It says Cosmopolitan Magazine is porn. I think it had a website name that said cosmohurtskids.com

^^^ They have NO clue what porn is if they think Cosmopolitan Magazine is it. Wow.

OTOH, I wonder how many people will be looking up the magazine's website just to see? Talk about the billboard backfiring.

cynful Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OTOH, I wonder how many people will be looking up
> the magazine's website just to see? Talk about the
> billboard backfiring.

That made me laugh out loud. 'Cause I'll bet it's a LOT. :)

Yup, that's the way to end/discourage Porn:

Publicize It, especially if it's not sold in Adult Stores.


Dumb & Dumber



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2017 09:42PM by GNPE.

It's bad enough here in Idaho that stores have it covered...if they think it's porn then seeing something that's real porn would be too much for them!

lol...

Look who is leading the charge... and why... and with what.

What a hoot :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11786996/Cosmopolitans-porn-covers-Devout-Christian-Hearst-heiress-hates-them.html

Talk about boiling the kettle black!

Cosmo is such a rag but hardly porn. The writers must pretty much take a "mad libs" approach to making up their sex tips every month.

reaches the high (or I should say low) standards of those who have posted on this thread, the fact is that it does contain pornography. The individual responsible for that billboard is a member of the Hearst family. She knows that he magazine appeals to young girls. She wants to have the magazine labeled for what it is so that it is unable to be sold to girls and young women under the age of 18.

It boggles the mind that anyone could argue against such action. Equally unbelievable is that some people will condone anything in the name of rejecting Mormonism.

You clearly don't read it. This month's issue, courtesy of Amazon prime's free magazine choices, includes a zillion ads, many features on inexpensive fashions and beauty products, entertainment updates, recipes, exercise tips, an essay from Elizabeth Warren, articles on Scarlett Johannson and how to avoid danger online, and the usual Cosmo dating and general advice columns. Sexual content? A column on how sex improves health, an article on sexy vacation ideas, and some fairly lame sex tips. Zero prurient pictures. It's a pretty silly magazine clearly aimed at a teen/early twenties audience.

objectionable content.

How anyone could object to keeping what's in there out of the hands of minors is beyond me.

But again, this board never ceases to amaze.

I’m curious why you continue to read this board while finding it so objectionable. You seem to think it’s for atheists only and are amazed when others don’t agree with your opinions about that or other things. It seems a very negative thing to do.

The only things I found that I thought you might consider "porn" was information about sex. I don't consider that porn, nor apparently do most people.

Why the need to push your religious convictions onto others?

And if you think teens aren't curious about sex (including anal), you're mistaken. I would prefer they be educated rather than listen to their friends whacky ideas and getting hurt, pregnant or catching diseases.

should visit this board? Because that's what this board is or should be about?

not

I said no such thing.

I do wonder why you would come to a board about recovery from Mormonism and complain when others don't share your religious convictions.

You seem to feel persecuted by my posts, but, it's an open board and I'm allowed to post just as you have done. I don't post too often here, but, when I see posts describing sex as filthy, smutty, offensive, perverse and immoral, I feel compelled to point out that it's not.

As part of your recovery, may I suggest you reconsider your indoctrinated feelings about sex. It's truly a wonderful thing, and education about it is helpful for everyone.

And now criticizing me.

Given my meager posting habits, that seems a very negative thing to do.

Sex isn't dirty. We are all sexual beings from birth to death.

"the fact is that it does contain pornography"

I don't read it, but, I would think that if indeed it contains porn, someone would have noticed it by now and law enforcement would have removed it.

Maybe it has something to do with how you personally define pornography.

Perhaps you could prove your statement by posting a link to back it up?

If it said hard core porn hurts kids I'd agree. But Cosmo is not even porn

I guess "Does-he-like-me?" articles are a thing of the past.

and yet posters here find something to criticize.

It sort of boggles my mind to find that because people have left Mormonism they throw all reason out the window for fear of what they perceive to be identifying with any values a Mormon might have in common.

Mormons did not invent common decency and good sense nor do they have the corner on good child rearing. When you reject common sense for the sake of rejecting anything you perceive as "Mormon" you let them win.

notmonotloggedin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and yet posters here find something to criticize.

This has nothing to do with mormonism.

The billboard (and the woman behind it) calls it "porn."
It's not.
Not even close.
Not even in the same galaxy.

Yes, I object to dishonest people calling things "porn" when they're not, and trying to control what other people can or can't read or see, because of their own prudishness. If she doesn't want to read it, she can not read it. Her campaign is dishonest and ridiculous.

