Here’s something cheering: Wegmans supermarket recently snagged the attention of Jezebel when a reader sent in this photo of a magazine for sale. The store chose to partially cover the magazine with a black shield:
If you’ve ever seen Cosmo magazine, you might assume that the store was doing the decent thing by covering up some ridiculous starlet’s writhing, naked torso, because every month is Writhing Naked Torso Month at Cosmo. (You know, because it’s a Women’s Magazine. They also have Cosmo for Men, which is like having a distinct line of Meow Mix which is specially for cats.) Jezebel says of the store’s decision to cover the cover:
t’s hard to understand the rationale. . . . [w]hile you can see a little cleavage, its certainly nothing magazine readers haven’t seen before — Kim Kardashian showed as much or more boob in September. Was Wegmans uncomfortable with the cleavage of a plus-size lady?
I’m going to assume they were just trying to hit their minimum word count by asking that asinine question, because here is the original cover:
Not exactly a paragon of blushing maidenhood, but by today’s standards, an exceedingly tame picture. And if Adele is “plus-size” enough to make the general public squirm with disgust, then I’m going to quit and start my own country. It will be called Lardonia, and the official state seal will be rendered in mayonnaise.
Refreshingly, several of Jezebel’s readers pointed out that it was much more likely that Wegmans was trying to cover up the revolting headlines than the tacky picture, and that they had every right to do so. Apparently racy magazine covers are routinely hidden in the South. That’s less common where I live, but when it does happen, it’s a good thing—not because sex is bad, but because it’s supposed to be private.
Once, at my local supermarket, I complained about a prominently-displayed magazine whose cover featured a model wearing nothing but cake frosting (maybe it was the wedding issue?) The manager thought about it, and agreed with me that the image wasn’t appropriate for the audience that could be expected to walk through the check-out line. They work hard to make shopping a pleasant and easy experience, so why make the final twenty minutes so unpleasant for so many customers? They promised to put certain magazines on the back shelves, and they followed through. I was so pleased that I wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper, commending the supermarket on their responsive customer service.
A week later, we made our home phone number private. I was hearing the wrath of outraged citizens disgusted by my attempt to “make the supermarket raise my children for me.” They deplored the way I was “pushing my values on other people,” and accused both me and the grocery store of—you guessed it—CENSORSHIP.
Ah, censorship. You know, when the Chinese government sentences its own people to a slow death by hard labor for speaking out against police brutality? Or when families in Soviet Russia hid under their beds while the KGB beat down their doors, searching for the criminal who made a joke about Stalin’s mustache? Or when a mother of three small children asks the store manager if he wouldn’t mind putting the picture of the naked woman further back on the shelf? CENSORSHIP.
Yeah. You know what we need more of? Censorship. Not oppressive government regulation of free speech. Goodness knows we have enough of that already.
No, we need more personal censorship, just as a general courtesy—as a way of acknowledging that the world is yucky enough as it is, and there’s no need to dial up the levels of yuck every time we get the chance.
If a grocery store chooses to maintain a certain image of itself by putting a cover over some magazines (or—think of it!—even refusing to sell them!), it’s a minor work of mercy, like covering your mouth when you sneeze: no need to spread that stuff around. Even if we’re talking about things which aren’t bad, but merely private, life is better when we all try to contain what ought to be contained. When we put up sandbags to keep the flood waters out, that’s not censorship—it’s just common sense.
Is it a free speech issue when a store voluntary censors a magazine cover? Absolutely. That’s free speech in action: The store has the freedom to decide what it does and does not want to say about itself.
Sometimes I don’t like the results of this system, as when Al Sharpton and his thugs cowed an ad company into taking down a pro-life billboard or when the sub-human ghouls of the Westboro Baptist “Church” picket military funerals.
But I do like the system itself: government protects free speech, and the citizens react. Here’s my reaction: Yay Wegmans, whoever you are!
Comments
Post a Comment
I live in central PA, and our Wegmans (along with the other grocery stores in town) has shielded the covers of Cosmo for at least as long as I’ve been here (over 4 years). I love it! You’re right, it’s a work of mercy! :)
Can you imagine if a naked (half-naked, almost naked, nearly naked, etc.) woman stood at the front of the grocery store and recited the headlines that are on some of these magazines? I’m assuming we’d all be shocked! Why is it ok because it’s in print?
And yes, this particular Cosmo cover is relatively tame, but go Wegmans!!
Wegmans also stopped selling cigarettes (I assume this was in all their stores and not just my local one). Promoting a healthy lifestyle SHOULD be comprehensive. It was a great move in my opinion.
Yeah Wegman’s. I agree it was probably more about the headlines than the photo. I remember standing in line at BJ’s with my 8 year old son and he looked at a woman’s magazine and asked, “Mommy, why did that woman want to have her picture taken in her underwear?” Good question.
If the store doesn’t have shields I do my best to turn the magazine around or hide them. I have complained to the management.
The grocery store where I shop had one register that had a sign over it that said “no magazines or candy”. I told the manager it was a great idea, except he rarely had that register open whenever people with children were shopping!
Wegmans is quite possibly the best grocery store I have ever had the ability to shop. It is a family owned chain that began in Rochester, NY. Once, when I was at our Wegmans, I noticed the awful cover of Cosmo and it wasn’t shielded. I talked to a manager and she profusely apologized, telling me that someone had stolen their shields and they were waiting for a new shipment to arrive. Sure enough, the next time I was there, the non-family-friendly covers were shielded. Just one of the many ways that Wegmans values its customers. I am just sad we no longer live anywhere near a Wegmans! Oh, and I definitely agree that Wegmans has the right to sell what it wants to and to “censor” what it wants to in their own stores.
“It will be called Lardonia, and the official state seal will be rendered in mayonnaise”.
I love it! How can I get citizenship?
My locally employed-owned store - Redner’s - does the exact same thing. As well as a aisle that is candy and magazine free (usually occupied by parents w/ kids in tow).
