Fuck you, bitch. Women’s bodies are not “dirty”. They are not pornographic, or explicit. They are our bodies.
Young women growing up in our society are still being taught that their genitals are something they should be ashamed of. We’re not supposed to know what they look like, or even touch them outside of what’s required for cleanliness. You’d think we’d be past the day that health information is deemed “dirty” or “explicit”.
I actually learned quite a bit by reading health articles in teen magazines. Not that my mother wasn’t open about answering my questions. But sometimes, there are things you’re too embarassed to ask about-no matter how open your mom may be, or things you don’t even think about. Some people aren’t so lucky to have parents that are honest and sharing. And we’re not learning this shit in school, even if you DO go to a school that doesn’t have an “abstinence only” policy. At least they get the info somewhere, even if it’s a frivolous teen periodical.
Now, I understand that Albertsons is not in any way required to sell the magazine. Fine. But why are factual articles about health issues too explicit, and Cosmo is not?
I just hope these girls whose parents call this “dirty” get the correct facts somewhere. It’s too serious to ignore.
Y’know, Albertsons, and their affiliated drugstore chain (Savon/Osco/Jewell) sell dozens of feminine hygiene and health-related items. Several of them come with instructions for use, printed right on the outside of the packagin.
In the drugstores, you can pick up a card with illustrated instructions for performing a breast self-examination. I wonder if they’re planning to start requiring plain brown wrappers for all of that stuff.
Call my broker, and have him buy as many shares as possible of producers of heavy brown paper.
Didn’t Readers Digest run a companion piece to its 1970 Classic “I am Joe’s Man Gland” entitled “I am Jane’s Cootyhole” or some such? Why are we moving backwards in providing information on these bits?
Normally when a publication is banned, or its existence challenged, I’m compelled to review first hand the source of the uproar. Not in this case I’m afraid.
That’s funny. I was unaware that Seventeen magazine included material other than embarrassing moments that involved exploding tampons/exploding bladders/bowel eruptions on the moment of one’s first kiss and advertisements for hip-hugger jeans and a rainbow assortment of eye makeup.
Y’see, when everyone expects your content to be brainless clothing advertisements and ‘underwear IQ’ quizzes, you can’t throw them a curveball and put out something that might prove informative. Nay, even relevant and important. One who is raised on junkfood is disturbed at the prospect of a nutritious meal.
Now see, I used to read SEVENTEEN, and other like publications, and they always did articles like this. Like I said, I picked up a lot of stuff I didn’t know about otherwise, that I wouldn’t have felt comfortable asking my mother about. Most of them have advice columns about health issues and such.
Not enough rolleye smileys for this one. These are the same fuckwits who don’t want their kids taught about sex in school, and have so many hangups that their ability to properly educate their kids is dubious at best. When are these asshats going to wake up and realize that reading an article or book about their sexual organs isn’t going to result in an instant nymphomaniac any more so than reading about medieval Europe makes one build a trebuchet and lay siege to the neighborhood. Oy! :smack:
Good gravy this kind of crap steams my noodle! I was a well-informed child/teen, but I too appreciated the information I got from magazines like Seventeen. Actually to this day I clearly recall reading an exceptionally informative acticle that consisted of a detailed description of a trip to the gynecologist in the “We Did It” (experiential journalism) section of the late, lamented Sassy magazine.
[sputter] that is the bullshittiest bullshit I ever… [/sputters]
Fair enough. I remember breezing through copies my female friends had at school and not finding much informative stuff. But then, it’s a magazine aimed at a specific demographic of which I certainly am not a part. I’ll concede my general ignorance. Either way, it’s a silly stunt on the part of that grocery store to ban a magazine for including hygienic information.
Tell that to my childhood neighbors, whose garage was laid waste when a text on the finer points of the ballistic principle of medieval weaponry was carelessly left on the coffee table…
Same idea, but maybe not synonymous. First-hand reporting is more associated with hard news, and the trip to the gynecologist article sounds like it’s more in the ‘help for your readers’ vein.