Am I the only one who feels this way?

[mom31257]

I am over the magazine covers. I think my blood pressure goes up a few points with each and every passing month. The Sports Illustrated and Glamour covers are beyond ridiculous. I am sick to death of how women are viewed in this country and how many women contribute to it by buying the magazines. Does anyone not care about children anymore or protecting their minds from those images? Do we really want the boys of today growing up thinking that is what women are supposed to do and look like? Why is it that girls being hot now is more important that being pretty?

 

UUUUUGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

 

Thank you for letting me rant!

[Hilltop]

You are not the only one. When I stand in the checkout line, I turn them all around if I have time. :laugh:

[Forget-Me-Not]

Agree 10000000%

[jewellsmommy]

I know you are not the only one who feels this way. It is disheartening to see the level of objectification that goes on in our society. I hate those calendars and car ads that have barely clothed women stretched out on them. If a product is a good product, then don't hide it under a half-naked woman (or man). I do worry for the young girls growing up that don't have someone in their life to tell them that their value is not tied to their bra size. :sad:

 

 

I am over the magazine covers. I think my blood pressure goes up a few points with each and every passing month. The Sports Illustrated and Glamour covers are beyond ridiculous. I am sick to death of how women are viewed in this country and how many women contribute to it by buying the magazines. Does anyone not care about children anymore or protecting their minds from those images? Do we really want the boys of today growing up thinking that is what women are supposed to do and look like? Why is it that girls being hot now is more important that being pretty?

 

UUUUUGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

 

Thank you for letting me rant!

 

[mlbuchina]

Amen, sister! I was at the store with my girls this afternoon and was thinking the same thing! Sometimes, even they will turn all the covers around. :) I went to turn one around the other day, but the back was just as bad. Some perfume ad, I think it was.

[Unicorn.]

Nope, you aren't the only one. I've always thought that, though. I have always thought of SI as nothing more than a socially acceptable form of penth0use or playb0y. Cosmo is nothing but a s@x mag, etc. I'm not happy that someone got the girls a subscription to 17 for Christmas either. If they had asked, I would have told them no.

[Unicorn.]

Amen, sister! I was at the store with my girls this afternoon and was thinking the same thing! Sometimes, even they will turn all the covers around. :) I went to turn one around the other day, but the back was just as bad. Some perfume ad, I think it was.

 

 

Omg- those are the Worst! Yes, stupid advertiser, a picture of a naked women really makes me ( a woman) want to buy your perfume-not, not, not, not, NOT!

[Arcadia]

My kids had seen plenty at grocery checkouts, Target checkouts and 7 Eleven checkouts. We have also seen FHM and Esquire displayed at kids eye-level.

 

Girls being "hot" started before Madonna, continued with Kylie Minogue, Britney Spears and probably racier now.

 

I know friends who have access to P*boy and P*girl magazines so it is unfortunate but not new. Same goes for the ladies dressing at car shows. Guys that I know go just to pose for photos with the ladies at car shows.

[regentrude]

nm

[SunnyDays]

I accepted a free trial subscription to Glamour as a bonus at Ulta a while back. I'd already decided not to continue it as I just don't ever read it. This month's issue came the other day. Holy moly... My husband brought the mail in and said he had to look twice to see what mag it was. And with a preteen boy in the house... No thanks.

[Joanne]

No, you are clearly and obviously not the only one.

 

But there are other perspectives.

 

Mine is that the human body has been fascinating, tintillating, provocative, and alluring since we got here by whatever force you think that happened.

 

Sex IS important. Sex is fun. Sex feels good. Thinking about sex feels good. Most people spend a lot of time thinking about sex. Depictions of sex show up in art and print from the earliest of recorded history.

 

I think that imbuing the magazine covers with *extra* power focuses just as much, if not more on sex than the covers themselves.

