Monday, October 26, 2009

Family Blah Blah Group Versus 7-Eleven Over Marge Simpson Playboy

I can imagine being a big holier-than-thou prude with your nose in the air, judging this and that as "offensive" with a superior flick of the wrist. Well, actually I can't, but I do know there are people who are like that, and I have come to have an idea about what sets them off. But I didn't see this one coming.

Playboy has Marge Simpson on the cover. Yes, the cartoon character. She is not nude, and, uh, she is not real. Seven-Eleven sells Playboy, I guess (I'm not sure, I haven't bought one since I was a kid) (okay, I was just joking about that part, but it has been a long time), and now the American Family Association is raising a fuss about it.

Rawstory has the story.
A conservative pro-family group is slamming 7-Eleven for choosing to stock the November issue of Playboy, which will feature cartoon character Marge Simpson on the cover.

"Most American dads know the dangers that porn represents to young males," American Family Association Special Projects Director Randy Sharp said in a press release. "It’s irresponsible of 7-Eleven to display porn in front of boys who pop into 7-11s for a hot dog or a Slurpee."

The Telegraph recently reported, "Despite being on the front cover, Marge will not be totally bare, with the magazine only featuring 'implied nudity.'"

"The move is a sign of changes to come from new CEO Scott Flanders, a former Freedom Communications Inc. CEO who was hired June 1 to succeed Christie Hefner to lead Chicago-based Playboy Enterprises Inc.," The Chicago Sun-Times reported.

"The Marge Simpson centerfold is "obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek," Flanders said in an interview Thursday. "It had never been done, and we thought it would be kind of hip, cool and unusual." 7-Eleven targeted for selling ‘Simpsons porn’

I guess the issue is that kids like cartoons, and kids will see this magazine cover and ... and then what? And then want to read Playboy when they grow up? Fantasize inappropriately about Marge Simpson?

Of all the women who have appeared in the pages of Playboy and other magazines, nude or in sexy outfits or whatever, why in the world would these guys choose to get upset over a cartoon character? It's like when they decided Tinky Winky was gay, and that SpongeBob SquarePants was some kind of homo-lovin' liberal. It's like they do these things just so reasonable people who live in the real world will make fun of them.

Wow, I just remembered something. When my son was in middle school he was crazy about professional wrestling. One of the women wrestlers, Chyna, was featured in Playboy. When the issue came out, she came to the Borders in DC to sign copies of the magazine, so I took my lunch break, rode the Metro down there, bought a copy, stood in a long, long line, and got the kid a copy of Playboy autographed by Chyna, featuring her on the cover and, of course, inside.

I called my wife to tell her the exciting news. "You did what?"

Long story short, he saw the autographed magazine, but only the cover, he wasn't allowed to open it up and look inside.

So I have told two stories here. A Family Blah Blah group wants 7/11 to stop selling Playboy magazines with a cartoon on the cover, and my family had a bit of conflict over whether my son should see pictures of a female wrestling star naked, or rather, whether his dumb dad should have bought him a magazine containing such content.

In one story, a group wants to control what everyone who shops at a 7/11 can buy. (As I recall, 7/11 keeps adult magazines behind the counter, don't they? So kids aren't going to see this accidentally.) They want to block 7/11's sales of a magazine to anyone, whether their religion forbids such material or not, whether they themselves want to see sexily-posed cartoon characters or not. In the other story, a family with liberty to acquire any material debates whether to regulate their own child's access to a particular piece of controversial literature.

By the way, I don't recall that there was any big movement to block sales of the Playboy with the lady wrestler in it, and judging from recent news reports about downsizing there, it does not appear that there was a gigantic surge of preteen wrestling fans running out and buying the magazine as soon as they were old enough.


Blogger David S. Fishback said...

For those Simpson fans, it is strangely ironic that the new CEO of Playboy is named Flanders.

October 26, 2009 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Parents shouldn't allow their children to watch The Simpsons, so they shouldn't even know who Marge is. Watching the show is more revolting than seeing her in Playboy.

October 26, 2009 10:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

their ads should not be shown during football games

October 27, 2009 6:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Simpsons should be taken out to the public square and flogged for being ... offensive. Especially Marge. Naked.

October 27, 2009 7:06 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

When the American Family Association begins to actually care about the well-being of boys (not girls?) they will oppose allowing children to pop into 7-1 stores to buy hotdogs, Slurpees and Big Gulps.

October 27, 2009 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, I agree with Tish

if we cared about these kids, we'd tell them it's tofu and sprouts on whole wheat with carrot juice for lunch or they can starve

October 27, 2009 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm around kids all day long and I haven't found one that likes hot dogs. Not sure why Tish thinks that kids are clamoring for hot dogs these days.

Tish is on target with the Slurpees. I haven't found a kid yet who dislikes Slurpees. Kids today, in general, like bacon too.

October 27, 2009 8:38 PM  
Blogger Tish said...

Bacon is probably our only hope for world peace. My sons don't much like hot dogs either. It's the American Family Association that said "It’s irresponsible of 7-Eleven to display porn in front of boys who pop into 7-11s for a hot dog or a Slurpee."

October 27, 2009 9:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh -- I see. The AFA needs to revise their statement.

October 27, 2009 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh brother

October 28, 2009 12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home