If your store doesn’t - ask! Let them know other stores do and watch them get their competition attitude riled.
Yay Wegmans! To Melissa, I can empathize with your grief over the perpetually-closed candy-free & magazine-free aisle. Our grocery store has one of those, too - except that it is far too narrow to fit those “car-carts” through. So if I have the children with me, which I always do, I still have to deal with candy & tabloids.
Wegmans has just come to Maryland and I love shopping there. They shield inappropriate magazine covers in our store, but it’s just the general atmosphere of pleasant, cheerful, customer service that makes it so nice to shop there (plus, it’s a very pretty store). The employees at the Wegmans where I shop always seem quite happy, too, so I assume that they’re a good, fair employer.
I think shielding magazines like this is great (although it’s too bad they have to sell them at all). The Meijer I shop at has a similar (actually even bigger) plastic shield for the Cosmos they sell. I’m not sure if it’s in all checkout lanes but I remember noticing it at least once.
Simcha, your commentary is hilarious and still manages to cut right to the point.
-
Are we our brother’s keeper? More than we would probably like to admit. (We’re definitely our children’s keepers, and I find it strange that people are accusing you of making the store be their parent, when actually you’re trying to keep Cosmo from raising them—and doing many other people’s children a favor.) I don’t mean in a paternalistic way, but I often wonder how much better the world would be if we wold stop insisting on the maximum we can do within our rights, and start being more concerned about what is considerate to one another.
Yes, amen to Wegmans’s and to you. My 11 yo son has become so disgusted by some of these magazines that he spends our entire time in the checkout line flipping them backwards so the covers can’t be seen (I don’t put him up to it, I swear). A lady behind us once asked me, “Do you think he should be doing that?” I told her he was only doing what I wished the store would do itself, and she humphed in irritation but really- you’re going to get annoyed at a preteen boy who’s disturbed by public immodesty?!
Publix shields them. The cashiers like this much better than being asked by a 7-year-old “what is an or-gass-em?”
Here’s where I, as a citizen of Lardonia, admit I sometimes have chosen the candy aisle just to bribe my children if I knew my checkout was going to be long. Now I do nearly all my shopping at BJ’s, Costco, and online. There’s no candy and the magazines at our BJ’s tend toward cooking and home themes. I think the naked skinny models made me feel less inadequate!
Brilliant! Just excellent! We do not have such stores out here—perhaps it is time to start asking the managers if they can do a candy/tabloid-free checkout aisle, too. ;-) I will pass this along to my girlfriends—maybe if enough of us ask, the store will comply!
Tiffany, you bring up an excellent point. Now who is ready to make a statement and stand semi-naked in front of their local grocery store? Anyone?? ;) Not I. I think my stretch marks alone would scare shoppers more than anything. I just don’t get the appeal of these magazines and never have. So gross. Yay for Wegman’s!
I’m always a bit surprised at the irrationality behind the backlash we get when we try to do what’s right. In this particular instance, the magazines are STILL available, just not in-your-face for those who aren’t interested, yet the secular world still labels it as “pushing values on others”. If any of them cared to think about it LOGICALLY, they’d have to admit that their approach is more of the “pushing” kind whereas ours still respects the freedom of speech!
This would be a good place to point out that every Cosmo cover is exactly the same, with four “prompts” on each cover:
“The four prompts are: 1) Sex headline 2) Smiling face showing approval of sex 3) A desirable bust-line 4) Second sex headline.
. . .
These four prompts are enough to make your subconscious feel healthy, attractive and sexual - just like the girl on the cover. Cosmo found that they sold the most magazines by taking advantage of the natural eye pattern your eyes take across a magazine cover and putting these four prompts in their path.”
Every. Cover. Stacy McCain linked to the piece explaining this a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, the page itself no longer exists.
Wegmans is great for all the reasons listed above, but it is my go to store because it is the only market in my area of NJ where I can buy groceries, beer and wine in one trip, with one check out line. There must be a mom of littles in a position of authority in that company. Have you ever tried to get through a liquor store (filled with glass bottles…) with 4 little guys in tow? I love Wegmans (oh and they cover the magazines at mine too).
My husband hates our big shopping trips with all the kiddos (and always gets a bit wigged-out by the fluorescent lighting) but I can always count on spending the entire check-out line time watching him methodically turn every last bunch of racy magazines around to the back covers. (He always looks around like a criminal and whistles a bit nervously. I’m not sure who he thinks will catch him, but…) Custody of the eyes for all. Now that’s love. :)
mmmmm, Lardonia.
I won’t be able to think of much else today, imagining the kind of life I could be leading in your fair land.
I also like how “enough - of that - already” was three separate links. Fun!
“the world is yucky enough as it is, and there’s no need to dial up the levels of yuck every time we get the chance.”
Amen. You have the best way of putting things - I acknowledge the truth and smile at the same time. I always seem to feel uplifted after reading your posts.
You make me feel normal! I don’t care much about the magazine covers, but I am kind of an odd shopper anyway. I shop in the middle of a Mexican ghetto, and the mag covers are so bad they’re funny. (Seriously, are latinos attracted to an entirely different sort of woman? Do they really want the rainbow eyeshadow, super-fake lashes, and orange tans? I doubt it, so why do their soap stars look like anime?) I’m also too busy noticing how many people are using food stamps and WIC, but don’t speak English, and check out in two trips to cover their alcohol, cigarettes, and junk food with cash. It’s kind of surreal to watch every stereotype about entitlement abuse happening right in front of me. I love doing this when I’m going from my first job to my second, shopping in the IL equivalent of Hell’s Kitchen to save a couple of bucks. It really makes me appreciate my tax dollars at work. :)
So very sorry to hear that some libertines with too much time on their hands had nothing better to do than to harass you. Sad - but it does make me wonder how much they’ve bothered to examine their principles. Because by the same logic at work, it’s hard to see how anyone could be permitted to make any objection to the grocery store placing (say) Hustler, sans wrap or cover plate, on the checkout rack stands.
