A wee victory in the battle against lewd magazine covers

[Mamagistra]

Some of you may remember my ire regarding some over-the-top magazines at the checkout of my local Kroger. I complained to corporate via email, got a canned reply, then was pleasantly surprised to get a voice mail from my local manager. He said that agreed with me and would continue to do what he could to keep filth out of the checkout.

I got busy and forgot to reply to him. :o Then today I saw him and tracked him down several aisles in order to introduce myself. ;) He reiterated that not only did he dislike the escalating raciness of many magazine covers, he actually refused the delivery of the new issue of Cosmopolitan on yesterday! Yessssss! :D

I understand that it's an uphill battle to keep suggestive headlines and lewd poses out of the knee-high checkout racks, but I'm pleased that my local manager is listening and doing what he can.

[Rhesa]

I'm glad to hear this- it does seem like an uphill battle, though.

I was at Blockbusters today with my FIL :o. Thank goodness my son wasn't tagging along. I haven't been in for quite awhile, and lots of DVD covers are racy!

And I live right down the street from a Victoria's Secret. Two floors high. That means they get to blow up posters double size.

I don't consider myself prudish, but sheesh! :eek:

[Plaid Dad]

Excellent news! I hope he keeps up the fight. Thank you for making sure it was on his radar.

[Volty]

As a man who's not religious, I must admit to enjoying the eyecandy. Sorry.

[Mamagistra]

As a man who's not religious, I must admit to enjoying the eyecandy. Sorry.

:rolleyes:

Religious or no, would you agree that some of the jumbo cover headlines fall outside the level of modesty and innocence that you have/will establish for your child(ren)? Some recent ones I've seen include:

DIRTY S#XY S#X
AROUSE HIM LIKE CRAZY
DEEP S#X
THE S#X POSITION HE CRAVES
YOU S#X GODDESS: Crazy @ss Moves He Wants You to Do to Him There

Really. This is the grocery. store. checkout. :eek:

[Janna]

That is awesome, Debra! Good for you, and good for the manager! It may be an uphill battle, but it starts with an individual soul.

I'm proud of you, and completely agree with your stance. And then some. :)

[Julpost]

I can't believe how uncomfortable I feel while doing simple errands with 11 yo ds. At the mall, it's the Victoria Secret posters and mannequins (he can barely walk straight when he sees the store), at the gas station or grocery store, yes, it's all the mags, the video store it's the covers and posters. I'm thankful we don't have any billboards around here. Even just watching TV once in a while, I can't believe what I'm seeing on the commercials.

I was at a school talent show last night and the saddest thing I saw was a dance routine done by 5th or 6th grade girls. You could just feel the boys hormones racing around us! These sweet girls were dancing to this very seductive song with pretty suggestive moves at times. It was hard for me to even remember how young they were.

Sometimes I just want to keep all my kiddos at home until they emerge sane on the other side of their teen years.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

As a man who's not religious, I must admit to enjoying the eyecandy. Sorry.

Not religious either, but when your five year-old son reads aloud, "Or... or... or... gamses all night long -- Mama, what's an or, or, orgasmums? Orgamses? What is that?" and "Why would you want to scream in bed, Mama? Is she having a bad dream?"

"No, sweetie. She's just cold because she doesn't have enough clothes on."

This hasn't much to do with religion, actually. They hypersexualizing of children begins pretty early in the US. It'd be nice to have the battle in the checkout aisle be over whether or not they get a Snickers bar today, not trying to make sure they don't have to figure out what Seven Or*l Tricks That Will Keep Him Moaning For More are.

I'm no prude. My kids knew the biology earlier than most, I think. But just like I don't want my dd's dolls to look like ho's, I sure don't want them to have to deal with adult issues just to buy some food.

This reminds me that we have to deal with this all over again. The four year-old is starting to read. Cr*p.

[Miss Peregrine]

Yeah, I don't see it as a religious issue.

My DD started reading at 2.5. Real fun when she saw a poster of Austin Powers and read aloud, "Do I make you h*rny?" It's just completely ridiculous is what it is.

"No, sweetie. She's just cold because she doesn't have enough clothes on."
ROFLOL!

Good for you, Debra!

[Tarheel Heather]

To think of what youth is exposed to today is scary! My 6 dd, is already making comments about her appearance. And thankfully my 10 ds hasn't hit that stage yet! Keep up the fight!

[imeverywoman]

my kids are now programmed to walk though the line, straight through to the end and wait for me there.

Good grief. What are we coming to as a society when we can't shop without being visually assaulted?

[imeverywoman]

.

[Volty]

:rolleyes:

Religious or no, would you agree that some of the jumbo cover headlines fall outside the level of modesty and innocence that you have/will establish for your child(ren)? Some recent ones I've seen include:

DIRTY S#XY S#X
AROUSE HIM LIKE CRAZY
DEEP S#X
THE S#X POSITION HE CRAVES
YOU S#X GODDESS: Crazy @ss Moves He Wants You to Do to Him There

Really. This is the grocery. store. checkout. :eek:

It's a bit strange how conflicted I am about some things. As an American living in China with a Chinese wife and a daughter we have very different ideas. My MIL offended me when she said "oh, it's nice that the first one is a girl since she can help take care of the younger ones." And of course my wife fully agrees with her. I really don't want any sex/gender roles to come into play.

I specifically chose stories with female protagonists (and male a good mix). I won't read anything about helpless kidnapped princesses who need to be saved by knights or princes. Who's only virtues are being submissive and beautiful. Meanwhile my wife watches Korean soap operas where the plot revolves around something trite like they ran out of the spice the father likes and hope he doesn't notice at dinner.

More specifically regarding sex and imagery, it doesn't bother me so much and I hope my daughter has a healthy, safe, fulfilling relationships and doesn't love in vain, but if she does to come out of it stronger. Her mother though was a complete square when I was courting her and it was maddening and quite frustrating at times as I was dealing with her attitudes about postponing intimacy. In the end, although it was pointless and unnecessary, in honesty, I do respect her for that.

My daughter is only 9 months old and we've not had to deal with this yet. I wouldn't think anything of seeing those magazines. I'd think of it as normal and not be offended. Probably. Almost certainly.

[Colleen]

You probably know this is one my (many;)) issues. I've connected with the corporate offices of the two locally-owned grocery chains here but as far as I can tell, the front-end hasn't changed. I'm surprised that the local manager you talked to refused an entire magazine shipment. Seems like that would be putting his job in jeopardy because generally speaking, individual store managers wouldn't have that liberty. I know that a couple of stores here now have "family" check-out lanes, but I've not seen them.

I now do 98% of my grocery shopping at the organic food co-op, where the checkstands offer just a few magazines ~ all quality and decent. It's so refreshing in comparison to the conventional groceries. When I have the misfortune of needing to go to a "regular" store now, it feels like an assault on my senses in more ways than one. And I still turn the magazines around while waiting in line.:p

[Tia in Wa]

Thats awesome. I now shop at a localy owned store that will not put them in the lines. Magazines like that are kept on with all the other magazines and the ones at all the checkouts are family friendly. I was a flipper before I discovered this store.:D:D

[Liz CA]

:rolleyes:

Religious or no, would you agree that some of the jumbo cover headlines fall outside the level of modesty and innocence that you have/will establish for your child(ren)? Some recent ones I've seen include:

DIRTY S#XY S#X
AROUSE HIM LIKE CRAZY
DEEP S#X
THE S#X POSITION HE CRAVES
YOU S#X GODDESS: Crazy @ss Moves He Wants You to Do to Him There

Really. This is the grocery. store. checkout. :eek:

"bummer, now what?" when my son learned to read and stood in the checkout aisles showing off his new skills.
Good for you!!!
And kudos to the store manager!

[dirty ethel rackham]

As a man who's not religious, I must admit to enjoying the eyecandy. Sorry.

Then buy it for yourself. I just don't want it on public display for my kiddos. my pubescent boys don't need those messages. I especially don't want my 7yodd to see herself as eyecandy for someone else.

[Texas T]

but I flipped the dadgum thing over so my kids wouldn't see it. It was really bad. Good job for you complaining and good job for him for responding. That is so weird to read this today when I had my cosmo encounter yesterday. lol It was really vile!!

Teresa

[GothicGyrl]

I can see what Volty is saying, basically, by you complaining and turning the magazines around you are imposing your moral beliefs on me and I don't like that.

Now before I go on, personally I don't like to see ANYthing at the checkout--it's too cluttered and I hate that--clutter. The candy, the cheapo last minute "need a fix" stuff.. but the fact is--people buy them at the checkout because they read them while waiting to check out.

You don't like the magazine covers (and honestly, some of the things being labeled as "racy" or "disgusting" really are not, that's just your opinion and again, you are imposing your morals on me), that's one thing, but to physically turn them around and prevent a sale on them just because YOU don't like them, is restriction another's ability to buy them and while that might make you happy, IMNSHO, it is flat out rude because I don't want your morals dictating what I can or cannot read.

Now before someone says it because I know someone will--I understand that you aren't trying to restrict adults from purchasing/reviewing/seeing this material. I understand that you are only thinking of the children (gah).. but I don't want you thinking of MY children when you do this. *I* do a perfectly fine parenting job and I'd prefer it if you didn't try to remove material that the majority of the people read or don't care if their kids read.

To me, it's not a victory. It's trying to regulate morals in someone other than yourself. What you do with your kids in your home is fine and I won't ever try to tell you what to do. But when you come out in public and try to impose your beliefs on others just because YOU don't like it, that's when I have the problem.

[nancypants]

Some of you may remember my ire regarding some over-the-top magazines at the checkout of my local Kroger. I complained to corporate via email, got a canned reply, then was pleasantly surprised to get a voice mail from my local manager. He said that agreed with me and would continue to do what he could to keep filth out of the checkout.

I got busy and forgot to reply to him. :o Then today I saw him and tracked him down several aisles in order to introduce myself. ;) He reiterated that not only did he dislike the escalating raciness of many magazine covers, he actually refused the delivery of the new issue of Cosmopolitan on yesterday! Yessssss! :D

I understand that it's an uphill battle to keep suggestive headlines and lewd poses out of the knee-high checkout racks, but I'm pleased that my local manager is listening and doing what he can.

That's awesome. I always do my part and turn them all around! LOL :D

[Call Me Cordelia]

As a man who's not religious, I must admit to enjoying the eyecandy. Sorry.


I am religious and believe this type of thing does moral damage. I am also a woman and have experienced prejudice in so many ways. I watch my daughters struggle with their sense of self image because they don't look like what society holds up as beautiful. And, let me just say, they are really beautiful in many surface ways! I deal with men who do not look me in the eye. I watch those men scope out my 12 yo dd!

I see men demoralized, children hurt and women left alone because men need their "eye candy."

It's not harmless; it ruins lives. I don't know if you have daughters, Volty, but wonder if you'd like them being so "appreciated" by other men. If it wouldn't bother you, I'm sorry for you and for them.

[Texas T]

Now before someone says it because I know someone will--I understand that you aren't trying to restrict adults from purchasing/reviewing/seeing this material. I understand that you are only thinking of the children (gah).. but I don't want you thinking of MY children when you do this. *I* do a perfectly fine parenting job and I'd prefer it if you didn't try to remove material that the majority of the people read or don't care if their kids read.



No, when I flipped the magazine, I didn't do it for your children or anyone else's. I did it because, as a parent parenting MY children as I feel led, I feel a right to turn filth from their viewing, just as I feel the right to block certain shows on tv, help them to make healthy food choices, lead their education, etc.. I'm not trying to tell others they don't parent well, just do the best I can do to parent my own children well. I guess I feel that if grocery stores won't look out for my parental rights, I'll help them out and look out for it myself, adjusting the viewing of my children while I am spending money (large money with our crew) in their establishment...again, my right!

Teresa

Teresa

[GothicGyrl]

I am religious and believe this type of thing does moral damage. I am also a woman and have experienced prejudice in so many ways. I watch my daughters struggle with their sense of self image because they don't look like what society holds up as beautiful. And, let me just say, they are really beautiful in many surface ways! I deal with men who do not look me in the eye. I watch those men scope out my 12 yo dd!

I see men demoralized, children hurt and women left alone because men need their "eye candy."

It's not harmless; it ruins lives. I don't know if you have daughters, Volty, but wonder if you'd like them being so "appreciated" by other men. If it wouldn't bother you, I'm sorry for you and for them.
Again, please don't impose your morals on those of us who don't believe that way. Those examples you site are not examples I'd call legit to be used as a case against this. It only ruins those lives who let it ruin them! This is like the argument against video games-- the whole "think of the children" tripe.

Your last comment though, was beyond rude. I have two daughters who see this stuff all the time and they have ZERO issues with it because I RAISED THEM NOT TO!! It has nothing to do with what's inside those books, it has everything to do with how they are raised and to insinuate that my letting my girls read this stuff or watch this stuff or anything like that, is causing you to "feel sorry for them" ... that's just plain rude and utterly revolting actually.

Men who don't look you in the eye? That's not because of stupid magazine cover, sheesh. Men scoping out your DD? Are you serious or exaggerating here? And are you trying to convince me that they are doing this because of a magazine they don't even read?

Please keep your morals in your own home. I don't want you imposing them on me.

[GothicGyrl]

No, when I flipped the magazine, I didn't do it for your children or anyone else's. I did it because, as a parent parenting MY children as I feel led, I feel a right to turn filth from their viewing, just as I feel the right to block certain shows on tv, help them to make healthy food choices, lead their education, etc.. I'm not trying to tell others they don't parent well, just do the best I can do to parent my own children well. I guess I feel that if grocery stores won't look out for my parental rights, I'll help them out and look out for it myself, adjusting the viewing of my children while I am spending money (large money with our crew) in their establishment...again, my right!

Teresa

Teresa
Except you are still imposing your own morals on me and thusly preventing me from buying something *I* might like, just because you feel it is filth.

That's just not right. If I walked in to a store and hid all the bibles, there would be an uproar from the religious community about "religious hatred" and all that.

This is the same thing. Quit flipping the magazines and I'll stop hiding all the bibles and religious tripe.

[Call Me Cordelia]

Again, please don't impose your morals on those of us who don't believe that way. Those examples you site are not examples I'd call legit to be used as a case against this. It only ruins those lives who let it ruin them! This is like the argument against video games-- the whole "think of the children" tripe.

Your last comment though, was beyond rude. I have two daughters who see this stuff all the time and they have ZERO issues with it because I RAISED THEM NOT TO!! It has nothing to do with what's inside those books, it has everything to do with how they are raised and to insinuate that my letting my girls read this stuff or watch this stuff or anything like that, is causing you to "feel sorry for them" ... that's just plain rude and utterly revolting actually.

Men who don't look you in the eye? That's not because of stupid magazine cover, sheesh. Men scoping out your DD? Are you serious or exaggerating here? And are you trying to convince me that they are doing this because of a magazine they don't even read?

Please keep your morals in your own home. I don't want you imposing them on me.


I'm not "imposing my morals." I'm expressing an opinion.

