Please Complain

[mom2boyz]

Yesterday I was at Target with my 2 sons. While we were in the check out line I noticed that the Vanity Fair magazine. The cover is a picture of a very scantly clad woman draping herself over a man dressed in a business suit. What little clothes the woman has on are flesh colored so that when you first glance at the magazine it appears that she is naked. At the same time I noticed the magazine so did my 8 y/o son. The placement of the magazine was approximately 2-3 feet from the floor which is the perfect point of vision for young children. I quickly turned the magazine around so you could not see the front. When I asked my son what he saw he said he thought it was a woman without her shirt on. I was livid. I spoke with the store manager and told her how inappropriate it was to place this magazine at a child’s eye level. I suggested that they put a magazine cover over the front so that only the title showed. Her response to me was that since this was a national chain she would have to talk with management. She said the placement of this magazine was determined by corporate. If I am the only one who complains then the magazine will stay exactly where it is. If you see this magazine at your Target store and you find it’s placement inappropriate, please complain to the store manager. Maybe if they get enough complaints they will move it.

 

[amdgjmj]

This is the cover. I didn’t want to actually put the picture in my post because it is very immodest, so beware. Moderators, please remove this post if you think having the link is inappropriate. But I was curious and thought that others might be moved to complain if they saw the cover for themselves. After seeing this I will go to Target for the sole purpose of complaining!

subscribe.condenet.com/images_covers/cover_vanityfair_190.jpg

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I would of told her: “Wrong Answer” and demanded my money back for anything I bought there.

 

[Bennie_P]

This is the cover. I didn’t want to actually put the picture in my post because it is very immodest, so beware. Moderators, please remove this post if you think having the link is inappropriate. But I was curious and thought that others might be moved to complain if they saw the cover for themselves. After seeing this I will go to Target for the sole purpose of complaining!

subscribe.condenet.com/images_covers/cover_vanityfair_190.jpg

Let your fingers do the walking… 1.800.440.0680

target.com/gp/browse.html/ref=br_bx_0/602-0568600-2896666?ie=UTF8&node=3370571

 

[mrsfrazier]

The cover is a picture of a very scantly clad woman draping herself over a man dressed in a business suit. What little clothes the woman has on are flesh colored so that when you first glance at the magazine it appears that she is naked.

I was in a store a few days ago and was upset by this very same magazine!! I took all the front magazine, turned it over so the back was facing outwards, and just left the store. Thankfully it was at adult eye level, but still…At first I was shocked, thinking that someone had unwrapped a pornographic magazine and put it front and center of the magazine display. Shouldn’t pictures like this have to be covered?

 

[Island_Oak]

Was at Target today and saw nary a sign of the VF magazine. I did see it this past weekend on my girls’ weekend trip with some friends. I wanted to get a copy because of several great articles I didn’t get to finish, but was hesitant to bring the “Tony Soprano-draped-in- half-naked-babe” cover into my home.

 

[Julianna]

Ah yes…this is where I and the National Organization of I-dont-know-what-kind-of-women part company. This is degrading towards women and sends the wrong message about the female gender. In order to appeal to the masses…we must be anorexic, naked and perched on the lap of a man. We wonder why young girls today have the “monica lewinsky syndrome”…and casual sex runs rampant.

I often wonder where the above mentioned organization is when women are depicted in this manner. Eye level to an 8 yr old boy…and I am sure there are many others with the same type of photograph…what would he think?

I am stunned and amazed how management reacted to the OP. How unfortunate. Perhaps I am looking at this from a different point of view. But when I see something like this…I feel once again, women being degraded.

I believe Dr. Laura would view this as soft porn.

The suffregettes must be rolling over in their graves.

 

[Jay2]

In order to appeal to the masses…we must be anorexic, naked and perched on the lap of a man.

Well, the gal is far from anorexic…(she’s actually quite…), is clothed (albeit in a body stocking), and is perched on the lap of a (perceived powerful & wealthy) man.

Right or wrong some women will do whatever is necessary to glom onto power & wealth. A life of leisure & pampering in exchange for being a trophy or hood ornament… and going into this knowing they are the “Flavor of the Month”. And you’d be lying to yourself if you say that this is not true.

Vanity Fair has always run “questionable” cover shots… remember the one of Demi Moore pregnant, one arm across her breasts, the other on her belly?? (or was that Rolling Stone…) None the less, still a naked woman! Does pregnancy make a nationally published female nude more “acceptable”?

“The Soprano’s” is a cable TV show - only available to those who subscribe - not on the public airwaves… If you want to see Mr. Bigwig & Miss Tastybit you have to pay for it.

Peruse the mag rack at any checkout (other than a truckstop) and you’ll see Cosmo, People, or Redbook. All have cover-shots of women showing cleavage at a minimum! They’ll also have in bold text… “What your man really wants”… “How to spice up your sex life”… “How to make your man last all night long”…

Go to a truckstop and you’ll see magazines with plastic cover wrappers (censoring the photo). These are blatantly soft or hard core pornography magazines… but the uncovered text still exclaims “How to keep your man up all night”… exactly the same as the non-covered grocery store magazines do.

Eye level to an 8 yr old boy…

Along with 100,000 calories of Hershey bars, junk food, and Nintendo replacement batteries.

Use this experience as a tool to teach! Yes, it may be inappropriate to your standards… but explain that this material is an expression of our Constitutional Rights as citizens. It may be wrong in your eyes, but our system allows freedom of press and choice.
Let your teaching be the judge. “Yes Jimmy, she’s naked… but that’s not how our family lives.”…
“Why?”… “Because there’s a time & place for a man & woman to…”

Be honest with your kids. Tell them & explain to them how they got here… and not the “Stork” story.

If you can’t handle this you’re doing your kids a disservice.

(Who is Dr. Laura… and what are her credentials?.. I know Dr. Phil, and he’s a gozillionaire from promoting screwed up folks…)

 

[mom2boyz]

I did use this as a teaching time. What I taught is that sometimes adults don’t care what they do that might harm children. They don’t care if the innocence of a young child is stolen. I also taught my son that I stand up for his innocence and tell other less caring adults that they don’t have the right to take away his innocence. I also taught him yesterday that it really makes mommy mad when adults don’t care about the well being of children. Furthermore I don’t take my children to truck stops. Why is it your freedom of speech has the right impinge on my freedom of the pursuit of happiness? Where in the world do you get off telling me that I didn’t handle this? I made an attempt to protect the innocent and vulnerable, just as I am called to do by my Catholic faith. To do any less would be sinful. Your comment is such a disservice to any child who doesn’t have a parent to protect their innocence. We owe it to those children especially.

 

[Jay2]

Why is it your freedom of speech has the right impinge on my freedom of the pursuit of happiness? Where in the world do you get off telling me that I didn’t handle this? I made an attempt to protect the innocent and vulnerable, just as I am called to do by my Catholic faith. To do any less would be sinful. Your comment is such a disservice to any child who doesn’t have a parent to protect their innocence. We owe it to those children especially.

In what way am I impinging on your pursuit of happiness? Maybe your pursuit of Nirvana… but not happiness

Because I’m exercising my Constitutional RIGHT as a United States citizen to do so? Being a multiple failure of “PC” training (and quite proud of it)…I’m in no way impeding your pursuit of happiness… but realize that your perception of happiness may be marked different than anyone elses.

I “get off” telling you this because my forebearer’s (and myself) have paid for this “convenience” of your ability to get on a soapbox and spout your concerns… with BLOOD Do not even attempt to justify your feeble attempts at righteousness until you’ve stood in defense and taken an enemy’s bullet in your body!

I’ve got a 14yo. daughter. And a 12 year old son. They see the same magazines in the checkout aisle and the same commercials on the TV as your kids do… Am I not as equally “called” to defend our faith as you? It’s a little harder to do when your 10K miles away and being shot at as an “Infidel”…

Putting blinders on my children is not the answer. Dealing with the exposure, and giving honest & truthful answers as to why these things are wrong is the answer.

Mom… your 2 boyz may need to pay for their freedoms… teach them why when you dance you have to pay ther fiddler.

 

[mom2boyz]

I am sorry you are so angry. May God be with you and your children. May our Lord Jesus heal you of your anger.

 

[puzzleannie]

you could also do what my mother and her church circle members did at the drugstores which displayed Playboy and similar magazines which came out when I was a child, and what I and my fellow Catholic school PTA parents did when the convenience stores displayed similar offensive magazines at kid’s eye level, and what I still do at our local grocery store–complain to the manager immediately, insist that the magazines be placed on shelves not accessible to children or behind slats so only the title is shown, and organize and carry out a boycott of local stores that refuse to comply. This has proven extremely effective, especially when store managers are your neighbors of fellow parishioners. I was proud to see some of our CCD parents complained at our local grocery store about this issue of VF and all 4 stores in our community have removed it from their cash register display racks and it is now over by the cigarettes, not visible to children.

