Oh yeah, there’s that. But I’ve never known a guy to turn a woman down solely based on the appearance of a vagina.
Oh, and you forgot “Seafood taco.” 
Yep, I think you’re right.
That’s cause you’re smoking hot, dear! (And very taken, by our own FaerieBeth, I believe!)
Sorry, I read it wrong.
It actually said “Insane Clown POSSE”.
People need to learn the difference between nudity and pornography. People who don’t know should look to either British TV or go to a nude beach to understand that nudity != pornography.
I would so much rather my (hypothetical) teenage girl be looking at color photographs of vaginas in a non-sexual context from Seventeen than to be learning 101 Ways to Take It Up the Ass Like a Champ[sup]TM[/sup] from Cosmo Girl. One is informative and useful, and the other is just pornographic.
If Albertson’s was at least self-consistent in its view of pornography and refused to (for example) sell the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue (non-nude pornography), then I’d at least have a modicum of respect for their position.
I’ve heard of the expression “badly packed kebab”, but I’ve never heard any man actually use it. OTOH I do remember an agonised lady writing to Virginia Ironside in Woman (my mother had a subscription) wracked with grief because (a) her labia minora protruded out of her labia majora and (b) she had convinced herself that she had done this to herself by masturbating.
And on the gripping hand, fairly sound rumour has it that Marjorie Proops, another famous agony auntie, never let Mr Proops have any because she was revolted and/or terrified by the Proopmonster. Talk about “physician heal thyself”.
I suppose I could see this back in the 80’s or early 90’s, but let’s be real here. Any kid over 12 that wants to find porn, or look at naked pictures for the purposes of arousal can easily find them now on the net. Not like back in my days of early teen hood where the JCPenny catalouge was about as hot as a boy could find. Taking the magazines off simply because they have a picture of a vagina in them is pretty frickin’ lame. And as the father of a little girl that will grow into a teen ager, I’d rather she have some kind of method for finding out this type of information than to just rumor from friends.
I would, frankly, be astonished if more than 10% of the readers of Seventeen were male. It’s a girls magazine aimed exclusively (judged from content) at teen girls. Their advertising demos list 14MM+ monthly viewers (for the website) aged 12+ and 1.9MM aged 17+.
And I’d wager the few males who DO pick it up are looking for cheap thrills.
I only jerk off to the articles.
I would have been happy to find that article in a Seventeen when I was a teenager. I didn’t know where any of that stuff was until I was involved in a sexual relationship. (He told me about it. Heh.) Teenage boys can see their own sex organs in a way that teenage girls can’t (without a mirror, anyway). And yes, it’s a picture of a vagina. But I’d rather have any of my own curious (future) children, of any age and either gender, to be able to see a picture of a vagina in a non-sexual context than to have to Google “naked woman nether regions” and see a picture of a vagina on a woman with fake boobs and no pubic hair.
There’s nothing wrong with a vagina, in and of itself! Say it, people! Teach your girls that!
My grandmother, bless her heart, randomly sends me magazines; Seventeen is one of the random ones she sends me. Now, I dislike Seventeen, as it is rather…er…childish, but if I am bored I will flip through.
For what it is worth: I am FAR from a prude. I’ve got my fair share of crazy porn and I love me some hot, gyrating (non pregnant!) Britney Spears’ videos .
But when I flipped open to that part of the magazine, I just sort of stopped. I’m used to seeing the outlines of breasts (or even full on breasts when they are discussing women that have had cancer) or outlines of butts, but not full-on vagina.
Do I think it is ugly and shameful? Of course not. Would I want my child to know all about hers long before she hits 17, so this would be no shock to her? Of course. Would I be a little peeved if a magazine that is targeted at an underaged audience just decided to slap in some vagina pictures without my knowledge? A lil bit.
I’d imagine people would be even angrier had they posted pictures of erect penises (peni? penii?).
I apologize for the babbly-ness of this post, but I imagine I can see both sides of the argument. In Biology class, we saw a tape of people having sex (it was very clinical and there were cameras attached to their bits and- let me tell ya- it was the most unsexy thing I have ever seen), but parents knew ahead of time and had a choice to opt their kids out of it. The magazine skipped the parental step and I can see where that might upset some people.
According to an unrelated article that appeared in Business Wire,
*Seventeen is the largest monthly beauty/fashion magazine in America written for young women, 12-24 years old. Seventeen reaches 87% of all female teens, 12-19, every year.
*
It is written specifically for girls and does not presume to have any male readership at all. It is so iconically female that I would doubt any teenaged boy would dare to be caught with a copy. Once upon a time Details was supposed to be a sort of Seventeen for boys, but it didn’t really work out like that.
It’s not the magazine’s job to make sure parents know what their kids are reading.
Also, if my daughter opened the magazine and saw gaping vaginas, I would still prefer that to “Today’s makeup and fashion tips or: how to look like a whore and bankrupt your parents in one easy step.”
If your child is under 16, and not earning their own money, then the parents should be reading the magazine first to see if there is any content that would be ‘objectionable’, seeing as it’s their dime and all. There’s your parental control.
At 16, when most girls are working after school jobs and thus have their own money, if the article is clinical enough to make it past the censorship standards at publishing, then I fail to see why there’s an issue if they buy it and read it.
IMHO, ‘pornographic’ relates to anything used for tittilation. I hardly think a yeasty vagina is going to get girls all hot and bothered, and ready to go out on the town for some lovin’.
(1) penises
(2) I would certainly be offended if Seventeen had pictures of erect penises. An erect penis suggests arousal – that qualifies as pornography, IMO. In addition, a penis (at all) is probably out of place in a female magazine.
Not really. Not if they were illustrating the difference between an erect penis and a flacid one, one that’s been circumcized, one that hasn’t, etc.
Somebody might agree with you, since it seems some people out there think if anything is remotely related to sex, it’s pornographic. But that’s not porn. Porn is intended to arouse the reader/viewer.
Just wanted to second that this is absolutely not so. You think females aren’t interested in penises?