But that will only give them pause for the time being. In ten years perhaps, we’ll be subjected to the equivalent of that anyway, by all odds.
Simcha,
Let’s not refer to human persons made in the image of God as “sub-human ghouls”...
Adele is beautiful and has a fabulous voice. Can’t believe she’s twenty.
Okay fine. I’m avoiding the topic. Totally thumbs up on covering the smut. Does anybody else have a gorgeous daughter who sees NOTHING wrong with peeling off layers down to a tank top that she fills out.. well—- beautifully? I can’t convince her that she is lacking in mercy, especially when she comes home from school on a hot day this way (morning started cold, and I didn’t see her walk out that way). She prays, loves God, goes to mass some week days, and doesn’t seem to have a modest bone in her body, and never has. I’m not saying really, really immodest, and she does have good taste in clothing, but what I tell her is “Okay, look at contemporary clothing and then take a couple of big paces back from the edge”.....sighhhhhhhhhhh. “But they suffer from Testosterone!!!!” (She laughs.) She’ll say “You think THIS is bad? Mom you have NO IDEA how tame this is.” I can’t see telling girls to wear skirts to the floor either, that’s just not reasonable. I wonder what “Sister Wendy” from PBS would say.
Scott Woltze - Let’s not be condescending and sanctimonious on behalf of people who carry signs declaring God’s hatred human persons made in the image of God.
Simcha - It’s funny here in the South. I don’t think I’ve seen a full Cosmo cover in a decade. And I don’t think I’ve even noticed the shields. Sometimes things are much easier here. Everyone just agrees that kids shouldn’t have to see certain things and that’s that.
LOL! Wegmans actually is a nationally-studied model for customer service practices. A little like Disney, actually, but on a smaller scale. Our company used to go there for tours and management-training seminars. I love it…so grateful there isn’t one close, or I’d be totally broke.
And yes, magazines “in the South” are pretty much covered all the time. That’s because, though, its the land of butter and banana pudding, where we’d rather all be looking at recipe magazines and garden photos anyway.
how odd… in the story you linked to about the public library refusing a group to show a pro-life film, but libraries are required to allow patrons to view internet porn in visible spaces. Sigh.
Scott Woltze - read the article once and scanned it again and I didn’t see anything about sub-human gouls. Off to look again.
Scott, if the Westboro Baptists are not sub-human ghouls, then there is no such thing.
For a great treatment of the topic, check out Russell Kirk’s essay “The Ethics of Censorship” in his book Beyond the Dreams of Avarice.
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Dreams-Avarice-Essays-Social/dp/0893850403
Meh, I should have said “picketers who behave like sub-human ghouls.” Only God knows who they truly are.
Leave pro-life and pro-marriage tracts visible near the magazine racks and see how long it takes for those folks to pitch a fit. They only object to “censorship” with which they disagree and are, usually, all too ready to censor opinions that aren’t in line with their own.
I have embarked on a campaign to get our Baltimore grocery chain, Mars, to do this very thing. The fact that Wegmans is expanding all over our area should be a help in motivating them as well.
/
I have four boys and I am working so hard to raise them with a healthy sexuality that is accepting and positive but also not infiltrated by the world’s relentless machine of *using*. I am starting to get angry when I go into the checkout line with my sons. Yesterday I told the two older boys (my 9 yo and a neighbor boy, 8,) not to read those magazines because their whole purpose was to make them stupider to buy more stuff that was for sale.
/
I have also been known to storm into my local Royal Farms which keeps its magazine rack backed up against the window and give them an earful about not covering up the porno magazines well enough to keep the entire outside from viewing them from the back. Maybe I have done that two or three times.
Our problem is the drugstore. There is only one line and all the magazines are at the front, so there is no way to avoid it. You have encouraged me to talk to the manager!
The picture is tame compared to the titles for the articles!
Can I add this post to the already long list of reasons why I love you? I turn the magazines around when I’m not nagging, I mean reminding, my kids that I said. No. Candy. This. Time…. anyway, Why is it that when someone concerned about the inappropriate covers of magazines asks that they be covered (not pulled, just covered)they are accused of forcing their beliefs on others, but showing those same covers isn’t seen as forcing someone else’s beliefs on others? Just a thought. Anyway, awesome post and I totally agree! (And can I vacation in Lardonia?)
I often turn the magazines around or open it to a different page and replace it in the rack without the cover showing. Also, My Comcast cable guide offers the same type of disgusting verbiage under the guise of “adult” entertainment channels. The titles are very bad and I would think that a term such as “adult program” would suffice until the “info” or “select” button were pressed to identify the title of the particular show if someone wanted to inquire. DirecTv and others may be the same. I haven’t contacted them about this as of yet but now I will.
Our grocery chain, Publix, also shields the public from offensive, suggestive and racy magazine covers and has for years! We are grateful for common decency!
Last year when the Sports Illustrated magazine came out, Walgreens had newly installed magazine racks at the end of 3 isles. These 3 isles happened to have the toys, school supplies and groceries. I asked to speak to the manager, who explained to me the new placement was due to the magazine distributors agreement with the Walgreen’s corporate offices. We walked over to the displays so he could clear understand what the intent of this placement was (our children) and why it couldn’t stay. My question to him as the manager, citizen of our community, husband and possible father (all of which I listed) was how does he want the all girls and women to be seen. I continued to calmly explain how these magazines communicate the purpose of the women is to be used while never looking at the value each woman has in our lives. After listening to my objections he apologized and immediately had one of the associates remove the racks. He stated he would speak to the corporate office to relay my comments. The magazine racks did not come back.
