PressEthic

Once again, the debate rises: what pictures should be published? Is it more important to inform or protect the public?

I’m not talking about gruesome war scenes or unburied victims of natural disasters.

I’m talking about the anatomy of the female genitals.

That woke you up, didn’t it? Dean at Dean’s World pointed out the latest development in the saga of Seventeen magazine’s “Vagina 101” article.

According to the Seattle Times, the Albertsons grocery chain pulled issue, because shoppers found the article “inappropriate.”

What do they find acceptable, though?

This month, the following things were readily available to any teenage girl who stepped into an Albertsons store: at least four brands of condoms. A recent Men's Health magazine article called, "Six Secret Ways to Turn Her On." Cosmopolitan's tips on how to make your own sex video.

In other words, it’s acceptable to encourage sex (mind-blowing or otherwise), but not to teach young women about their bodies.

One mother supported Albertson’s decisions:

"Once their innocence is gone, it's gone," said Debbie Cottingham, 42, toting groceries alongside her 14-year-old daughter. She said it's her job as a mother to teach her three daughters about their bodies.

I wonder, though, if she thinks it’s her job to teach them about the videos, too?

The Seventeen article isn’t even sexually explicit. It’s been compared to a health-class diagram. (Note: there’s a picture of the article in this link, so it might not be suitable for the workplace.)

So, is the difference the picture? After all, that’s the argument about the difference between violently graphic prose and actual pictures of carnage. Does the same apply to sex?

And either way, do girls have a right to the information on the pages of Seventeen? Especially when they apparently have the right to be told how to use this information to “Please [their] Man!”