I am not exaggerating about men looking at my dd. It began when she was 10, because she was fairly developed. She does not dress in spandex.

I don't feel sorry for your daughters at all. Never said I did. I'm guessing you have a really good relationship with them.

I maintain that this type of thing (no, not solely magazines in the check out) highlights what I perceive as a huge issue in our culture: the devaluation of women and the perception of women as objects existing for men's pleasure.

This short statement of opinion is certainly not intended to be an exhaustive research/legal treatise designed to change anyone's mind. Just submitting my opinion to the public forum.

[Texas T]

Except you are still imposing your own morals on me and thusly preventing me from buying something *I* might like, just because you feel it is filth.

That's just not right. If I walked in to a store and hid all the bibles, there would be an uproar from the religious community about "religious hatred" and all that.

This is the same thing. Quit flipping the magazines and I'll stop hiding all the bibles and religious tripe.

Wow. What Bibles are you seeing in line?? I've missed them entirely. All I ever see there, in the place I am forced to stand in order to check out, is all the tv guides and magazines. I don't make it a practice to walk to the magazine/book isle, the place where the Bibles & books & other magazines are found, and flip those. I just flip the ones that are RIGHT in front of my children's faces in the isle where I, as a patron of the store, am forced to stand until I have purchased my goods. If you feel like flipping the Bibles, I guess go ahead. There is not a logical ground there, but oh well.

Teresa

[GothicGyrl]

I'm not "imposing my morals." I'm expressing an opinion.

Let me explain...

You believe these magazines to be horrible. You go grocery shopping and turn them around so your child cannot see them. I happen to like those magazines and know for a fact where/how this particular store puts them, except this time, I cannot find them because someone has hid them from me. I make a stink about not being able to find them, only to discover it was right there but "someone" made it impossible for me to find it the way I usually do. Manager/Cashier then explain that the previous customer has a habit of doing that to magazines they find objectionable, which makes double the work for the Cashier--who every night 9and when not busy) has to "front" her section of the register, which means she's got to undo what you did.

Hence, you are imposing your morals on me by making me have to put up with you doing this and then not having the courtesy to turn them back the right way when finished so that those of us who don't agree with your morals can utilize them if we wish.

Sure, this is ALL opinion, this whole thread. And yes, everyone is entitled to one. But it is still imposing your (the general of course) moralisitic beliefs on me and I'd prefer you didn't do that.

[GothicGyrl]

Wow. What Bibles are you seeing in line?? I've missed them entirely. All I ever see there, in the place I am forced to stand in order to check out, is all the tv guides and magazines. I don't make it a practice to walk to the magazine/book isle, the place where the Bibles & books & other magazines are found, and flip those. I just flip the ones that are RIGHT in front of my children's faces in the isle where I, as a patron of the store, am forced to stand until I have purchased my goods. If you feel like flipping the Bibles, I guess go ahead. There is not a logical ground there, but oh well.

Teresa
Likewise, there is no logical ground for you to be flipping magazines either. And both winn-dixie and publix have pocket bibles at the front.

Send your kids through to the other side then. Stop imposing your morals on me. Because you don't like what you see, your are making the rest of us who really do not care (and most likely just want to get the heck out of the store), or who might want to purchase said item, be bothered by your morals.

[Call Me Cordelia]

Let me explain...

You believe these magazines to be horrible. You go grocery shopping and turn them around so your child cannot see them. I happen to like those magazines and know for a fact where/how this particular store puts them, except this time, I cannot find them because someone has hid them from me. I make a stink about not being able to find them, only to discover it was right there but "someone" made it impossible for me to find it the way I usually do. Manager/Cashier then explain that the previous customer has a habit of doing that to magazines they find objectionable, which makes double the work for the Cashier--who every night 9and when not busy) has to "front" her section of the register, which means she's got to undo what you did.

Hence, you are imposing your morals on me by making me have to put up with you doing this and then not having the courtesy to turn them back the right way when finished so that those of us who don't agree with your morals can utilize them if we wish.

Sure, this is ALL opinion, this whole thread. And yes, everyone is entitled to one. But it is still imposing your (the general of course) moralisitic beliefs on me and I'd prefer you didn't do that.

I believe you have confused me with someone else. I don't move magazines. My son requests to stand at the end of the checkout and I let him. I think once or twice in a doctor's office I have moved a magazine to the back of the stack, but they appear to be in no particular order to begin with.

And if we can't express opinions here, I guess we can all find better things to do with our time.

[Call Me Cordelia]

Let me explain...
Sure, this is ALL opinion, this whole thread. And yes, everyone is entitled to one. But it is still imposing your (the general of course) moralisitic beliefs on me and I'd prefer you didn't do that.

:D And I just gotta say, Toni, I've posted like six times on the new forum! I'm hardly a pervasive opinion force here. How about you? I'm pretty sure you freely express your opinons here!!

Don't get me wrong. I, for the most part, like hearing what you have to say. That's what I like about the WTM board. I doubt I agree with much, but...that's ok with me.

I'd also like to clarify that while I am religious and do see this from a moralistic viewpoint, my own personal viewpoints stems much more from a feministic viewpoint.