Apparently, Teen Vogue also had an article on how to throw a party and what gifts to provide for a girl who's had an abortion, since "it's no big deal."

"The Teen Vogue article, titled "What to Get a Friend Post-Abortion," features a slideshow with suggestions such as getting together to watch the comedy "All I Wanna Do," or buying your friend "period panties," an "angry uterus" heating pad or a "GRL PWR" hat to deal with the post-abortion physical discomforts and emotional woes." (Christian Post.com)

My suggestion: Since there is now one less American, the girl's family should host a refugee as a replacement, and pay the taxes that non-existent American would have otherwise paid.

Maybe you should read the article and form your own opinion, rather than parroting the opinions of others.

http://www.teenvogue.com/gallery/post-abortion-gift-guide

Of course, it's a position you will - never - experience. Why would you ever feel the need (or possess the skill) to comfort such a woman, and why would such a woman turn to you for such comfort?

^^^Good point^^^^

I have no objection to Cosmopolitan, other than it's a girly magazine that sexualizes its subjects. It wasn't something I was comfortable with having around my children during their formative years.

Did I see it as porn? Not really. Maybe soft porn.

I haven't opened a copy of Cosmo in a long, long time, but that just might change NOW!


Does Cosmo contain images of couples Fing & Sucking?
that's my definition of Porn.


absurd.

I can't believe Cosmo is still in business. How do they find stuff to write about ?

I wonder why the billboard singles out Cosmo or "Cosmopolution" as my dad called it, LOL. I've been reading fashion magazines since the 60s, and Vogue did and still features naked models. Cosmopolitan is so silly with its quizzes and juvenile articles that I stopped reading it years ago. Some of the articles have sex themes like "how to have great orgasms" but I'd hardly call it porn. I did stop subscribing to W Magazine because they constantly featured what looked to be extremely young naked female models in child-like porn poses. I don't mind nudity in magazines but I draw the line at anything that resembles child porn.

If the Hearst family notmonotloggedin referred to in his/her above comment is the Mormon Utah Hearst family, I say shame on them. Mr. Hearst (now deceased) was my mission president in Switzerland. He sent a very nice male missionary home early following a "court of love." The poor elder was so traumatized at the ordeal that he killed himself by shooting himself in the head. I never got over it and think it's one of the many reasons I quit the church.

Oops, just noticed that the woman responsible for the billboard is one of the Hearsts of the Hearst corporation, not related to my mission president. Sorry.

Hearsts denouncing Cosmopolitan? Reminds me of how Rockefeller heirs (and that huge foundation) became anti-petroleum. Ah, what obscene wealth does to people!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2017 05:20PM by caffiend.

I read Cosmo for years and I always considered it the most honest, straightforward, and entertaining of the magazines aimed at young women in their late teens, 20s, and early 30s. The most prurient thing about it was the cover! There was always at least one obligatory sex article, but it was always good-natured and female empowering. The rest of the magazine was pure entertainment, and it always delivered. Back in the day Cosmo's fiction was the best in the business.

I also read the more conventional, "respectable" magazines aimed at young women such as Glamour and the similar, but now defunct Mademoiselle. Over time I got profoundly tired of them both. I got tired of the omnipresent sex articles that inevitably took the tone of, "I had a one night stand last night, he hasn't called, and now I feel sad." Well, DUH. At least in Cosmo, women own and enjoy their sexuality. Perhaps weirdly, it was a *kind*, cheerful magazine. In a lot of ways it reflected the attitude and personality of its founder, Helen Gurley Brown. She believed that women should enjoy careers, enjoy life, and take charge of their own sexuality.

Yes, the cover photos are silly, but at least when I read it, it was one of the best magazines out there for the 20-somethings.

I agree with you, "notmonotloggedin".

Back in the day Sears and Roebuck catalogs were considered porn.

The people who think Cosmopolitan is porn are still stuck in that era.

Shoulder porn will be the end of the world. And don't get me started on underwear. Horrors! Women wear underwear!!!!

This is probably the same group of crazies that complain about women breast feeding in public. Babies have to eat too. If you don't like the concept, look somewhere else, pervert.

A woman wants to protect minors by not selling them smut so you bring up a totally unfounded and ridiculous claim that this same woman wants to ban breastfeeding in public so that you can defame her and anyone who agrees with her by calling them "perverts".

Who's the "pervert" here?

Bizarre extremists may think it's smut. And they always try to play the "Think of the children!" card. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

There are always going to be crazies trying to force the rest of the world into their own wacko perspective. Please go pedal your moral panic somewhere else.