 

I'd like to believe that the majority can (and do) balance their lives with a discerning eye for true importance. I'm sure most people would hold a door for the next in line, make a meal for a family with a sick parent in the hospital, supervise homework of their schoolkids, are cordial to neighbors, and avoid litfering. Some even use reusable grocery bags. ;)

 

Many perfectly splendid people enjoy those magazines, pictures and all, and with wise balance and a prioritized life.

 

The presence and enjoyment of those magazines may simply mean nothing more than our technology has allowed for the expression to take that form - but the same expression of sex is universal and timeless. It's not like severely conservative cultures and societies have *elevated* women's power and status.

[Maela]

No, you are clearly and obviously not the only one.

 

But there are other perspectives.

 

Mine is that the human body has been fascinating, tintillating, provocative, and alluring since we got here by whatever force you think that happened.

 

Sex IS important. Sex is fun. Sex feels good. Thinking about sex feels good. Most people spend a lot of time thinking about sex. Depictions of sex show up in art and print from the earliest of recorded history.

 

I think that imbuing the magazine covers with *extra* power focuses just as much, if not more on sex than the covers themselves.

 

I'd like to believe that the majority can (and do) balance their lives with a discerning eye for true importance. I'm sure most people would hold a door for the next in line, make a meal for a family with a sick parent in the hospital, supervise homework of their schoolkids, are cordial to neighbors, and avoid litfering. Some even use reusable grocery bags. ;)

 

Many perfectly splendid people enjoy those magazines, pictures and all, and with wise balance and a prioritized life.

 

The presence and enjoyment of those magazines may simply mean nothing more than our technology has allowed for the exp<b></b>ression to take that form - but the same exp<b></b>ression of sex is universal and timeless. It's not like severely conservative cultures and societies have *elevated* women's power and status.

Well said.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I am perfectly comfortable with sex. However, I am irritated by magazines with scantily clad, pouty mouthed women making sexy eyes at the camera (aka reader) in great numbers being at eye level within 1 foot of the baby bottle candy and mini princess/Lego toys at checkout. Do I make a huge production of it? No. In fact, the kids and I had a pretty meaningful conversation the other day when DS6 asked me about one cover in particular.

 

Sex is awesome, yes. Sexy is alluring, yes. But I would appreciate the lures being kept away from young kids.

[Elinor Everywhere]

No, you are clearly and obviously not the only one.

 

But there are other perspectives.

 

Mine is that the human body has been fascinating, tintillating, provocative, and alluring since we got here by whatever force you think that happened.

 

Sex IS important. Sex is fun. Sex feels good. Thinking about sex feels good. Most people spend a lot of time thinking about sex. Depictions of sex show up in art and print from the earliest of recorded history.

 

I think that imbuing the magazine covers with *extra* power focuses just as much, if not more on sex than the covers themselves.

 

I'd like to believe that the majority can (and do) balance their lives with a discerning eye for true importance. I'm sure most people would hold a door for the next in line, make a meal for a family with a sick parent in the hospital, supervise homework of their schoolkids, are cordial to neighbors, and avoid litfering. Some even use reusable grocery bags. ;)

 

Many perfectly splendid people enjoy those magazines, pictures and all, and with wise balance and a prioritized life.

 

The presence and enjoyment of those magazines may simply mean nothing more than our technology has allowed for the exp<b></b>ression to take that form - but the same exp<b></b>ression of sex is universal and timeless. It's not like severely conservative cultures and societies have *elevated* women's power and status.

 

I "liked" this, but it didn't seem enough. :D

[aggieamy]

I am perfectly comfortable with sex. However, I am irritated by magazines with scantily clad, pouty mouthed women making sexy eyes at the camera (aka reader) in great numbers being at eye level within 1 foot of the baby bottle candy and mini princess/Lego toys at checkout. Do I make a huge production of it? No. In fact, the kids and I had a pretty meaningful conversation the other day when DS6 asked me about one cover in particular.