[*anj*]

I do flip them if I'm in line with my children.
I don't stand there flipping over every single cover, but if there is one that is offensive to me and that I believe visually assaults me and my children, I will flip it. If the person behind me would like to see Nicole Richie's bare bre*st or Britney Spears in her underwear, that person is totally within their rights to flip the magazine back over after I'm gone.

We don't dress that way, we don't watch programs like that, we don't rent movies that contribute to the skankitization of America.

And I am not a prude, I am sooooo not a prude.

[Texas T]

Send your kids through to the other side then. Stop imposing your morals on me. Because you don't like what you see, your are making the rest of us who really do not care (and most likely just want to get the heck out of the store), or who might want to purchase said item, be bothered by your morals.

I'm continually and constantly hit in the face by the immorality of the world around me (affected, no, because I choose not to be). I'm amazed by our culture most of the time, but I don't focus on it. My one little step forward in assisting my children in keeping pure minds is my little pebble in the ocean of ridiculousness I see around me all the time. I won't flip them all, and actually, it's not the norm for me, but when I see one that makes me ill, as did the one yesterday, yes, I'll do it again! I guess you can go make your statement at Winn dixie or whatever store you want. It is illogical, though, regardless of your spin. I'm not going to flip something that has religious views in opposition to mine. Those are openly discussed here. But things that affect the purity of my children while being in a line in the store that I cannot avoid...I'll pursue with vigor avoiding weeds in the garden I am tending.

Teresa

[dragons in the flower bed]

Wow. What Bibles are you seeing in line?? I've missed them entirely.

They have them here, at our grocery stores -- not Bibles, but tracts and those $1.00 mini-magazines, advertising ways to save your loved ones from going to hell and whatnot. Also, there are astrology minis. And the ones on barbecue recipes. All problematic for different people in my personal social circle, the evangelical ones for me, the astrology ones for the scientists I know, and the barbecue for the vegans.

[GothicGyrl]

I have a new word---skankitization.. I LIKE that. :)

And no, I do not want to see Richie's breasts or Spears' crotch either.. but then again, I've never seen those on the COVER of a magazine. Inside maybe, but even the dirt rags (weekly world news, you know--batboy) pixelise those things.

And honestly, it isn't about being a prude or not. I couldn't care less if you were (or is that could care less), because you are being a prude in your own home on your own time. :)

And Cordelia, I freely express my opinions everywhere :) No one is immune, but to my defense, there are a LOT of threads I just don't participate in--the addage about not having anything nice to say, so don't say it, springs to mind for me. :) (how many smilies was that?)

Anyway, I'm really not trying to turn this in to an us vs them, prude vs not prude, skank vs not skank (LOL) argument. I'm just saying that by doing stuff like this, you **are** forcing what you feel are your morals on me and if the tables where turned and I really did go hiding all the bibles, there really would be an uproar made about it--which is not fair. It's not right for me to go hiding all the bibles and it isn't right for you to turn the books.

(and the you is the general you, Cordelia. Not exactly YOU)..

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

... my own personal viewpoints stems much more from a feministic viewpoint.

Yeah, me too. Oh my gosh, on soooo many levels.

[Texas T]

They have them here, at our grocery stores -- not Bibles, but tracts and those $1.00 mini-magazines, advertising ways to save your loved ones from going to hell and whatnot. Also, there are astrology minis. And the ones on barbecue recipes. All problematic for different people in my personal social circle, the evangelical ones for me, the astrology ones for the scientists I know, and the barbecue for the vegans.

Okay. I have seen the astrology ones and the barbecue and a couple of the Pillsbury cookbooks but never Bibles or tracts. I saw a little booklet on prayer once, but that's about it.

Teresa

[GothicGyrl]

It is illogical, though, regardless of your spin. I'm not going to flip something that has religious views in opposition to mine. Those are openly discussed here. But things that affect the purity of my children while being in a line in the store that I cannot avoid...I'll pursue with vigor avoiding weeds in the garden I am tending.

Why is my viewpoint illogical, but yours is not? I feel your bible is tainting the minds of my children completely, so by your logic, I'd have every right to fight the store and ask them be removed. But I don't see anyone ever doing that.

So why should you impose your beliefs on me by removing something that has zero affect on everyone else and not be allowed to be called on it?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

...and the barbecue for the vegans.

Snorted Riesling out my nose at that one, yes I did.

Dangit. :D

[GothicGyrl]

Okay. I have seen the astrology ones and the barbecue and a couple of the Pillsbury cookbooks but never Bibles or tracts. I saw a little booklet on prayer once, but that's about it.

Teresa
The Prayer of Jabez is a big one. The tracts, second. Mini-Bibles right next to them. Then the crosswords, the barbeque stuff, etc...

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Why is my viewpoint illogical, but yours is not? I feel your bible is tainting the minds of my children completely, so by your logic, I'd have every right to fight the store and ask them be removed.


I know. It's awful. My son saw a picture of Noah's ark once and went home and started building stuff. Pestered me for an umbrella for three solid weeks.