Well, maybe they will need a new billboard before too long...

https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/utah-on-its-way-to-banning-sex-ed-in-schools


It will read:

"Think you may have an STD? Pregnant and don't know where to turn? There's no State agency to help. You should move."



You know, because of how well that whole "porn ban" thing has worked out for them.


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705288350/Utah-No-1-in-online-porn-subscriptions-report-says.html


This is what happens when a State is controlled by people who lag in critical thinking skills, people who consider Joe a "prophet." He lived and died as a criminal, and they worship him, damn the facts.

Once again it gives Utah the opportunity to show the world how provincial this state is. I wonder if this billboard is used in any of our surrounding states. We think that viewing a bottle of alcohol will turn our children in alcoholics, we think that smoking is a gateway habit to drug addiction, we think that we are protecting our population by only offering 3.2 % beer and that the magazine will turn all of us into sex fiends.

My take on that is that it is already too late. Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs beat Cosmo to the punch.

This is a national campaign. Not a utah or a mormon thing. It actually has nothing to do with the mormons at all. It was started by some other christian crack pot and endorsed by one of the heirs to the magazine its self. My what a little research can do.

Nudity isn't necessarily porn, but some want us to think so...

"I agree with you, "notmonotloggedin".
---------------------------------------

I agree with you also, "notmonotloggedin". One of it's previous articles was "How to have great summer sex" (without commitments).

I support the effort to restrict the magazine's content regarding minors.

Lots of tourists leave their magazines behind in the lobby, and that includes American girls leaving their edition of Cosmo. No-one blinks. If they considered it porn, I don't think they would.

Just saying.

A lot of Cosmo's articles are geared towards teens and can be summarized as follows:

"How to be a whore, and where to find whore-bait".

I agree .... Keep it away from teens.

Are you saying Cosmo is teaching teens how to get paid for having sex? I must have missed that article.


Definition of whore

1
: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also, informal + offensive : a promiscuous or immoral woman

2
: a male who engages in sexual acts for money

3
: a venal or unscrupulous person

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whore

I'd say the second part fits.

I started reading Cosmo at about age 12.I am now in my 40's and have had 2 partners in that time .What it did teach me was how to have safe sex because my parents where not going to teach me about it.Oh right but in your view thats teens are having sex outside of marriage because they can read about it in Cosmo.How about you want to get your panties in a bunch figure out a way to keep 8 year olds from viewing hardcore porn on the Internet.

If you sexually oppress people far enough, pretty much anything could become pornographic to them. Whether or not the church is behind this, they need to lighten up.

Maybe we should ban the book of mormon because it promotes war and violence in support of religion. The main reason the church gets away with promoting such violence to children is that the stories are written so poorly that no one actually reads it.

Soon it will see nothing as wrong or perverse.

Of course, such a statement has no basis in fact -- it's a toss-off "truism" that you think is true but in reality is nothing but a made-up saying that you think backs up your beliefs.

We get it, you have hang-ups about sex, and think it's "dirty."
Fine, you can be that way.
You don't have to look at Cosmo or anything else.

Know what I think is "wrong" and "perverse" (among other things)?
People with sex hang-ups who want to push them on everybody else.

I had the mormons do that to me for 21 years. I'm sure you'll understand, then, when I refuse to let you or anyone else continue to do it.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
--

> Know what I think is "wrong" and "perverse" (among
> other things)?

You're defending the selling of smut to to minors.

That is what I think is "wrong and perverse". Too bad you don't get it.

I'm more inclined to believe that the Ensign is porn, full of sexually powerful white men.

They're just MAD they don't have the Sears catalog underwear ads to complain about any more (sigh)

Freedom of the press/expression was added to protect THE THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE, not the things you DO LIKE...

just sayin'



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2017 12:49AM by GNPE.

I'll forever associate Cosmopolitan with Helen Gurley Brown. She made feminism look sexy!

Cosmo hurts kids? Spread the word: BYU's mascot is after your kids. :-D



All they did was confirm to people driving through the state stereotypes about Utah.

The examples add up: Covered up Victoria's Secret windows. Billboards against Cosmo mag. Censoring Rodin's sculpture. All these things over time give the impression that they are a bit off the rails over sex.

If they don't like Cosmo, there is a simple solution. Don't buy it. Quit telling everyone else what to do. There are far worse magazines out there.

They want burkas on magazines. This only ensures people will make the effort to find out what was under there!

Clearly you didn't read all the posts in the thread.

This is a national campaign the message of which has been widely disseminated even throughout the suburban NYC area where I live.