious route... But that's because, in my personal experience, crap like this 99% of the time comes from the religiously repressed. You referred to "religious whack-a -loons." You did not indicate "religion ruins everything", Richard. While there may be those who are "religiously repressed" that doesn't equate to all religion. You're entitled to your beliefs, just as those who are religious are entitled to theirs. Neither group needs to resort to over-kill to make its point. Some people only focus on the word "religious" in the phrase "religious whack-a-loons"... often times it's assumed that the phrase is an insult to ALL the religious. That assumption is categorically and undeniably wrong when I use it, because I am specifically calling out the whack-a-loons that just happen to be religious in those cases, and use their religion to try and excuse their whack-a-lunacy. Not to the point of the message from mmhmm that I quoted, but I know quite a few well balanced and nice religious people. Being religious doesn't equal being a whack-a-loon in my book... only BEING a whack-a-loon does. When I say "religious whack-a-loon" I'm using "religious" to define the person/people like I might use "white guy(s)" to describe the white guy(s) in a mixed race group of guys.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 16, 2015 20:14:21 GMT -5
Fair enough. You see what you see. I see what I see....in this thread and every other thread where the regulars go off on tangents like this. My opinion only. Still my opinion. Will be my opinion tomorrow. It's not really important to me whether people agree with it or not. Tangents? I'm the OP. This thread is about born again Christians having a hissy fit and insisting everyone live by their religious paradigms. It's not about making butter chicken from scratch or how to tie a bow tie.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 16, 2015 20:27:58 GMT -5
Yeah...you lost me on the butter chicken thing. No idea what that has to do with anything, but then I don't eat chicken....or wear bow ties...or eat chickens who wear bow ties.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Sept 16, 2015 22:34:48 GMT -5
Rosebud
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 17, 2015 11:03:58 GMT -5
I really hate to burst all of your "I hate God" bubbles but not only religious parents object to this content in the checkout lanes. I have a friend who is a mother of twins - age 7. One of them asked her, in the checkout lane, to explain something he saw on a Cosmopolitan cover. It has something to do with an orgasm. She was actually laughing a little because he could read a bit and was trying to sound out the word. She has no issues explaining things to her children. She has a problem being asked to do it in the checkout lane at the grocery store. She would prefer that she and her husband are the ones who choose the time and place to explain things to her children. She doesn't feel the grocery store should be forcing that on her. She doesn't like the candy in the check out lanes either.
She is not the least bit religious. I know that just blows the shit out of all the hysterical "religion ruins everything" people, but it's the truth. People are people and not everybody - religious or not - wants to see this stuff in a grocery store. I don't care one bit but I don't have small kids. It's a good thing she doesn't live here, then. You can't opt out of sex ed in schools. One woman who was protesting insisted she didn't want her children to know the proper terminology for their body parts. In grade 6. Moron.
I never understood how saying you had a dinkie instead of a penis was somehow less offensive. Besides, I didn't want my son to go to the doctor at 30 and tell him his dinkie hurt when he peed, so DS knew the word penis as soon as he started potty training.
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,338
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Sept 17, 2015 11:11:29 GMT -5
I really hate to burst all of your "I hate God" bubbles but not only religious parents object to this content in the checkout lanes. I have a friend who is a mother of twins - age 7. One of them asked her, in the checkout lane, to explain something he saw on a Cosmopolitan cover. It has something to do with an orgasm. She was actually laughing a little because he could read a bit and was trying to sound out the word. She has no issues explaining things to her children. She has a problem being asked to do it in the checkout lane at the grocery store. She would prefer that she and her husband are the ones who choose the time and place to explain things to her children. She doesn't feel the grocery store should be forcing that on her. She doesn't like the candy in the check out lanes either.
She is not the least bit religious. I know that just blows the shit out of all the hysterical "religion ruins everything" people, but it's the truth. People are people and not everybody - religious or not - wants to see this stuff in a grocery store. I don't care one bit but I don't have small kids. I don't see any evidence of "I hate God" from any of the posters in this thread. I do see a strong dislike of this type of censorship. Neither do I see evidence of "religion ruins everything." People's takes on issues like this are different but to accuse others of hating God or believing "religion ruins everything" based on the posts on this thread is not realistic. Folks can hate censorship without hating God or religion. And I'm thinking that the fact that the kid could read that much of the magazine cover might be an indication that it was time to have "the talk." Nothing extremely technical or complicated, but simple and basic, at that child's level of understanding. If the child can read it, it is perhaps possibly maybe time to think about approaching the subject. Better that the parent does it their way, instead of the kid finding out from somewhere else and the parent having zero control.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 17, 2015 11:27:41 GMT -5
I don't see any evidence of "I hate God" from any of the posters in this thread. I do see a strong dislike of this type of censorship. Neither do I see evidence of "religion ruins everything." People's takes on issues like this are different but to accuse others of hating God or believing "religion ruins everything" based on the posts on this thread is not realistic. Folks can hate censorship without hating God or religion. And I'm thinking that the fact that the kid could read that much of the magazine cover might be an indication that it was time to have "the talk." Nothing extremely technical or complicated, but simple and basic, at that child's level of understanding. If the child can read it, it is perhaps possibly maybe time to think about approaching the subject. Better that the parent does it their way, instead of the kid finding out from somewhere else and the parent having zero control. Yep. I think this would call for a quick: "We'll discuss that when we get home, hon." The child has asked so I think it's important to answer. How an individual might answer that question for their child may differ from person to person, but the discussion shouldn't take place in the grocery store. The kid doesn't know that, though, so just asked the question when it arose. I see no need to make a big deal of it. In fact, I see that as being a less desirable option.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 17, 2015 12:28:22 GMT -5
Maybe someday violence will become pornographic and these will be covered at the checkout line: Many people actually do call these kinds of publications "gun porn". As for covering racy Cosmopolitan covers, I see no problem with it. One less top-heavy bimbo staring customers down to hock 6,000-year-old sex tips couldn't help but class a place up a bit.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Sept 17, 2015 12:32:22 GMT -5
With kids, I don't think you have much control over when these topics are raised (unless you home-school and don't have TV/internet). If it's not a Cosmo headline, it's a classmate whose mom is having a kid, a commercial, a bad word a friend at school said, etc. etc. You can't censor the entire world, nor should you try. I'm more worried about how to broach to DD topics like divorce, death, and the fact that there are bad people in the world and you can't trust everyone. Sex is not really worth getting up in arms about, IMO. Did you see the panels? They're designed to leave the title and cover photo, just cover up the article headlines. Kids will still be able to see as many top-heavy bimbos as they want.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 17, 2015 13:10:19 GMT -5
Did you see the panels? They're designed to leave the title and cover photo, just cover up the article headlines. Kids will still be able to see as many top-heavy bimbos as they want. Didn't read far enough into the article. There are PSAs running here in Toronto showcasing young girls digging into "soft soft porn" magazines like Cosmopolitan, making statements like "...25 tips for a thinner waistline...", "...breasts your man will love...", "...lose your belly in 20 days...". The clear implication is that no parents want their kids embracing the ideas these magazines have to sell, and I have to agree. If retailers aren't going to hide the bimbo, I still don't see how hiding commercial advertising of sex from anyone not explicitly interested in digesting it is a disservice to anyone. I for one am glad that I can visit Proboards without worrying about "Find His Secret Sex Spot!" popping up on the screen, and it seems to me that demographic patronizing a typical retail store would be roughly the same as for a public message board.
|
|