A few years ago, my wife and I grabbed a plate of nachos and a pitcher of beer on a Friday night after work at a local restaurant we have enjoyed for years. Our enjoyment was dampened by the discovery of a condom ad on the bottom of my beer glass. I dutifully complained to the waitress and my wife emailed a complaint to the restaurant. She got back a non-commital response: the glasses were a recent delivery, practically free (paid for by the condom manufacturer), no one else is complaining, blah, blah. We replied that it’s too bad that we’d have to stop patronizing a restaurant we’ve always liked, not because the food had gotten worse (it hadn’t) or the service had gotten worse (it hadn’t) but because of some offensive thing that was unrelated to our normal restaurant-choosing processes.
A year-and-a-half later, we found ourselves one Friday evening contemplating our weekend opening activities and decided to follow-up our initiative. The offensive glasses were not delivered with our meal, and afterward we mentioned to the waitress our earlier concern. “Oh, I remember you, you sat over there. I served you the last time.” Several customers had complained, and she had accidentally dropped a few of the glasses over the intervening months.
Anyway, that’s my censorship story. It got me to wondering, though, about my “imposing” my morality on public accomodation institutions. While I’m sure there are a sizable number of people who will follow up a Friday night pitcher with an illicit liaison, is that group likely to stop frequenting a bar because it no longer features condom ads on the glasses? Is the “free speech” libertine going to stop shopping at Wegman’s because they don’t display cleavage and navels?
So when are all the women who are concerned about “pornography” going to organize against soap operas, which may have caused more divorces and abortions than uncovered women’s magazines did?
Um, because nobody puts soap operas in front my my family’s face every time we want to buy a loaf of bread? I think soap operas are lame and ridiculous and I’m sure they do bring about all sorts of societal ills - but it’s pretty easy to avoid them. It’s very hard to avoid trashy magazines.
So why aren’t soap operas worse than images of attractive women, anyway?
I didn’t say they weren’t worse. I’m sure, as I said, they have a very bad effect on many people, and I’m starting to think you have a personal bad experience with soap operas, and I’m sorry if that’s so. I have no problem with “images of attractive women.” I do have a problem with images of mostly-naked women, accompanied by nasty headlines, when they are right at eye level of my children. Look, if you want to go on a crusade against soap operas, please be my guest! Soap operas are not an issue in my life because we don’t get TV reception, and I’m raising my kids to have no patience with crappy entertainment.
.
If you, as a man and presumably a Catholic, think that Cosmo and that type of magazine generally just shows “attractive women” in a harmless way, then I think you got some thinkin’ to do.
I would be really interested in the research that shows what causes the most divorces and abortions!!! Why isn’t this info more public? Don—can you get me that link ASAP?
They had an expose’ about it in Cosmo just last month, Corita. Maybe if you read more of those magazines, you’d be better informed.
What I find disturbing is that the stores typically don’t actually follow the rationale for covering Cosmo. Sure, they may cover Cosmo but the other dozen magazines in the aisle that are almost as bad are still on full display.
Thank goodness there is some “censorship” of what truly needs to be censored. What gets me is the people that cry “you’re evil because you want censorship of these magazines” are the same people that shake their heads and can’t imagine why there is more sexual abuse of children and why children age 4 and 5 can’t go outside to play by themselves. Mmmmmm…. am I the only one that sees the connection?
No TV reception? What about Sponge Bob? How can you have small children and no Sponge Bob? I grew up without TV, and read books, but I was one of four. Are your kids all READING all the time? The thought of no TV, combined with having six boys is starting to make me hyperventilate.
Out here in the West, Fred Meyer’s has a family friendly line which actually *is* family friendly. My husband has talked to managers of other stores to suggest this very thing. Go, Simcha!
@anna lisa: oh no no no no no, we have Netflix streaming and a large DVD collection! I grew up without TV, and we really DID read all the time (which is not necessarily as idyllic as it sounds); but my husband grew up in LA as the son of a TV producer. So, lots of compromise on both sides as we raise our own kids!
.
But I hate Sponge Bob. I really, really do. He is just so dang stupid.
Heh! The yowls of “censorship” don’t seem to work both ways; this time of the year, all the retailers are starting to put their “holiday” displays up, but although the Mom and Pop stores and the stores whose appeal is to the customer whose heart is in the heartland (like Wal-Mart) may actually mention “the C-word” (Christmas), almost none of those retailers with any pretensions to being (a)trendy, or (b)luxury will decorate their stores for the Holiday That Dares Not Say Its Name with anything but generic holiday baubles and paraphenalia that have been scrubbed of any association with Christ’s birth in particular, or with religion in general.
White plastic trees with red and green glass balls? Check!
Angels? Out!
Banners that read, “Happy Holidays”? Check!
Banners that read, “Merry Christmas”? Out.
Toy reindeer prancing on fibreglass snow? Check.
A nativity scene? . . . At the mall? . . . Are you serious? Call 911!
And these stores used to have all these things: the Christmas displays, etc. Some lovely ones. I remember them; I worked Christmas jobs at these stores a megazillion years ago, and helped do the *Christmas* displays. They were very .. . Christmas-y!
Now?
Not!
Because a minority of customers complained. They didn’t like it. So the stores scrubbed the “Christmas” from the holiday, and we sat still for it.
Me, I don’t do my *Christmas* shopping at any retailer that is decorated for “the holidays” without any mention of *Christmas.” Now, I will do Christmas shopping at Frank’s Sporting Goods store where there are no holiday decorations up anywhere. Because Frank can’t be bothered to decorate the store for “the holidays” including Christmas, Fourth of July, or Presidents’ Day. I’ll shop there, no problem.
But at stores that *are* decorated for the “winter holidays,” but avoid mention of Christmas? Nope! They don’t get my business.
I only shop where they don’t censor out Christmas.
...And if you consider that cover of Cosmopolitan pornographic, are you also crusading to cover up the Sistine Chapel?
...and does it bother you that your children can see all those tabloid headlines like “Why x left y”?
...And as soon as you can show me proof that pictures of attractive women lead men to (whatever it is you want to claim they lead men to) I’ll show you proof that soap operas encourage sinning.
