The Journal

Issue date: 10/13/05 Section: Opinion/Editorial

Jonathan Kleinow

I'm not, in any way, a part of Seventeen Magazine's target audience. I'm neither a 17-year-old nor a girl and I have no idea what makes Ryan Cabrera a "Hot Guy" or who he is. But I was disturbed to find out recently that if I had some reason to buy a copy of Seventeen's October issue at an Albertson's grocery store, I couldn't.

Albertson's pulled the magazine not over concerns for its overt commercialization or its "417 Ways To Get A New Look." Instead, they refused to stock the issue over the one piece of practical and useful advice in the magazine, a two-page feature on women's health.

The controversy arose because the section, called "Vagina 101: What's normal - and what's not," features two small pictures of a woman's vagina as well as a diagram labeling the parts of female genitalia. The two pictures are part of the "Is mine normal?" section and serve to demonstrate that cosmetic differences in the size of the labia don't matter.

Considering the useless and sometimes harmful information that usually permeates the pages of Seventeen and its ilk, the editors should be applauded for their effort to educate young women about their health at a time when sexual health education is under fire from religious conservatives.

But in an article in the Tucson Citizen, a public relations spokeswoman for Albertson's said they removed the issue from its stores in 11 western states after learning about its "relatively explicit" content.

What's really disturbing about this is how many parents agree with the decision. One parent was quoted as saying, "It's dirty, it's dirty."
Does anyone realize that this may be the least "dirty" thing published by Seventeen in ages? If you want to complain about the content of this magazine, turn to page 92 and learn "the right way to show off your love." Hint: While you'll be all right if you decide to hug your boyfriend's waist or fix his collar, you might get in trouble for pinching his butt or grabbing his crotch. The picture opposite this informative table shows a couple - much more attractive than you, me or anyone we know - making out, and Seventeen wants you to send them a text message and tell them if you've ever made out in public just to make someone jealous.

The debate over sex education in this country shouldn't be centered over whether or not a magazine can print an anatomically-correct diagram of a vagina. It should be about the other 165 pages of this magazine: the makeup and fashion ads showing impossibly thin, airbrushed models that leave teenage girls questioning their body image. The push of consumerism, the flashy new cell phone and the must-have makeup and the profiles of rich young girls who never worked for anything they have.

If we're going to turn the tide against sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy, we need the exact opposite of what's being provided by today's media to young women. It's absurd to censor this magazine for its practical health coverage while promoting the objectivism throughout the rest of its pages. Albertson's should be ashamed for furthering an unhealthy body image while preventing access to one source of practical health information.




Jonathan Kleinow, a senior journalism major, is the editor-in-chief for The Journal.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools