29 December, 2008


So I was browsing the ample magazine stock at Border's tonight, and I came across two different naturist magazines in the "adult interest" section. Which was a pretty interesting find, because I've read about naturist magazines, but I've never actually seen one, so I was kind of curious. But something really bothered me. I'll forgive the naturist magazines being placed in the "adult interest" section, which really isn't right, and I can't really complain about the fact that the magazines were bagged like all the other adult interest magazines so that you had to buy it in order to look through it - since that's just the way a lot of magazines are.

But there's something fundamentally wrong about the fact that of the two naturist magazines, one of them had a blank, text-only cover that almost looked more like a newspaper than a magazine cover, and the other one, with a full color cover, had a bag with a large silver bar obscuring the majority of the cover - obviously covering the supposedly "offensive" bits of the presumably nude woman featured thereupon. And yet, while not featuring fully nude women, all the Playboys and Penthouses and whatnot with their scantily clad women in provocative poses had their covers in full display.

Okay, I can see the thought process behind this. "Glamorous near-nude? Nobody's offended by that anymore. Non-provocative bare nipple? Ban it!" But it really doesn't make any damn sense. If I were to pick up a Playboy and take it to the checkout, it'd be like, okay, I'm buying a Playboy. But if I were to take one of those innocent naturist magazines to the checkout, it would be like, oh wow, you can't even see the cover, I wonder what dirty and perverted things are contained within. I shouldn't feel dirtier buying a naturist magazine called "Health & Efficiency" than I would buying a Playboy. This, is injustice.

This society has really got its priorities mixed up.

No comments:

Post a Comment