Anna Lisa: I hear you on the tank tops—what really gets me is the exposed bra straps. To think, I spent years covering those things up, and why? Because they look ugly and tacky hanging out—that’s why. But now I see bras—straps and other parts—everywhere I go (I do live in L.A. though). I’ve censored the tank tops (my girls where uniforms so we’re safe at school) and I’ve also had to say no to the short-short and BOOTS—are they go-go dancers??? Sigh. But again, I’m in L.A., so a lot of times it’s not just teens but moms—lots of tight clothes, cleavage, it become the norm, and in this weird way you stop even noticing it sometimes.
Somebody on here is showing his age. 1974 called, they want their argument back, “Gosh darn bored housewives wantin’ to take away our men’s magazines! All outta spite, cause they ‘let themselves go’ settin’ at home all day watchin’ them soaps. Them soaps is dirtier than any men’s magazine! ‘Stead of complaining about men lookin at pictures of beautiful women, they outta get their butts offa the sofa and turn off the tv!”
I don’t know, does anyone watch English language soaps anymore? There really aren’t any left. When I stayed home, I didn’t have time to watch tv during the day and if I did, it usually involved HGTV (which my brother-in-law probably rightly calls ‘house porn’). Before cable channels I remember a brief period of soap-age which I enjoyed purely for the sound of adult voices. I’m a teacher now—still don’t get to hear adult voices :( I see 500 kids a week K thru 8 (art) and know a little bit about kid-dom, and boys especially will fixate on boobies and naughty words. I have to censor the art books (not that the Sistine Chapel is filth, but your average 4th grade boy can’t yet discern the symbolic meaning behind nakedness in a work, they just see boobies and naughty bits—it’s really disruptive. One day I caught several boys slobbering over a dictionary, the “S” words, you can imagine. I had to confiscate a dictionary! So yes, take a kid to the store and blatantly stick some cleavage in his face and some skanky headlines! Fan the flames! Parents aren’t trying to be censor Nazis, they’re just trying to get the mental and moral development to keep pace with the hormonal.
Don, I think you’ve missed the point a bit (or perhaps in an odd way I’m making your point?). Modesty is primarily a matter of attitude and how one presents themselves. A woman can wear lots of clothes and be super immodest, just as women in primitive cultures can wear very little and yet still be very modest. It isn’t that clothes have nothing to do with it but that in Western culture clothes are one of the more obvious ways of showing how modest one is or isn’t. We know how to use clothes provocatively, sensually, sexually, and we do it.
Of course when that point is made people immediately argue that the fact of modesty differing so much from culture to culture shows that it is simply a culturally imposed constraint, not at all real or justifiable. Therefore we can do all sorts of things with provocative pictures of women. If men lust and women feel like dirt it’s all a part of the process of enlightening humanity. Onward!
Again, missing the point (for one thing, those arguing that clothing doesn’t matter are actually making the same mistake as those saying that it’s really the only thing that does matter). But more to the point, differences in cultures doesn’t make modesty completely relative. Those differences actually help drive home the point that modesty is something actual, something real; it may differ somewhat culture to culture but that’s only because it always manifests in a cultural setting. We don’t loudly belch after dinner because the fact of it’s being considered polite in other cultures renders meaningless the concept of politeness. Quite the contrary. It shows that politeness is important in all cultures; that how one presents themselves in the world around them matters a lot.
So let’s get away from the clothes issue for a second. Does anyone at all think Cosmo is modest judging by, say, the graphic and often demeaning headlines littering its front cover? Take all the pictures out of Cosmo and it’s still an immodest magazine.
This issue is that while pictures may be just one of many types of media that are able to treat women as objects, they are also uniquely good at it. Pictures convey ideas that can be grasped by just about anyone looking at them, toddles and teenage boys for instance, and it makes a serious problem for those buying and reading the magazine a serious problem for everyone who happens to buy a gallon of milk.
If Michelangelo had taken a page from Cosmo and painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling with people posed and presented in ways that said “come hither” then I’d have a huge problem with it. Especially if right next to them, just to remove all doubt as to the provocative nature and intent of the imagery, were headlines to the tune of “How to really REALLY drive him wild in bed,” or “15 things he wants you to do to him but will never tell you” and the like.
if I understand you correctly on the other things you mention, then I completely agree that tabloids and soaps are super unhealthy too. But we’re not talking about that. Pointing out someone’s hypocrisy on one issue doesn’t render their arguments on another invalid. It just means they’re human.
So where do we draw the line? That’s a more difficult question. But, damn it all, if someone can’t argue in favor of relegating magazines like Cosmo to out-of-the-way places at grocery stores or removing similar imagery from imposing itself on our imaginations everywhere we go in public, then we’ve lost all concept of lines. And the only reason porn isn’t depicted openly on billboards in the U.S. is because enough people happen to not want it there, not because we have a clear idea of where to draw lines.
Elizabeth: If you live in L.A. you know what I’m talking about! One thing that I know is helpful is that I enjoy spending time with my daughter. We talk about everything under the sun. She is funny, hip, a good artist, a reader, lover of culture etc. We make fun of each other no end, but we never cross that line to disrespect. She cheers me up with funny You-Tubes that make me laugh until I cry. A few times I’ve had to kind of suck it up a bit and agree to disagree about her clothing. I’ve only sent her back to change once or twice. My 1950s Mom had a totally different approach, which I think had to do with some lame book, that said you shouldn’t be your daughter’s friend. I call it the “Ivory Tower method” but I don’t blame her because she was great at teaching me my faith and is a pillar of virtue. (She also has an uncanny ability to scan the air and know if a racy scene is about to come on the TV. She will appear at the doorway, make a disgruntled noise and say “garbage IN garbage OUT”) . I for one get in there and talk about everything that would make my Mom’s cheeks turn pink because I remember how my teen aged, hormonally-insane-brain worked. I tell my daughter that virginity is a state of MIND and body, and we discuss it in light of my man Jesus!