;)

[*anj*]

I have a new word---skankitization.. I LIKE that. :)

And no, I do not want to see Richie's breasts or Spears' crotch either.. but then again, I've never seen those on the COVER of a magazine. Inside maybe, but even the dirt rags (weekly world news, you know--batboy) pixelise those things. springs to mind for me. :) (how many smilies was that?)

Thanks!
I first used it a few months ago when we were talking about Halloween costumes on the WTM Board of Old. I had forgotten it, but I'm digging it back up because I rather like it!

Yeah, I worked in a supermarket for a few months last year, and I did indeed see those things on mag covers. I really didn't make up those examples, they were some that got burned into my memory.:eek:

Oh, and do I get rep for using a word you like? ;)

[Call Me Cordelia]

The Prayer of Jabez is a big one. The tracts, second. Mini-Bibles right next to them. Then the crosswords, the barbeque stuff, etc...

Ok, but come on! We aren't arguing the right of a store to carry whatever they want. That's why there isn't a huge deal about the astrology booklets. They are easy to ignore. A book title does not assault the eyes. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue in the middle of the aisle as you enter the store does.

I do want my son to be pure. I do not want him to view women as "candy" for his pleasure. I want him to value and respect them as humans. I don't want my daughters to think of their worth in any way as wrapped up in their looks/bodies. And yes, I teach them those values. I expect them to grow up and embrace these values. Frankly I don't expect society to march to my drum, etc...

But objectifying women sickens me. Then we wonder at the escalation in rape, domestic violence, gender discrimination, etc... And no, not solely from magazines at the checkout, but from everything they represent.

[GothicGyrl]

I know. It's awful. My son saw a picture of Noah's ark once and went home and started building stuff. Pestered me for an umbrella for three solid weeks.
Pam, as long you tell me when the ark is built, I say give him the umbrella. ;p

Yeah, I worked in a supermarket for a few months last year, and I did indeed see those things on mag covers. I really didn't make up those examples, they were some that got burned into my memory
Anj--never.. I've never seen those on covers.. like I said, rag mags, pixelised, maybe, but not full out there not covering anything. Meh, I dunno...And I'm still thinkin on that rep part.. :)

But objectifying women sickens me. Then we wonder at the escalation in rape, domestic violence, gender discrimination, etc...

you are correct that none of us are arguing about the store's right to carry anything. But a Sports Illustrated cover is not going to suddenly turn your son on to porn, nor is it going to make your girls anorexic. It's a bit extreme to think these things lead to what's in the quoted portion. No seriel rapist/killer or otherwise, that I've ever studied, interviewed or worked with has ever said "Hey I saw it in Cosmo, figured I'd like to try it some day". I realize you said "escalation in" but that's the part I take exception with --the "in" part. Men/women rape, violate, etc. because they can, not because of magazine covers or video games, or tv, or whatever else is wrong with this world today. ;p Those things aren't even launch pads to start with. The correlation to owning these things and committing these crimes is a very fine almost non-existant line. Criminalists are hard pressed to actually find a way to "blame" these things on the criminal.

In any case, as I said, what you want for your children is fine. But by flipping those covers, you are, in essence, telling me that someone somewhere doesn't like these things and "here I'm flipping it over to prove it to you".

(again, the you is the general you).

[Call Me Cordelia]

In any case, as I said, what you want for your children is fine. But by flipping those covers, you are, in essence, telling me that someone somewhere doesn't like these things and "here I'm flipping it over to prove it to you".

(again, the you is the general you).[/quote]


Having them there makes a moral statement as well. Who decides which is the more valid?

[PariSarah]

You believe these magazines to be horrible. You go grocery shopping and turn them around so your child cannot see them. I happen to like those magazines and know for a fact where/how this particular store puts them, except this time, I cannot find them because someone has hid them from me.

Hence, you are imposing your morals on me by making me have to put up with you doing this and then not having the courtesy to turn them back the right way when finished so that those of us who don't agree with your morals can utilize them if we wish.

Absolutely, the demand to keep porn and semi-porn out of the hands/eyes of minors is an imposition on you. Yup.

But your desire to have these magazines readily available in any place you happen to get an urge to buy them is an imposition on me. You are imposing your morality (that these mags are acceptable) on me.

It's not that she has morality and you don't. You both have morals, and the law has to decide which morals are broadly enough held that their enforcement is the least possible imposition.

Fortunately for you both, the law splits the difference. There is no restriction on the sale of porn and semi-porn, except where minors are known or expected to frequent. Because even most consumers of porn recognize that there is something wrong with an eight-year-old viewing the Full Monty, the law recognizes the public interest in protecting eight-year-olds from your morality. Mamagistra, thus, is not imposing her morality on anyone: she is demanding that the store comply with the law.

[CookieMonster]

Good for you, Debra!

I haven't seen any change or reaction on my end.

[Call Me Cordelia]

Absolutely, the demand to keep porn and semi-porn out of the hands/eyes of minors is an imposition on you. Yup.

But your desire to have these magazines readily available in any place you happen to get an urge to buy them is an imposition on me. You are imposing your morality (that these mags are acceptable) on me.

It's not that she has morality and you don't. You both have morals, and the law has to decide which morals is broadly enough held that it's enforcement is the least possible imposition.