 

Sex is awesome, yes. Sexy is alluring, yes. But I would appreciate the lures being kept away from young kids.

 

Yes! I don't want to have to explain the terms used on some magazines to my eight year old. She knows about the birds and bees BUT that doesn't mean she has to know about all the other bedroom activities adults can participate in.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Yes! I don't want to have to explain the terms used on some magazines to my eight year old. She knows about the birds and bees BUT that doesn't mean she has to know about all the other bedroom activities adults can participate in.

 

True. The words actually upset me much more than the images. They can be significantly harder to explain too.

[albeto]

I am over the magazine covers. I think my blood pressure goes up a few points with each and every passing month. The Sports Illustrated and Glamour covers are beyond ridiculous. I am sick to death of how women are viewed in this country and how many women contribute to it by buying the magazines. Does anyone not care about children anymore or protecting their minds from those images? Do we really want the boys of today growing up thinking that is what women are supposed to do and look like? Why is it that girls being hot now is more important that being pretty?

 

UUUUUGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

 

Thank you for letting me rant!

 

I used to feel very much this way. When I lost my faith, I found my self really analyzing what I believed, what I thought, what I valued, and why. Sex was one of those things that got shifted in my value-system because pleasure, for the sake of pleasure, was interpreted and valued differently. Now I don't think of sex as "intimate," "private," or "special" unless the circumstances provide for that kind of experience. When circumstances don't provide for that kind of experience, it doesn't seem to me to be lesser in value or importance. I guess it's kind of like saying champagne is a fabulous drink for special occasions, but drinking it with breakfast on a lazy Sunday morning "just because" doesn't make celebrating an anniversary with a nice glass of champagne any less special.

 

My kids are all teenagers now, and have probably seen more skin and sex on the computer than I ever have. They've learned to ignore it an move on to what they are truly interested in. I will say I haven't seen my children show less respect to women than to men, to minorities than their [Caucasian] race, to people with special needs than typically physically and cognitively developed persons. In other words, they are genuinely courteous, respectful, responsible, compassionate, and endlessly curious young adults, and I wouldn't expect any different from them simply because these are what their father and I value most. That's what's been modeled to them. My husband doesn't treat me with any disrespect, and I am a third generation feminist (that I know, my grandmother's mother was probably a spite-fire feminist in her own era as well). I grew up with sisters only, I went to an all girls' high school. I never knew women were supposed to be objectified or treated like second class citizens, and I cannot recall a time I experienced felling objectified.

 

To the best of my knowledge, my daughter is as self-confident and independent as I would desire for her. She's got a damn good head on her shoulders, is self-motivated, humble, extraordinarily kind, and yet she played with Bratz dolls when she was younger, wears bikinis, and lives in a home with unlimited, unsupervised access to the internet. All the variables for feeling objectified should be there, right? But I think it's more than those few external variables. It think it's more a matter of how a girl develops her self-identity based in part on how she is treated at home and how she witnesses girls and women around her treated. Other variables include things like how she interprets her problem-solving abilities, and whether or not she responds to her environment as a participant or as a witness. I think ultimately, these photos on magazines are one very small part of an entire, complex culture, and so I don't interpret them as a threat any more.

[VaKim]

True. The words actually upset me much more than the images. They can be significantly harder to explain too.

 

Same here! The trash that is sitting right out there for everyone to see, at one time had to be kept behind the counter and only obtained if you were an adult.

[Night Elf]

I was at Barnes and Noble last weekend and the latest issue of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2013 was on the stand. The stand was short, eye level for kids. I was floored. I guess I should have complained but I saw it as I was walking out and it just surprised me.

[lavender's green]

Honestly, I think part of the reason they do this is to stir up a controversy. There's no such thing as bad press. The magazine companies love that we're all here wasting mental energy on them.

 

I had pretty much forgotten the things existed! But my husband is the king of non-wandering eyes, and I don't have kids at an age where they'd notice. I'm not saying that the solution is: don't look. When I have to actually start thinking about it, I'm sure I'll be PO'd.

