New York Magazine’s Inappropriate Cover!
January 31, 2011
by The New Agenda
|20 Comments
The cover of the latest issue of New York Magazine shows a (thankfully) blurry image of a teen (or possibly tween) girl wearing red g-string underwear and pulling up her shirt. Her body, from her scanty underwear to her arms crossed over her breast, is bear. It’s a pedophiliac’s delight! The title is “Porn and Junior-High Culture,” which is exactly what the cover is: junior-high porn!
Please watch Episode 3 of Searching for Sexism, Their Eyes are Watching when it is released tomorrow. It’s an important statement on how our pop culture is impacting the self-images of teenage girls.
Let’s all do our part to bring national attention to this phenomenon by sharing the video starting tomorrow!
I had to hide it in my house. NOT appropriate for young eyes!
I find this cover very creepy. I assume the woman on it is over 18 however they are implying she is a young teen. So while it may be true that kids (or possibly only girls) are texting semi nude pictures of themselves to others, when it happens among teens it is less exploitative because they are the same age and the same power level and while it is a very bad idea, young people who are still developing have some very bad ideas and the earth doesn’t end. But to have adults involved in it to the point where this sort of photo is put on a mass marketed magazine cover changes the context to exploitative and creepy.
I agree that the cover is creepy but some of the writing inside this issue is enlightening. In one article, a young man writes about his difficulty with sex with real women because he was of the generation whose sexuality grew and blossomed with a large quantity of online porn. And then the article goes onto discuss how girls today are in competition with porn because they have to somehow compete with all the imagery that their boyfriends consume and show that they can be just as exciting as what is online. And then it becomes a huge and unwelcome competition between real girls – who can look and act like a porn star the best.
I think the topic of the effects of the porn industry is a much needed conversation in feminists communities. But we are all so fearful of looking the prude that we are not having this conversation. Damn, how we’ve been scarred by the image of “the hairy legged feminist” that everyone still seems to associate with women’s issues! Ugh!
I totally agree that women need to have a discussion of the effects of porn in our lives and in society. You can occasionally find a magazine headline on this topic but they always seem to imply that women should just relax and enjoy porn with their man. Without discussing the morality of it I have to say I find it odd that media has developed porn for men which has been extremely profitable and given that profit you would think they would work on developing a way to monetize sex to sell women but they haven’t. Of course the women’s magazines act like they are going to help women assume their position in men’s fantasies with “helpful advice” but they make no attempt to tap into women’s real sexual fantasies which would be lucrative.
Also I would think rather than women’s mags running the same 10 articles that were in my Grandmothers women’s magazines over and over again I would expect some articles on how to lead a full life while your male partner is chronically off in the corner jerking off in front of a computer screen. Seriously the only women’s mags making any money are the Martha Stewart and cooking mags. For that reason alone you would think they would try something new and relevant.
And regarding the “hairy legged feminist” We have to give women a clear way to say “I reject Corporate Medias distortions of female sexuality and I fully embrace real sexuality” That message needs to be loud and clear. Because frankly I think it is necessary to reject media sexuality in order to become a fully sexual woman.
I have come to reject this primary obsession with sexuality. there are a gazillion of things offering at least as much pleasure as the so heavily sponsored notion of sex as the ultimate joy. I see it more as a distraction for women and girls to develop their potentials. sidetracked with boys and men who aren’t worth the grief most women and girls get. I remember my time in a boarding school with nuns. and have the distinct impression that these nuns weren’t missing anything.
“I see it more as a distraction for women and girls to develop their potentials. sidetracked with boys and men who aren’t worth the grief most women and girls get”
You are absolutely right on that account. And what is with this notion of trying to attract men into sex?! As far as I can tell men are not even the slightest bit picky about who their sexual partners are or how they look. Why should women devote any time or energy to attracting men who behave like pests with their constant sex seeking antics.
Bes I think trying to attract men into sex never works. most men are not attracted if they don’t feel comfortably superior and nothing a strong woman would do would change that except behaving inferior.
the existence of men paying for sex was always very suspicious to me. you know the notion of sex and love just does not make sense if the physical act works as a commodity.
Marille,
I definitely understand your feelings about sex and men but I think it’s not the right approach, particularly with young women. Sex is natural and desired. But yes, I agree that it shouldn’t be considered the most important thing particularly if the dating/ sex world turns into something degrading. As important as sex is to men, it is not the most important thing to them – power is. Girls should not grow up thinking their sexual attractiveness is the most important thing. But if we say that sex should not be important at all we are destined to lose young (and older) women who by nature want to have sex.
Bes,
“And regarding the “hairy legged feminist” We have to give women a clear way to say “I reject Corporate Medias distortions of female sexuality and I fully embrace real sexuality” That message needs to be loud and clear. Because frankly I think it is necessary to reject media sexuality in order to become a fully sexual woman.”
I completely agree with everything you wrote here! We need to have big women’s conferences on this issue alone! We also need to start talking openly and honestly about the effects of contemporary porn on our sex lives, just as the bravely frank author in the New York magazine did. As much as Jezebel and Feministing like to protest, today’s porn can f*** you up. It’s hard to imagine that young men and boys watching pornographic images (with frequency) of young women being gang face-f**** to the point that the women is constantly gagging (but apparently enjoying it) does not have consequences. This sort of pornography is becoming rather generic consumption. It’s horrifying.
As it is now, porn stars have become mainstream celebrities. How great for your girls. (sarcasm)
Sex and love are definitely two different things and different parts of the brain are active for feelings of love and feelings of lust. Obviously I don’t understand the whole concept of trying to vamp a man into sex since I haven’t met any men who understand the concept of acting hard to get, men are easy. So are these women trying to find sexual validation from men? Are they just into conformity? Are they trying to find someone to love them? or maybe they are just looking for someone to pay their bills. Or perhaps the whole phenomenon is blown out of perspective by over 40 media men who find it titillating. I would think most girls would figure out the reward isn’t that great for all the trouble they go through to “get” a man.
I meant to write: “How great for our girls”….
Also I meant to say since male brains are so highly compartmentalized and the different areas don’t communicate with each other very well young women need to know that activating the lust part of men’s brains is not likely to spill over and cause the love part to engage.
If you think about the generations of self help books they seem to have a culturally relevant theme. The 90′s sort of went with the “simplify life” theme. The 80′s were “it’s OK to consume and be rich” I bet a woman could get rich with a “don’t waste your time trying to cure or change that man in front of your computer who is disinterested in intimacy and addicted to porn. Live a full life without him.” theme. You wouldn’t even need a publisher since you could get it out by word of mouth on E format.
“I bet a woman could get rich with a “don’t waste your time trying to cure or change that man in front of your computer who is disinterested in intimacy and addicted to porn. Live a full life without him.” theme. You wouldn’t even need a publisher since you could get it out by word of mouth on E format.”
LOL!
Bes, in answer to some of your questions, you must read this article from the above New York Magazine issue:
http://nymag.com/news/features/70976/
I think it is risky to read the above article at work and I rarely read New York media just because it isn’t relevant to my life. But I’ll work it in this weekend.
Henrietta: Those are really interesting articles but the pictures are cheap. Men are going to have to cure their own attachment to porn and lack of attachment to real women themselves and I doubt many of them are dissatisfied with their life. There is nothing their partners can do about it. Another thing is the porn addicted men are lying to their real life women and sneaking around to indulge their habit. Lying and sneaking will doom a relationship regardless of what inspires the lying and sneaking. Women are going to have to decide what they expect from their male partners if intimacy is not part of the bargain. You hear men complaining that women only want them for their money, well, that is most likely because money is the only worthwhile thing they have to offer.
With the world being over populated by humans pornography inspiring men to jerk off in front of their computer screen instead of interact with a real partner might be what puts the brakes on overpopulation. Who knows maybe they will be so busy they will forget to start and fight wars. Meanwhile we have a bunch of extremely dissatisfied women, with crap for male partners, who need a focus for their sexual energy.
I’m smiling at the knee-jerk reaction of people who think this article is presented to *provide* porn (though the cover image is riding that thin line quite effectively).
The article, however, is written to be illustrative in a whole different way — parents with kids in that age range (or approaching it) should take a peek (not at work, please — it’s ‘illustrated’ much like the cover) to understand what kids these days are going to have to make decisions about on their own. Because parents aren’t always there, it’s our job to make sure our youngsters are well-armed; and you can’t prepare them if you don’t understand how different your world is from those 20 years younger.
I remember my mother trying to cover my ears (at 14) while in an Emergency Room — I had a crushed elbow and the young woman in the next bed (9 months along and in premature labor due to a drug overdose) was screaming obscenities. My mother couldn’t understand when I tried to explain to her that I heard much worse language than that EVERY DAY — just in the hallway between classes… but my mother had no window to my world.
It doesn’t mean I was participating in it — but I did have to deal with it. And social generational gaps (like this one that is primarily tech-fed), there is no excuse for shutting your eyes, screaming loudly, and covering your ears.
It’s our job to know what our kids will deal with — no matter how difficult the revelations may be for us old ‘purists’. Regardless of whether you find the pictures offensive, your children’s friends are going to have seem much more (just think of the differences between TV shows now and from your youth) — and that affects their expectations of each other, and for some, their boundaries on acceptable behavior.
Dan, the pictures are cheap and in fact idiotic because they conform to old men’s porn ideas. So do you think only girls are photographing themselves and sending out the pictures because that is what the pictures in this article imply and strangely that conforms with old men’s porn specifications. I do monitor my kids texts and social media, sometimes without their knowledge and the one picture that stands out in my mind and was apparently texted all over the place was a young teen boy who had been arguing by text with another guy and I guess eventually shot a picture of his bare butt and texted it to the guy he was arguing with. That picture made the rounds, the kid involved knew it and he didn’t seem to care and in fact thought it was a hilarious way to get attention (since there was no face in the picture I guess he can deny it years from now when he runs for President). Then we have the NFL old guy (forget his name) who texted pictures of his man junk to young women. So squeamishness about illuminating this part of “the problem” makes the article look rather ridiculous.
In the old days kids went skinny dipping at night but of course there wasn’t any images to haunt them the rest of their life.
Bes,
No, I have no delusions that only girls are ‘sexting’ — quite the opposite, in fact; I’m sure that the shock value that some teens are trying to illicit from their peers is largely responsible for encouraging more boys to proactively ‘publish’ their pictures. At that age, many boys think that any kind of attention is better than no attention at all.
I think it’s dismal that these kids aren’t thinking (or caring) about the consequences that can haunt them for decades into their uncertain futures (just visit YouTube and search for the phrase ‘think before you post’ for a really great series of PSAs that are having a positive impact).
Personally, I found the images accompanying the article to be annoying to the point of flinching — but perhaps instructive to those parents who haven’t spent a few hours on Facebook. I only became aware of the article as I was walking past the periodicals in our central library (Indianapolis), and my kids (10 and 12) both uttered, ‘Yuck!’ when confronted with the cover at eye-level.
I’m sure that the article would have been just (or nearly) as informative without the pictures; but then, publishers are in the business of selling ink and paper — and if it means using sex to do it, they’ll take that road.
The point is, my kids know that many of their friends are already competing with each other, and in ways that used to be only social … which are now bending with sexual overtones. They know that they can’t command the behavior of their peers — but that they can set a better example (that’s what I require of them); and to choose the right opportunities to remind their friends that this kind of risky behavior is not going to serve them now or in the future.
Good, well-prepared kids re-define cool to their own advantage. They won’t let the cable networks, pop stars, or the ‘naughty kids’ do it for them.
Bes I love it, “well prepared kids re-define cool”.
I do agree that “well defined kids re-define cool”. I also think my kids are not that concerned about being cool. Their Dad and I aren’t cool and we have probably never been cool but we are happy individuals and we have good friends and family.
I really have a problem with this article because of the pictures. They conform to old man porn. There are many perspectives of sex and this article is trying to sell the male centric perspective even though hetero males are a minority and even though it distorts the problem of sexting. From my experience males are creating more problems from sexting than females but from the article you would assume it is exclusively young women. So they have projected this problem of bad judgment on young women because that conforms to old men’s fantasies and in reality what is needed is public service announcements for male pro athletes, congressmen, businessmen, religious men and male adolescent punks because they are the ones who are sexting themsleves into personal problems. So a more accurate set of pictures would have shown a 50 year old Congressman photographing himself, a pro football player photographing his crotch, and an adolescent punk photographing his bare butt and a bunch of fully clothed young girls making disgusted faces while looking at their phones.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...