No, not this blog post. No porn here. I know you were worried. I was referencing this petition that I noticed circulating facebook. Former model Nicole Weider is pushing to make it illegal to sell the magazine Cosmopolitan to anyone under the age of 18. She also wants the magazine to be put in a nontransparent plastic bag so that the cover will not be visible to children. Do I think think she is doing a good thing? Absolutely. The magazine is way too graphic to be casually placed at the check-out line. Do I think she will succeed? Probably not. Cosmo is too lucrative and chances are this petition is just bringing the magazine more publicity. But I'm glad to see that someone is trying.
I guess the question comes down to whether or not Cosmo can really be characterized as pornographic. If the argument to ban Cosmo to minors can be founded on the idea that the magazine is selling porn to children, then maybe a legitimate case could be made...which brings up the question of what qualifies as porn. Everyone has a different opinion. It's funny how one man's porn is another man's feature film for family night. *This isn't meant to be directed towards men. If I'm going to be equally sexist, I would say that one woman's porn is another's love for a Nic Sparks novel rendered to film. *I know I rip on him all the time but I think his work is cheap.And some way of ridiculing his popularity always seems to fit into my rants. It's sad that the standard of morality that has won out up to this point is that of the people who are making billions by headlining "tips that will make him hot" right next to their featured photo of a 17-year-old-girl.
At this point, this post could possibly turn into a what-is-society-coming-to type of thing, but that isn't where I want to go with it. I think what I want to stress here is that whether people realize it or not, everyone has their own sense of morality. It is impossible to live an amoral life. Religion often seems to serve as the scapegoat for accusations of "forced morality" and offensively scripted campaign ads don't help the cause. But these Cosmo people are pushing their own morality just as much as any religion. They are using their widely-circulated magazine to tell me that sex is something that can be loosely discussed. They are not only telling me how to have sex, they are telling me why to have sex and with whom to have sex. And no, I didn't purchase the magazine. I didn't even pick up the magazine. All I did was stop by Walmart to grab marshmallows for the latest bonfire shindig. I'm not okay with that ("that" being in reference to the magazine, not the marshmallows). And even if I were okay with it, I'm definitely not okay with my 10-year-old sister seeing it. I'm no fanatic *this is probably something only fanatics say but the idea that this stuff is so easily visible to her does make me emotionally reactive to the situation. What is sad is that the reason this magazine is able to have their morality so prominently plastered is because we demand it. We keep them in business.
I guess the question comes down to whether or not Cosmo can really be characterized as pornographic. If the argument to ban Cosmo to minors can be founded on the idea that the magazine is selling porn to children, then maybe a legitimate case could be made...which brings up the question of what qualifies as porn. Everyone has a different opinion. It's funny how one man's porn is another man's feature film for family night. *This isn't meant to be directed towards men. If I'm going to be equally sexist, I would say that one woman's porn is another's love for a Nic Sparks novel rendered to film. *I know I rip on him all the time but I think his work is cheap.And some way of ridiculing his popularity always seems to fit into my rants. It's sad that the standard of morality that has won out up to this point is that of the people who are making billions by headlining "tips that will make him hot" right next to their featured photo of a 17-year-old-girl.
At this point, this post could possibly turn into a what-is-society-coming-to type of thing, but that isn't where I want to go with it. I think what I want to stress here is that whether people realize it or not, everyone has their own sense of morality. It is impossible to live an amoral life. Religion often seems to serve as the scapegoat for accusations of "forced morality" and offensively scripted campaign ads don't help the cause. But these Cosmo people are pushing their own morality just as much as any religion. They are using their widely-circulated magazine to tell me that sex is something that can be loosely discussed. They are not only telling me how to have sex, they are telling me why to have sex and with whom to have sex. And no, I didn't purchase the magazine. I didn't even pick up the magazine. All I did was stop by Walmart to grab marshmallows for the latest bonfire shindig. I'm not okay with that ("that" being in reference to the magazine, not the marshmallows). And even if I were okay with it, I'm definitely not okay with my 10-year-old sister seeing it. I'm no fanatic *this is probably something only fanatics say but the idea that this stuff is so easily visible to her does make me emotionally reactive to the situation. What is sad is that the reason this magazine is able to have their morality so prominently plastered is because we demand it. We keep them in business.
So, where do you stand? Because whether you like it or not, you stand somewhere.
I love your last paragraph. I feel like either side would have to agree with what you said, you know? And I totally agree that this is probably giving Cosmo a lot of publicity for good or bad!
ReplyDelete