[4kidlets4me]

Around here the stores have black covers over any magazine near the registers that have risque topics or models on the cover. So while People is open for everyone to see, Cosmo has the cover thing on it and you actually have to move it to see anything. I thought that was commonplace, guess not.

[Moxie]

I love Tina Fey--

 

“But I think the first real change in women’s body image came when JLo turned it butt-style. That was the first time that having a large-scale situation in the back was part of mainstream American beauty. Girls wanted butts now. Men were free to admit that they had always enjoyed them. And then, what felt like moments later, boom—Beyoncé brought the leg meat. A back porch and thick muscular legs were now widely admired. And from that day forward, women embraced their diversity and realized that all shapes and sizes are beautiful. Ah ha ha. No. I’m totally messing with you. All Beyonce and JLo have done is add to the laundry list of attributes women must have to qualify as beautiful. Now every girl is expected to have Caucasian blue eyes, full Spanish lips, a classic button nose, hairless Asian skin with a California tan, a Jamaican dance hall ass, long Swedish legs, small Japanese feet, the abs of a lesbian gym owner, the hips of a nine-year-old boy, the arms of Michelle Obama, and doll tits. The person closest to actually achieving this look is Kim Kardashian, who, as we know, was made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes.â€

[Dandelion]

I love Tina Fey--

 

“But I think the first real change in women’s body image came when JLo turned it butt-style. That was the first time that having a large-scale situation in the back was part of mainstream American beauty. Girls wanted butts now. Men were free to admit that they had always enjoyed them. And then, what felt like moments later, boom—Beyoncé brought the leg meat. A back porch and thick muscular legs were now widely admired. And from that day forward, women embraced their diversity and realized that all shapes and sizes are beautiful. Ah ha ha. No. I’m totally messing with you. All Beyonce and JLo have done is add to the laundry list of attributes women must have to qualify as beautiful. Now every girl is expected to have Caucasian blue eyes, full Spanish lips, a classic button nose, hairless Asian skin with a California tan, a Jamaican dance hall ass, long Swedish legs, small Japanese feet, the abs of a lesbian gym owner, the hips of a nine-year-old boy, the arms of Michelle Obama, and doll tits. The person closest to actually achieving this look is Kim Kardashian, who, as we know, was made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes.â€

 

 

 

LOL. That about sums it up. And finally, we have an explanation for Kim Kardashian that makes sense. Thank you Tina Fey! :smilielol5:

[amsunshine]

I remember when I first saw magazines prominently displayed at newstands on the streets of Paris. Whoa. That was an eye-opener. The magazines here in the states seem so tame, now, to me.

 

But yes, when I notice that there's a racy magazine situated right next to the kiddie toys/candy in the checkout aisle, I kinda wonder what the thinking was behind that pairing.

[4kidlets4me]

 

I haven't seen that. My local stores don't seem to offer a lot of magazines at the registers though. They might have a few basic ones, mostly tabloids, but for a bigger selection you have to go to the aisle with the magazines.

 

 

We don't have that many at the registers either. Tabloids, People, Cosmo, and then stuff like Real Simple and Oprah. To get a decent selection of magazines you need to go to Barnes and Noble. Grocery stores only have a limited selection.

[Faithr]

I am for sex! But I don't think exploiting it on magazine covers to up sales and sell merchandise is glorifying sex. If anything it makes it boring, tawdry, shallow and causes insecurities about it. That kind of mass selling of it teaches us to objective each other. It is dehumanizing, not humanizing. Especially to women.

[HRAAB]

No, you are clearly and obviously not the only one.

 

But there are other perspectives.

 

Mine is that the human body has been fascinating, tintillating, provocative, and alluring since we got here by whatever force you think that happened.

 

Sex IS important. Sex is fun. Sex feels good. Thinking about sex feels good. Most people spend a lot of time thinking about sex. Depictions of sex show up in art and print from the earliest of recorded history.