@Simcha, LOL, I guess I love Sponge Bob because he makes me feel smart ;0. Have you ever noticed how much of the humor TOTALLY goes over their little heads? I get to scrub toilets, and fold laundry in the background and I’m picturing this room full of 30-year-old, adult Peter Pans writing this stuff and cracking each other up! No fair.
I moved out of Northern New Mexico because I thought it was a terrible, hostile place for a boy to grow up. I think I would have the same feelings about L.A., for a girl. But then again I think L.A. is hostile to most humans and despite my love of adventure couldn’t bring myself to follow many of my cohorts out of film school to there. I find it nearly impossible to picture raising a happy, well-adjusted family there.
Well Corita, I’ve lived in L.A., grew up in Santa Barbara, and spent half of my child rearing in an idyllic, little,forested bedroom community of San Francisco (Mill Valley)It is the most “educated town in the U.S.” with the most advanced degrees per capita, (and successful people in the film industry—George Lucas in SF and special effects at Autodesk in Marin). My kids went to school with the kids of the director of “Finding Nemo” etc. He screened “UP” at our little, downtown theater as a nice, community gesture.) So the flavor of California can be VERY different, But yes, worldly, worldly,worldly…and stinking expensive for anyone trying to raise a family, much less a large one. It’s exhausting. Interestingly enough, I met the most, great, and faithful Catholic Moms in L.A. I was floored to see the churches FULL there. The committed Catholics huddle together, and are an interesting cross section of humanity, including (yes!) a dear friend who is a successful director in Hollywood. Just so much concrete…a freeway filled, smoggy, behemoth. As a community, my uber liberal SF hamlet has the best community spirit, and public education, but with more of that “peer orientation” that Jennifer F. was talking about, and yet almost zero bullying because of that homogeneous mentality. The kids go from being perfect in the “Mayberry” elementary schools to smoking weed and drinking hard like their aging hippy parents. Santa Barbara they say is for “the newly married and almost buried” and suffers from an identity crisis as a vacation beach town. So what to do? The rest of the country is like the great unknown to me, but I wish someone would say “Here in——we have a great Catholic community, wonderful culture and education, and a gem of a town with breathtaking natural beauty.” (And covers tacky Cosmo :)!) Ha ha, does that exist? Other than heaven? I guess we’re supposed to bloom where we are planted, trying to infuse our spirit into modern culture without running away and behaving like the “remnant” which seems to be a temptation for some. (Not what I find in this blog). Good luck with your career, maybe L.A. needs you :) Christianity grew in the bosom of ancient Rome.
Don, now will you please give us your expert opinion on how “Baby Got Back” compares to Schubert’s settings of Müller? Criminy!...
Okay, since I’m a peeved artist I’ll just say it. Cosmo…is…NOT…art. It’s cheap, tacky, mass-produced, lowbrow entertainment. Degrees of nudity are almost the only thing they have in common. In 300 years, you are not going to find it selling for half a million dollars at Sotheby’s or Christie’s. There is a reason for that.
*end rant*
It’s okay, enness, I think Don’s point was less “Cosmo is art” than “everything is women’s fault and men are just victims.” Maybe I’m way off base; but on the other hand, I’m not.
Cosmo promises everything and delivers nothing. Then they promise the same thing next month, and the next and the next and the next…$...Even they must be laughing at the ninnies who keep falling for it.
At my grocery store they only have Martha Stewart magazines or food magazines at the register. I don’t think its censorship, I think it’s about knowing your audience and displaying what is appropriate for your audience. Doesn’t it make sense to have food magazines at the grocery aisle? These magazines should be where their audience is or at least in an aisle where people have a choice to go down.
Simcha Fisher:
I’m not talking about women the way that you do about men, just pointing out the nonsense of considering pictures of attractive women “porn” while ignoring the real incentives to sin in our society: soap operas and the WORDS in magazines like Cosmo.
And “enness”:
300 years ago, when this was a Christian society, pictures of attractive women weren’t considered porn, but fiction which encouraged women to sin (e.g., romance novels like “Madam Bovary”) was.
And “enness,” did you know that Schubert died of sphyllis?
And there was pop music back then as well.
Don, your insistence in talking about soap operas would be a relevant criticism if this post had anything at all to do with soap operas. If I wrote a post about how to make a low-fat cake, would you get all huffy because I didn’t mention how fatty pot roast can be? Maybe you would, but it would be weird.
.
Yes, there is something seriously wrong with many popular magazine covers, both the pictures and the words (I did mention the words, in my post and in the comments). Maybe you live in an area where the truly offensive magazine covers are routinely hidden, and so don’t realize how bad it’s gotten. Where I live, it’s common to see several pictures of women in postures and clothing which are clearly and unabashedly designed for one purpose: to provoke lust. I’m not going to link to them, to prove it to you, because I’m not in the habit of linking to pornography. But I’m going to say it again: either things are very different where you live, or you are making excuses for yourself to indulge in looking at soft pornography. This is none of my business, but you’re the one who brought it up, so now you know what I think.
.
I don’t want my sons or daughters seeing it, I don’t want my husband seeing it, and I don’t want to see it myself. Are trashy magazine covers the one and only temptation in the world? No, of course not. But they’re a big one, they’re everywhere, and they are worth fighting back against.
*yawn*
Don, to give you the benefit of the doubt I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse. Using broad categories (no pun intended) like “pictures of attractive women” (which could describe so many different sorts of pictures it’s not even worth getting into) is just extremely sloppy thinking. Combine that with all you repetitious attempts to defend your position simply by assuming others’ ignorance and *yawn* ... sorry. Where was I?
Ah yes, and when you say that this was a Christian society 300 years ago that didn’t consider pictures of attractive women porn, I’m going to assume that you meant to define what you mean by “this” and “Christian society” and “pictures of attractive women” but didn’t get around to it. Otherwise your comment is pointless.