Fortunately for you both, the law splits the difference. There is no restriction on the sale of porn and semi-porn, except where minors are known or expected to frequent. Because even most consumers of porn recognize that there is something wrong with an eight-year-old viewing the Full Monty, the law recognizes the public interest in protecting eight-year-olds from your morality. Mamagistra, thus, is not imposing her morality on anyone: she is demanding that the store comply with the law.

Thank you for expressing this so well.

[Kelli in TN]

Some of you may remember my ire regarding some over-the-top magazines at the checkout of my local Kroger. I complained to corporate via email, got a canned reply, then was pleasantly surprised to get a voice mail from my local manager. He said that agreed with me and would continue to do what he could to keep filth out of the checkout.



Debra,
Would you mind listing the magazines that you were contacting your local Kroger about? I would be curious what magazines they were. I would be curious if I could get a similar response at my local Kroger.

[strider]

Thank you for your well-reasoned defense. You took the words right outta my mouth, and I thank you for it!

[GothicGyrl]

I'm either talking to myself or the mic was shut off...

Cosmo is not porn, that's why it can be sold "where minors are known to frequent". Elsewise, it'd be locked up someplace dark that even *I* don't visit.

That you think it porn, doesn't make it so.

[gardenschooler]

Way to go, Debra!

I've had the same problem, and you and Pam both expressed the same problems I've had with young readers. (Mommy, what does o-r-g-a...spell?)

It's not any better when they're older. As someone said earlier, I don't want my dds thinking of themselves as 'eye candy'.

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm honestly more offended by the food choices or lack off in these "food" stores. The magazines just reflect the Coke and chips diet of the US. But, I would not be in favor of having them removed; who knows who might want to take away the magazines I like, or bks, music, etc. :(

[PariSarah]

Except that I'd seriously argue Cosmo as porn. It is so not even partial porn or semi-porn. It's just not porn. That's why it is allowed to be sold out in front, in full view of everyone, because it is not porn.

Hustler, playboy, playgirl, and all the other mags like those 3 are porn. But Cosmo, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition for the year 230293287, are NOT porn.


That's certainly true--Cosmo and the like are not considered porn.

However, the laws concerning what's considered porn and what's considered "porn for minors" (I forget the technical term, sorry--anybody up on this?) are different. For example, one of the restrictions for porn-for-minors (at least, when I looked this up several years ago) is that no part of the bre@st below the n^pple can show. That means that if a model is wearing a plunging neckline that covers the nipples but reveals the curve next to the nipple, it's porn-for-minors. It's not porn, and can be sold without problems where minors don't frequent (in bookstores, e.g., it can be placed on a high shelf and away from the kiddie area). But where kids frequent, it can be restricted. Explicit language regarding the sexual act is also porn-for-minors. So in terms of what's considered indecent for minors, Cosmo and its clones usually fit the definition.

I'm not speaking my opinion in this point; it's a matter of law. You can certainly decide that it's a stupid law, but it's not my opinion (and thus not null).

I suspect that you would find my opinion even more unpalatable than the law, however. ;)

[Kelli in TN]

I'm honestly more offended by the food choices or lack off in these "food" stores. The magazines just reflect the Coke and chips diet of the US. But, I would not be in favor of having them removed; who knows who might want to take away the magazines I like, or bks, music, etc. :(

Jenny,
I really don't think anyone wishes to remove them or make them unavailable to the public. I think that many people wish the stores would take into consideration that these magazine covers are often at the eye-level of children and choose a different place to put them. My local grocery store has a fairly large magazine section. If all the magazines were grouped in that location, then I could choose or not choose to go through that aisle.

I know that some stores provide a family friendly aisle, as an alternative. Locally we do not have family friendly aisles, so we are not free to choose whether our children see these materials or not, unless we employ a babysitter everytime we grocery shop.

I believe that we all want freedom, some want freedom to view these materials and some want to be free from viewing these materials. A good compromise would be to continue to sell them, but to display them in an area of the store where shoppers can choose to go or avoid.

Bottom line, we all have to go through the check out line (okay, well not the shoplifters, but definately everyone else).

[GothicGyrl]

That's certainly true--Cosmo and the like are not considered porn.

However, the laws concerning what's considered porn and what's considered "porn for minors" (I forget the technical term, sorry--anybody up on this?) are different. For example, one of the restrictions for porn-for-minors (at least, when I looked this up several years ago) is that no part of the bre@st below the n^pple can show. That means that if a model is wearing a plunging neckline that covers the nipples but reveals the curve next to the nipple, it's porn-for-minors. It's not porn, and can be sold without problems where minors don't frequent (in bookstores, e.g., it can be placed on a high shelf and away from the kiddie area). But where kids frequent, it can be restricted. Explicit language regarding the sexual act is also porn-for-minors. So in terms of what's considered indecent for minors, Cosmo and its clones usually fit the definition.

I'm not speaking my opinion in this point; it's a matter of law. You can certainly decide that it's a stupid law, but it's not my opinion (and thus not null).