 

I think that imbuing the magazine covers with *extra* power focuses just as much, if not more on sex than the covers themselves.

 

I'd like to believe that the majority can (and do) balance their lives with a discerning eye for true importance. I'm sure most people would hold a door for the next in line, make a meal for a family with a sick parent in the hospital, supervise homework of their schoolkids, are cordial to neighbors, and avoid litfering. Some even use reusable grocery bags. ;)

 

Many perfectly splendid people enjoy those magazines, pictures and all, and with wise balance and a prioritized life.

 

The presence and enjoyment of those magazines may simply mean nothing more than our technology has allowed for the expression to take that form - but the same expression of sex is universal and timeless. It's not like severely conservative cultures and societies have *elevated* women's power and status.

 

 

If I were better able to explain my thoughts, this is what I would say. Well said.

[sassenach]

I was shocked to find that they had SI on display in the dairy/beer aisle on very short racks when I went to Safeway yesterday. The racks are 2 year old sizes. I can't even buy cheese without having to run the gauntlet.

[LucyStoner]

I don't understand why people put hot and pretty as exclusive of each other. Frankly it sounds to me like the classic sexist bias between the "the girls you marry and the girls you (mess around) with."

 

I do think that magazine covers like this can set up very unrealistic images of female beauty and sexual power. Point of fact most of them aren't real - look at the published photo vs. the unretouched photo to say nothing of the plastic surgery, makeup and such. I don't really care what they publish, I'm not buying it. That said, I am all for women dressing or feeling as hot (and as pretty as they are.) l can't get behind shaming women over how they dress, on magazine covers or not. When my husband looks at me, I definitely feel hot. Not some asexual version of femininity that gets dubbed as appropriately pretty. That said, I have a husband who doesn't go in for an unrealistic idea of beauty and is certainly not, as he says, "the dude bro" buying Maxim or going to car shows to pose with models.

 

Eta- there are also many ads that capitalize on the sexual dis-empowerment of women and the fetishistic view of rape or violence as sex that permeates our culture. This view comes hand in hand with the shaming of "hot" women.

[Julie in CA]

I don't mind the sex. I don't even mind the crass terms used to refer to sex.

 

What I do mind is how prevalent the Photoshopped pictures are, and the fact that the media (including tv, magazines, etc) does it's very best to let my girls know that they are physically (and it's implied, sexually) deficient, because none of us are *ever* gonna look *anything* like those pictures. No woman in reality can ever match up to what many, many men now believe is the standard for beautiful. I'm pretty sure that the majority of men do not have any idea just how far even the models are from looking anything like the pictures.

[freeindeed]

I have no problem with sex at all. I have a problem with my dd12 (who is 5' 5" and weighs 105 and is actually underweight according to the BMI) calling herself "fat in the stomach" and "hideously flat" in the chest b/c she doesn't look like overly plastic, airbrushed celebrity women on magazine covers. Oh, and not to mention...what the cr&p is Hannah Montana--OK, Miley now--doing showing her b00bs on a magazine cover? I mean, really!!!

[Wildcat]

. 

 

[albeto]

If anything it makes it boring, tawdry, shallow and causes insecurities about it.

 

Not necessarily.

 

:coolgleamA:

[albeto]

I have no problem with sex at all. I have a problem with my dd12 (who is 5' 5" and weighs 105 and is actually underweight according to the BMI) calling herself "fat in the stomach" and "hideously flat" in the chest b/c she doesn't look like overly plastic, airbrushed celebrity women on magazine covers. Oh, and not to mention...what the cr&p is Hannah Montana--OK, Miley now--doing showing her b00bs on a magazine cover? I mean, really!!!