At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with how Adele looks in the photo. Thumbs up for not being an anorexic waif, and a “glory be” to her God-kissed voice. Please hide the Cosmo B.S. articles. Let’s just “cut to the chase”, K?
To the censorship police: I say when you give me the guns back in the rereleased version of ET, I’ll take the shields off Cosmo.
To all you would-be censors who are ignorant of which society “this” is (the Western) and how pictures of nude women were treated back then (are you going to insist that the Vatican cover up the Sistine Chapel?)—yes, your soaps were what was considered pornography back then (e.g., “Madam Bovary”) and pictures of attractive women were not.
I’m not obsessing over soap operas, I’m just pointing out how hypocritical you are. You’re the ones who are obsessed—with covering up pictures of attractive women.
Don,
Obviously you meant western society. My point was that your use of it was once again broad and all encompassing. You make blanket statements about what society did or did not accept, that one picture of a nude woman is just the same as any other picture, that your go-to phrase (“pictures of attractive women”) is suitable in arguing that there is no essential moral difference between porn and the cover of “While You Were Sleeping.”
Words help us think well and specifically about issues. Your apparent refusal to use nuance and insistence in using broad sweeping categories tells me that’s how you’re thinking about this.
And Oh. My. Word. Stop trying to argue your point by deflection. Of course soaps are an issue. But we aren’t talking about that.
Jared,
Yes, I was talking about strecting the definition of “pornography” to include any picture of an attractive woman. I’m sorry that you super-prudes out there can’t grasp my point.
We see your point, Don. There is nothing there to grasp.
Honey, if you could get any breathing woman to grasp your point, you wouldn’t have to resort to seeking meaningful relationships with the girls on the cover of a magazine.
Heh. Anyway, Don, the real problem is that it doesn’t matter what you call it. Some people say “porn,” and others say “attractive women,” but the real question is, why is it there? What is the purpose of these pictures, and what do you, Don, get from looking at them? What do you imagine it does to the women who are in the business of posing that way? Be honest. Not here—as I said, your soul is none of my business. But for goodness sake, stop with the euphemisms.
Actually, Simcha Fisher, I don’t even notice those womens’ magazines, and don’t mount campaigns for or against them. The question is, what is it that so terrifies you about pictures of attractive women? The competition?
Don, so you do think pictures are any competition for real live women? I’m guessing you’re still a bachelor. Or maybe a “bachelor.”
Right, I’m pregnant with my ninth child and my main problem is that I’m starved for male attention.
.
But I believe you that you don’t notice them; otherwise it would be obvious to you that they are degrading to women and harmful to everyone who sees them.
.
And now I am bowing out of this exceedingly silly conversation. Feel free to have the last word if you want to!
I thought your main problem is all the soaps you watch?
Don-just a thought, can you read?? Cuz the article had more to say about the headlines and how inappropriate they were, than about the ‘attractive woman’ on the cover. Those headlines only serve to objectify women and tell us that we are only as good as the ‘services’ we provide or how well we provide them. It says nothing of our intrinsic value as humans made in the image of God. A lie, it seems, you’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker. If asking stores to cover up the covers is forcing our values on others, what exactly is it called when we are forced (yes, forced) to look at those images we find objectionable? It’s the same. The difference between soap operas and magazines, which you don’t seem to grasp, is that I can change the channel or turn my TV off. Going to a different store doesn’t work because they are everywhere. One more thing, if something is attractive it’s because we are seeing it as a whole, complete. If something is pornographic, it is only being seen in the context of a product to provide a service.
Again, I’m not he one who acted out of fear of attrractive women; I don’t even notice those magazines. What does bother me is how female hypocrites drive young men away from Catholicism.
No, real Catholic women with half a brain run away from guys like you.
The Jerk:
You’re right: if you think that you made an argument you are a jerk. Sorry; I don’t ususally descend to your level.
All right, look, I started this by getting snarky with Don, because I thought he was being disingenuous. I’m sorry for my part in making this comment thread into an insult fest.
.
Don, nobody is trying to drive you away from Catholicism. People are trying to protect their families by upholding societal standards, which is what women have done forever and ever. I haven’t seen even a speck of hypocrisy in anything any of the women here have said. Sometimes men blame women for driving them away, when what’s really happening is that they’re running as fast as they can, and looking for someone to blame for their cowardice. Real men think women deserve respect; and real women are attracted to men who treat them with respect.
The other thing I want to say is that if you are looking for a meaningful relationship, either with someone of the opposite sex, or with the Church, then one thing is always necessary: to change your attitude. To listen to people who demand hard things from you. It seems that you are hoping to find a place in the Church, and to find love, without having to alter your desires. This won’t work.
.
We all have something that we cling to, which we try to present to ourselves as reasonable and healthy—and which other people keep telling us, “Sorry, you gotta get rid of that.” You can either assume that they’re all wrong, and it’s their fault that you feel out of place—or you can examine your own ideas, and ask yourself honestly if you’re looking for the truth, or just looking for excuses.
,
The reason I know this is because I’ve gone through it approximately 463 times myself in the last few years, and it’s usually one step forward, three steps back. It’s very easy to say, “Oh, everyone else is a prude and a hypocrite” but it’s very hard to say, “Crap, maybe I’m wrong.”
Don,
So you think that Simcha is out of line by stretching the category of porn beyond reasonable bounds, but earlier you compared porn with romance novels and soaps. I totally get your comparison, but at least likening Cosmo to a form of porn makes sense in that in both cases we are talking about pictures of women that are intentionally sexually alluring.
Besides it’s way more than the pictures (which on this particular cover are mild for Cosmo) that make it porn. Those who argue against that title make me wonder if they’ve ever picked up a copy (feel blessed if you haven’t). In my secular pre-convert college days my friends and I literally looked to it like a Bible (ewwwww… makes me sick just typing that…). And referred to it in that way. Yuck. What makes cosmo comparable to porn is found from one cover to the other.