I suspect that you would find my opinion even more unpalatable than the law, however. ;)
Hmm, not ever seeing this "law" you speak of, I can't comment, so I won't. I think it's being taken out of hand, but since I've not seen this law to say for sure, then it's just conjecture on my part.

I don't think the law considers it indecent though cuz it's not. But that's also opinion.

In any case...... ummm, now what? ;P

[PariSarah]

In any case...... ummm, now what? ;P

Respectfully assume that neither one of us is an evil, ignorant jerk trying to make the other's life miserable? :cool:

Trade favorite recipes, or tips on how to drive a man wild in three easy steps? :p

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

... or tips on how to drive a man wild in three easy steps? :p

Catsuit.

Melted chocolate strategically applied.

Silk scarves, also strategically applied.

:cool:

[GothicGyrl]

Respectfully assume that neither one of us is an evil, ignorant jerk trying to make the other's life miserable? :cool:

Trade favorite recipes, or tips on how to drive a man wild in three easy steps? :p
I've never assumed anyone here was either ignorant nor a jerk. A pain in the butt maybe (PEEEEKKK!!!) but not ignorant or jerkish. :) As for making my life miserable, that's what my kids and MIL are for. hehehe

And I have no favorite recipes and ummm, show me John Taylor again and it won't be the man gone crazy. ;P

[PariSarah]

won't the chocolate ruin the catsuit?

:p

PS: Best Chocolate Sauce Ever, for whatever you need chocolate sauce for:

1/3 c water
1/2 c brown sugar
dash salt

Boil.

Add 1/2 c unsweetened cocoa; whisk vigorously and bring back to the boil.

Take off the heat and stir in, until melted, 2 tblsp butter, 1 tsp vanilla.

Let cool just a hair, to prevent burns . . . uh, on your tongue.

I mean from licking the SPOON.

Oh, never mind.

[Jill, OK]

Googling that and 'obscenity' brings up some discussion, legal-wise, about that sort of thing.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

...won't the chocolate ruin the catsuit?



The person wearing the catsuit would not of necessity be the one strategically dabbed in chocolate.

And that's all I'm sayin' about that.

[GothicGyrl]

Now Pari and Pam you shock me, shock I tells ya!!! Humph, my lack of senses are offended. :p

i'm uhh, "flustered" enough as it is, what with new images of JT showing up and here you go talking about chocolate sauce and uhh, I got cupcakes sitting on my counter right now.. grr tempt me... grrr..

[PariSarah]

Googling that and 'obscenity' brings up some discussion, legal-wise, about that sort of thing.

That sounds familiar. Maybe "obscenity for minors" or "indecency for minors"?

Oh, somebody here knows--she was the one that linked the relevant law! Oh who was she? Where is she now?!

[Colleen]

But your desire to have these magazines readily available in any place you happen to get an urge to buy them is an imposition on me. You are imposing your morality (that these mags are acceptable) on me.

Eggs-actly.

[Mamagistra]

Debra,
Would you mind listing the magazines that you were contacting your local Kroger about?

Hi Kelli,

The specific examples that I cited in my complaint were Cosmo for the large-size raunchy headlines and both Marie-Claire and Newsweek (!) for semi- to fully-nude-but-strategically-posed pregnant cover models. I believe that these were all December 2007 issues.

Here is my original email to the corporate website:

Today my family was exposed to lewdness at Kroger in ____,Texas. Magazines bearing the words "DIRTY S#XY S#X" in large boldface type (Cosmo), a pregnant nude model (Newsweek), and a pregnant nude celebrity (Marie-Claire) were openly displayed next to gum, candies, and children's magazines in multiple checkout lanes.

I wish to know what your corporate policy is with regard to the sale of sexually suggestive and/or explicit magazines. Do you have restrictions on how they are marketed? Are such magazines to be shrink-wrapped, placed above the eye level of children, or with binder covers to block out the images? Do you sell these magazines to minors? What discretion does the Kroger Corporation give to local managers to stop selling such offensive magazines? How lucrative are the sales of such magazines?

Please register my comments with Kroger Corporation as a complaint against the unrestricted sale of Cosmo, Marie-Claire, and Newsweek magazines. I ask that my local store discontinue carrying these magazines in the check-out lanes immediately.


Hope that helps. :)

NB: I realize that Newsweek is generally an unlikely candidate for shrinkwrapping :rolleyes:, however, I wrote the note in haste as soon as I returned home from shopping. Still, I would like to see all cover nudity and explicit phrasing stocked with binder covers, or at the very least, away. from. the. checkout.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Eggs-actly.

Well that seals it. The only solution is for all media to be published in plain brown paper covers.

Or, wait! I know. We could go high tech and do it all with GPS hats. Everyone can wear a hat with GPS on it, and all media can beam signals up to the sky with ratings regarding their content. You can program your kids hats to look out for materials with discussions of sex, evolution and environmentalism, and I can program my kids hats to look out for materials with modern factory farming practices and U.S. foreign policy. Then, when you walk too close to content you have programmed the hats to hide, a shield will flip down over the child's eyes while a digital voice instructs, "Please turn around as soon as possible . . . Please walk thirty inches to the left. You have reached acceptable content. Your acceptable content is on the right."

:D