 

Do you think it's because your daughter doesn't look like overly plastic, airbrushed celebrity women, or maybe she has less-than-ideal self-confidence in general? Self-confidence, self-identity, anxiety, and the like express themselves in things like how we interpret how we look to ourselves and to others. I don't think they are caused by unrealistic expectations any more than washing hands 40 times a day causes OCD.

[Moxie]

Do you think it's because your daughter doesn't look like overly plastic, airbrushed celebrity women, or maybe she has less-than-ideal self-confidence in general? Self-confidence, self-identity, anxiety, and the like express themselves in things like how we interpret how we look to ourselves and to others. I don't think they are caused by unrealistic expectations any more than washing hands 40 times a day causes OCD.

 

 

Oh, I totally disagree. I think being presented with these unrealistic ideas about what men supposedly want, what it *beautiful*, on a near constant basis does terrible damage to how a girl views her own image. Laura Ingalls Wilder and Louisa May Alcott never wrote about feeling fat!

[BlessedMom]

You are definitely not alone.

[J-rap]

I am over the magazine covers. I think my blood pressure goes up a few points with each and every passing month. The Sports Illustrated and Glamour covers are beyond ridiculous. I am sick to death of how women are viewed in this country and how many women contribute to it by buying the magazines. Does anyone not care about children anymore or protecting their minds from those images? Do we really want the boys of today growing up thinking that is what women are supposed to do and look like? Why is it that girls being hot now is more important that being pretty?

 

UUUUUGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

 

Thank you for letting me rant!

 

 

I agree with you 100%!! Sure, sex is good and sex is fun, but many girls grow up in families where there is not clear direction. They grow up getting their self-esteem from a twisted sense of what they need to do to gain acceptance and what's most important in the long haul. And, if they don't look like the girls they see on the magazine covers, they feel inadequate.

[Marylou]

If sex is so wonderful, and it is, then why don't we all start doing it in the aisles of Target?

 

snip~I think that imbuing the magazine covers with *extra* power focuses just as much, if not more on sex than the covers themselves.~snip What does that even mean?

 

We don't have sex in the store aisles because there is such a thing as decent behavior which is determined usually by the setting and circumstances. There are many things we can do in private which are not appropriate to do in public. I'm not talking here about morally wrong actions such as murder. If I have sex with my husband on the kitchen floor when the children are away at camp~fine. If we do the same thing while having a dinner party for guests~not cool (or decent).

 

http://www.americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1716

[regentrude]

They grow up getting their self-esteem from a twisted sense of what they need to do to gain acceptance and what's most important in the long haul. And, if they don't look like the girls they see on the magazine covers, they feel inadequate.

 

I doubt that accidentally glancing at magazine covers while waiting in the checkout line is causing girls to have problems with self-esteem and body image. Those few minutes are not what does the damage - the exposure to unrealistic images through TV watching does.

[Joanne]

If sex is so wonderful, and it is, then why don't we all start doing it in the aisles of Target?

 

snip~I think that imbuing the magazine covers with *extra* power focuses just as much, if not more on sex than the covers themselves.~snip What does that even mean?

 

We don't have sex in the store aisles because there is such a thing as decent behavior which is determined usually by the setting and circumstances. There are many things we can do in private which are not appropriate to do in public. I'm not talking here about morally wrong actions such as murder. If I have sex with my husband on the kitchen floor when the children are away at camp~fine. If we do the same thing while having a dinner party for guests~not cool (or decent).

 

http://www.americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1716

 

This is a non sequitor to the topic.

 

[kitten18]

 

I think doing it on a hard floor like in a store would be pretty uncomfortable.

 

Yeah, it would be cold too.

 

 

The SI swimsuit issue is in my magazine basket right now. No one (not even dh) has even glanced at it, I guess it will go in the recycling soon.

[justamouse]

I used to be able to ignore them, but this month? They look like Playboy and Maxim.

 

Ugh.

 

I am becoming that Mom who has a talk to the store manager.

[justamouse]

No, you are clearly and obviously not the only one.

 

But there are other perspectives.

 

Mine is that the human body has been fascinating, tintillating, provocative, and alluring since we got here by whatever force you think that happened.

 

Sex IS important. Sex is fun. Sex feels good. Thinking about sex feels good. Most people spend a lot of time thinking about sex. Depictions of sex show up in art and print from the earliest of recorded history.

 

I think that imbuing the magazine covers with *extra* power focuses just as much, if not more on sex than the covers themselves.

 

I'd like to believe that the majority can (and do) balance their lives with a discerning eye for true importance. I'm sure most people would hold a door for the next in line, make a meal for a family with a sick parent in the hospital, supervise homework of their schoolkids, are cordial to neighbors, and avoid litfering. Some even use reusable grocery bags. ;)

 

Many perfectly splendid people enjoy those magazines, pictures and all, and with wise balance and a prioritized life.

 

The presence and enjoyment of those magazines may simply mean nothing more than our technology has allowed for the expression to take that form - but the same expression of sex is universal and timeless. It's not like severely conservative cultures and societies have *elevated* women's power and status.

 

 

Those magazines are not about empowerment, or sex, they are about an *abstraction* of those things.

 

Naked bodies? Awesome. Sistine Chapel, Rodin, heck, even earlier Picasso. Those are beautiful. Why? Because they are based on reality. Why Rubenesque (as in the artist's work and thusly shaped women) women are beautiful? Because the body IS beautiful. I would argue that it is THE most beautiful creation (or accident some say) of this world, in its interior and exterior.

 

Those magazine shots are based on no reality whatsoever. At least campaigns like Dove and some stars that will get photos without makeup or airbrushing are starting to wake up.

 

Sex? I'm totally there. Slap and tickle, or sacred and holy. Fun all around. For its purpose of binding two people in physicality, emotion, and spirituality? It is a beautiful thing. Hormone washes, sensual assaults that (can be) the glue of marriage? It's beautiful, even with all its noisy mistakes and messes.

 

Cosmos newest funky sex move that's sure to have him begging for more? That is not empowering, that's demeaning, because it's teaching you that to keep his attraction you're going to have to NOT be yourself with all your human insecurities (which when shared are bonding, and ignored are soul crushing), but you'll have to try this lame technique that will keep him interested for another month--until they release the next best sex move. It turns sex and its participants into a commodity, and that is just the most awful thing to a young, single woman or a man. That they, in all their beauty, are nothing but a commodity. It promotes a hookup culture that destroys women's self esteem--especially when they figure out they've been sold snake oil by magazines like that.

 

This post modern relativism is the reason we're suffering a swath of depressed, anorexic young adults, and your answer? For a therapist? I'm disappointed.

[Marylou]

Yes, my comments are definitely relevant to the conversation started by OP.

 

Standing at the CVS pharmacy counter to pay for my Rx~ (child's eye level) "Do [it] ____________(fill with sexually explicit words) until he screams!" Really? I want to talk about sex at home on my terms, WHEN my child is ready. If I make my child stay in the car, that is risky (and wrong!) Have her stay up by the photo area (yeah, right!) There are even mags up there (not to mention, I always keep an eye on my children in public).

 

This "in your face porn" is everywhere.

 

Well, maybe not at Aldi's! And I am one of those moms who tells the manager if there is a store that sells the same thing I am buying in his store, but w/o the porn display, I'm going to patronize that store every week.

 

Here's an inexpensive way to see if management knows the junk they're selling is indecent . . . Go to your local library and make color copies of just the front of Cosmo. Take them to the store manger and show them [pointing out and reading the "topics" aloud (if no children are present)]. I can guarantee you he will ask you to stop before you get to the 3rd one. And his/her face will be a little pinker than it was previously. Indecency is everywhere. Most people just don't care anymore.

[Marylou]

Ten Sure Signs We've Lost Our Minds

 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2013/02/19/10-sure-signs-weve-lost-our-minds/