Anyways, in our area in Florida, and in our old home in Northern California, cosmo was covered up at our local Walmarts. It actually kind of makes me like going to Walmart… a tiny bit…
But back when this was a Christian culture, Flaubert’s “Madam Bovary”—the first “romance novel”—was condemned as porn, because it was seen as promoting adultry (just like all your soaps).
Yet you consider soaps okay, and a picture of a woman in a dress “pornography.”
Sigh. Don, you obviously aren’t engaging the arguments, but prefer instead to engage with a straw-man of your own devising. Have fun with that.
Jared, WHO was it who hasn’t engaged the arguments?
Don,
I started to list the arguments I was referring to but I’m not sure that would have been super productive. I think you started getting somewhere interesting and worthwhile in the following response: “I’m not talking about women the way that you do about men, just pointing out the nonsense of considering pictures of attractive women “porn” while ignoring the real incentives to sin in our society: soap operas and the WORDS in magazines like Cosmo.”
.
You’re point about the other kinds of less obvious things that lead people to sin is important and valid. If I understand you correctly, you keep bringing up the issues of soaps and the words in Cosmo because you first of all find them much more insidious, but second of all because you see it as hypocritical to criticize the cover of Cosmo without (or instead of) criticizing soaps and other things of that nature. I partially agree with the first point, but completely disagree with the second. It is rarely valid that a crusade against one evil thing is proved invalid or hypocritical simply because something else can be found that is more evil, even if it is somewhat related in content. If that were the case then all moral debate on anything should probably cease until abortion or human trafficking were erradicated. I couldn’t disagree more.
.
Part of the point I think is that sin is an interesting thing. It tends to insert itself into and/or use whatever is dominant in a given culture; i.e. whatever shapes and molds a given people. Past cultures were a whole lot more literarily based. Not that more people were literate, but that there was much more cultural oomph behind words, and people had to be cautious. We are an extremely visual culture and it stands to reason that we must be extra cautious of imagry, especially when so much of it is passively accepted (“I don’t even notice it” is what many people will say). But it’s been shown with many studies in advertising that we don’t just “not notice” images but take in certain values and messages that are inherant in images. Put a bikini clad woman in a beer commercial and you sell more beer. Put a bikini clad mother Theresa in a beer commercial and suddenly you’ve violated a deeper beauty. That’s interesting.
.
What does make me somewhat angry though, are your rather strange and sometimes offensive assumptions about the people trying to make their points here:
- They have a “fear of attractive women.”
- You’ve called them “female hypocrites [who] drive young men away from Catholicism.”
- That Simcha is apparently terrified by “pictures of attractive women” ... your suggestions: “it’s “[t]he competition”
.
As Chesterton said, “The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion.” Calling people names does just that. I was rather hoping that points would be made and addressed but instead you insulted people, kept bringing up soaps, and argued that the whole discussion was about the censoring of “pictures of attractive women.” That’s like saying people who don’t like strip clubs are against changing clothes. It’s unhelpful.
Don,
I responded but apparently it was too long so it has to be approved first. I hope that is soon.
At one of the grocery stores near my house in Toronto, Canada, there are designated checkout lines clearly marked as having “family friendly magazines.” With the large Catholic and Orthodox Jewish populations in the neighborhood, I think this is a very nice way to allow people to practice custody of the eyes should they choose, while still letting people look at celebrity cleavage if they really want to by choosing the other lanes.
And then you write essays like “Where did all the good men run off to”?
My simply stating the facts is not an attempt to stop discussion, but all these personal attacks on me are.
And then you write essays like “Where did all the good men run off to”?
.
I do? Can you name one?
Simcha Fisher,
So if you’re not the one who wrote “Where have all the good men gone?” that appeared a few weeks ago, sorry. But it did appear.
Maybe you’re referring to Jen Fulwiler’s piece,“Where Have All the Good (Wo)Men Gone,”
.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/where-have-all-the-good-women-gone/
.
which places equal responsibility on men and women for the ill effects on society when marriage is not valued.
MightyMighty, your comment was really offensive. I’m glad you’re not policing my grocery cart. So what if people on WIC can’t speak English? Maybe they’re just learning. Maybe they just got to this country. Maybe they aren’t able to get to classes because they don’t have someone to watch the kids while they go. So only English-speakers deserve food stamps? What about their kids? And why shouldn’t they buy alcohol, cigarettes, and junk food with their own money? It’s THEIR money. Or do they not deserve such luxuries, because they’re irresponsible enough to need WIC or foodstamps?
Target turns the Cosmo around…not that the back is any better than the front sometimes.
It made me smile to see Wegmans mentioned. I miss them terribly, and thejust-this-side-of-tacky, 70’s style font and orange-and-brown everything (last I was home, they were slowly changing to maroon) almost makes me miss the snow. What you might not know is that the Wegman family is Catholic. They’re major supporters of the Diocese of Rochester.
Also, a staggering majority of the cities they’re most prominent in, is Catholic. I’m talking Buffalo, Syraucse, Rochester, Albany.
I applaud Danny Wegman, and his organization, for upholding values.
(And, as other comments have mentioned, for being a freaking amazing store that surpasses all others in awesomeness, and makes me long for home.)
Wait, Don… since when do young MEN read Cosmo? Why on earth do you care?
Also, can you read? Simcha described the cleavage photo as “exceedingly tame.” It was the HEADLINES she was complaining about. You know: “Orgasm! Orgasm! How ‘bout them orgasms?” Stuff you might not want to explain to your eight year-old daughter.
http://www.change.org/petitions/grocery-store-remove-cosmopolitan-magazine-from-check-out-lane-for-families %>
THIS IS MY PETITION AGAINST IT. PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE ON FB. I need signatures to present to my Texas State Rep asking for a Bill to cover the edges.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.