 

[Little_Mary]

In my area, we have Publix grocery stores. All the magazines in the check out line have a white plastic cover - you can see the title of the magazine but not the picture. I thought it was because that particular issue wasn’t on sale yet but I asked about it and was told it is to cover pictures some people might find offensive.

You might suggest to Target to start using these. I don’t know what they are called. But don’t let them give you some “national chain” story b/c that’s what Publix is as well!

Magazine covers don’t typically bother me but the one you are talking about is a doozie.

 

[mom2boyz]

I suggest the very covers you are talking about, but I guess I’ll make sure to mention it when I call and complain. I thought those covers were an ideal compromise. When I’ve complained at our local grocery store about this same problem, that is exactly what they did. The grocery store chain is more regional than Target so they could be more responsive locally I guess. Thank goodness your Publix has some sense.

 

[TallyCatholic]

I agree about you complaining as doing what you believed to be the right thing, but unless you get enough people to boycott target they’re not going to care. UNLESS the senior manager of the store agrees with you, I’m sure he has the power to move these. But in this day and age, he/she is probably a fan of VF or the Sopranos and just thinks your a prude (no offense). You did what you had to do, and you taught your kids that if you find something personally objectionable there is nothing wrong with complaining. But don’t expect these issues to be yanked off the shelves. Its the day and age we live in, and this requires all the more vigilance. Like you did, turning the magazine around. Its a toughie! I’ve never seen the show but if that’s the cover I’m sure the show is no better. Just pray for that poor women’s conversion, that she may realize she doesn’t need to pose “nude” in order to fulfill her goals whatever they may be.

 

[Katie1723]

…I “get off” telling you this because my forebearer’s (and myself) have paid for this “convenience” of your ability to get on a soapbox and spout your concerns… with BLOOD Do not even attempt to justify your feeble attempts at righteousness until you’ve stood in defense and taken an enemy’s bullet in your body!

…

Since when does one have to get shot to prove righteousness??

Kathy

 

[ktp]

I “get off” telling you this because my forebearer’s (and myself) have paid for this “convenience” of your ability to get on a soapbox and spout your concerns… with BLOOD Do not even attempt to justify your feeble attempts at righteousness until you’ve stood in defense and taken an enemy’s bullet in your body!

I somehow don’t think our forefathers had soft porn in mind as one of the rights they were buying with their blood. Seriously, does anyone value pornography in their life so highly that they’re willing to die for it?

Maybe I should ask does anyone value pushing soft porn into OTHERS’ lives enough to die for it, since this kind of stuff is available without having to put it right in children’s faces.

 

[thechrismyster]

afa.net/glossy/glossy1.asp#objections

or afa.net/glossy/

those founding Fathers would have supported the right to voice objection as well.

Target, however, may care if enough women voice concerns, since baby boomer females are their top target demographic.
they want the BMW suv- driving cash-extended soccer moms who want to transcend their class . and if those women are loud enough, they may make a difference in their marketing.
men complaining, women over 60… you’re voice isn’t so important to them, unfortunately.

 

[gmarie21]

I somehow don’t think our forefathers had soft porn in mind as one of the rights they were buying with their blood. Seriously, does anyone value pornography in their life so highly that they’re willing to die for it?

Maybe I should ask does anyone value pushing soft porn into OTHERS’ lives enough to die for it, since this kind of stuff is available without having to put it right in children’s faces.

I think he was referring to the whole “freedom of speech” thing, not just pornography. Many wrongfully view pornography as a worthy freedom. However, once must work to change hearts more than anything b/c if “freedom of speech” is taken away from the morally inept, then the “homosexuality is a sin” speech will be taken away from the morally ept. There is a fine line and one must respect “freedom of speech” in order for those with opposing views to respect your “freedom of speech” when they disagree. I believe that this is what the soldier was referring to, which is very logical, imo. Law has no room for emotions. Freedom of speech is a law. If you want things to change, then work on changing hearts, because it’s those hearts that can change where their money is going and those who are morally inept will change their product to follow the money.

 

[arewethereyet]

WOW!!!